 |
 |
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 > >