[Design] Search - Relevance

[Mimi Yin]

Sorting by Triage status would clear up the confusion around the  
Views as well. Instead of having a Search view, we could just have:

+ Day View
+ Week View
+ Table View

All are viable options, whether or not the user has searched for  
anything.

Mimi

On Feb 1, 2007, at 6:21 PM, Jeffrey Harris wrote:

> Hi John,
>
>> Almost all search in the world today sorts results by relevance (e.g.
>> Google), so I suspect people will be familiar with the concept. Of
>> course that doesn't mean the relevance is very meaningful.
>>
>> If we don't sort the results by PyLucene relevance, what do we  
>> sort them
>> by? The obvious options include one of our columns in the table or  
>> some
>> new column. Which would you choose?
>
> In playing around with search briefly, I haven't found the PyLucene
> relevance to bear much relationship to how I'd expect relevance to be
> weighted.
>
> For instance, when welcome is searched for, an item who's entire
> contents is a title of "Welcome welcome welcome" is sorted last (among
> several items containing the word welcome), which seemed pretty odd  
> to me.
>
> When I search for "Welcome in both", the item titled "Welcome in both"
> comes up significantly lower ranked than other items that have neither
> "in" nor "both" in their title or body.
>
> So while I love the idea of getting search by relevance, I think  
> I'd be
> frustrated by the hint that relevance was a factor in my searches if I
> didn't believe the relevance scores were accurate.
>
> Probably making it better would take some tweaking and testing of the
> parameters we're handing to PyLucene.
>
> I'd lean towards sorting and sectioning by triage status for now,  
> unless
> other people's experience with this is better than mine.
>
> Sincerely,
> Jeffrey
> _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
>
> Open Source Applications Foundation "Design" mailing list
> http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/design