 |
 |
> 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] > > --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