Thanks...is it just a straight sum, Thom?

--C

Hickey,Thom wrote:

>Here at OCLC we're ranking based on the holdings of all the records in
>the retrieved work set.  Seems to work pretty well.
>
>--Th
>
>-----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
>group
> - 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....
>
>Regards,
>
>--Colleen Whitney
>
>