 |
 |
In Mendeley we are using number of readers to rank search results on our catalog. Our search index is in solr. I don't have more fine grained details, but I could get them if people are interested. - Ian On 16 February 2011 14:21, LeVan,Ralph <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > As you pointed out, WorldCat does all sorts of tricky ranking. I > believe there's a dashboard that they use for tuning the ranking. > Library holdings count, term frequencies, availability, FRBR, and > locality are all facets of that ranking. > > In OCLC Research we do practically nothing without some sort of ranking. > In our VIAF project, we gather name authority records from 20-some > national libraries and merge matching records into a single VIAF record. > We rank search results by the size of the records, figuring that the > larger a record is, the more attention the component records got from > the national libraries and that size can be used as an indirect measure > of popularity. > > In WorldCat Identities, we create author records from WorldCat data. > Simple SRU searches are ranked by the total number of items held in > libraries for that author. There is also a fuzzy name searching service > for WorldCat Identities that uses a combination of holdings and > similarity to rank results. > > We use WorldCat holdings information for ranking wherever we can. For > instance, our FAST subject headings database returns results ranked by > holdings. > > We've never done any usability testing on these ranking algorithms as > they are simply clearly superior to no ranking at all. > > Ralph > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Code for Libraries [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf > Of >> Till Kinstler >> >> ... >> >> So, if you implemented something beyond term statistics based ranking, >> speak up and show. > -- Ian Mulvany | VP New Product Development http://www.mendeley.com/profiles/ian-mulvany/ Mendeley Limited | London, UK | www.mendeley.com Registered in England and Wales | Company Number 6419015