LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.5

Help for CODE4LIB Archives


CODE4LIB Archives

CODE4LIB Archives


CODE4LIB@LISTS.CLIR.ORG


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

CODE4LIB Home

CODE4LIB Home

CODE4LIB  April 2006

CODE4LIB April 2006

Subject:

Re: Question re: ranking and FRBR

From:

"Hickey,Thom" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Code for Libraries <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Mon, 10 Apr 2006 15:52:17 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (122 lines)

I'd agree with this.

Actually, though, 'relevancy' ranking based on where terms occur in the
record and how many times they occur is of minor help compared to some
sort of popularity score.  WorldCat holdings work fairly well for that,
as should circulation data.  The primary example of this sort of ranking
is the web search engines where ranking is based primarily on word
proximity and links.

--Th


-----Original Message-----
From: Code for Libraries [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
Jonathan Rochkind
Sent: Monday, April 10, 2006 3:16 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Question re: ranking and FRBR

When you are ranking on number of holdings like OCLC is, a straight
sum makes sense to me---the sum of all libraries holding copies of
any manifestation of the FRBR work is indeed the sum of the holdings
for all the records in the FRBR work set. Of course.

If you're doing relavancy rankings instead though, a straight sum
makes less sense. A relevancy ranking isn't really amenable to being
summed. The sum of the relevancy rankings for various
manifestations/expressions is not probably not a valid indicator of
how relevant the work is to the user, right?  And if you did it this
way, it would tend to make the most _voluminous_ work always come out
first as the most 'relevant', which isn't quite right.---This isn't
quite the same problem as OCLC's having the bible come out on
top---since OCLC is ranking by holdings, it's exactly right to have
the bible come out on top, the Bible is indeed surely one of the
(#1?) most held works, so it's quite right for it to be on top. But
the bible isn't always going to be the most relevant result for a
user, just because it's the most voluminous!  Summing is going to
mess up your relevancy rankings.

Just using the maximum relevancy ranking from the work set seems
acceptable to me--the work's relevancy to the user is indicated by
the most relevant manifestation in the set.  There might be a better
way to do it (Is a work with four manifestations with a relevancy
ranking .7 more relevant than a work with just one manifestation with
a ranking of .9?  I don't think it probably is, actually; I think
just taking the maximum should work fine. But it depends on the
relevancy algorithm maybe.). I don't think I'm enough of a
mathematician to understand the point of the log of the sum, though,
hmm.

--Jonathan

At 2:38 PM -0400 4/10/06, Hickey,Thom wrote:
>We're doing straight sums of the holdings of all the manifestations in
>the work.  It's hard for me to see the need to discount holdings in
>multiple manifestations.  It does mean that 'bible' tends to come to
the
>top for many searches, but that's about the only work-set I see coming
>up unexpectedly to the top.
>
>If we had circulation data we'd certainly factor that in (or maybe just
>use it if it was comprehensive enough).
>
>--Th
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Code for Libraries [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
>Colleen Whitney
>Sent: Monday, April 10, 2006 2:04 PM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Question re: ranking and FRBR
>
>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
>>
>>

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTS.CLIR.ORG

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager