> Here at OCLC we're ranking based on the holdings of all the records in
> the retrieved work set. Seems to work pretty well.
Ok, truly intended as genuine curiosity--not intending to be
provocative--but how do you know it's working well?
Karen G. Schneider
[log in to unmask]
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Code for Libraries [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
> Colleen Whitney
> Sent: Monday, April 10, 2006 1:06 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: [CODE4LIB] Question re: ranking and FRBR
> Hello all,
> Here's a question for anyone who has been thinking about or working with
> FRBR for creating record groupings for display. (Perhaps others have
> already discussed or addressed this...in which case I'd be happy to have
> a pointer to resources that are already out there.)
> In a retrieval environment that presents ranked results (ranked by
> record content, optionally boosted by circulation and/or holdings), how
> could/should FRBR-like record groupings be factored into ranking?
> Several approaches have been discussed here:
> - Rank the results using the score from the highest-scoring record in a
> - Use the sum of scores of documents in a group (this seems to me to
> place too much weight on the group)
> - Use the log of the sum of the scores of documents in a group
> I'd be very interested in knowing whether others have already been
> thinking about this....
> --Colleen Whitney