 |
 |
Although, at the same time, I think Google has taught us that our result set order doesn't have to be perfect. It just has to be 'relatively accurate' and present enough information to let the user determine its relevance. I think a dependence on technology to 'solve this problem' is more complicated than necessary. Humans tend to be adaptable and (within reason) fault tolerant. -Ross. On 4/11/06, Alexander Johannesen <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > On 4/12/06, Jonathan Rochkind <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > If you are instead using a formula where an increased > > number of records for a given work increases your ranking, all other > > things being equal---I'm skeptical. > > Ditto; I think the "answer" to this is that there needs to be some > serious pre-processing and analysis to come up with some really smarts > in terms of these searches. I don't think there is an easy way out > once you've gone past the "ooh, shiny" stage of whatever context you > bring the user; good or bad context? > > > Alex > -- > "Ultimately, all things are known because you want to believe you know." > - Frank Herbert > __ http://shelter.nu/ __________________________________________________ > >