Subject:
|
Re: Official and Unofficial theme categories
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.database
|
Date:
|
Fri, 8 Jan 1999 08:43:55 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1078 times
|
| |
|
|
"James Brown" <galliard@shades-of-night.com> writes:
> Todd Lehman writes:
> I think I understand the concepts a bit better from reading other posts on
> this thread but just to make things clear (in my head) you're looking for
> something that would use a relationship key (or set designation, or
> fuzzy catagory) as it's primary search criteria and function something like
> this:?
>
> [snipped Santa examples]
Yup -- pretty much like that, in terms of relevance matching and neighboring
categories (up, down, sideways in the graph).
> > - what you like about search engines
>
> As an interface tool they're great for ease of use, but still configurable
> enough (well-designed ones, at least) to keep the most perverse techno-geek
> happy.
Do you have a wish-list in mind of all the possible things you'd love to see
be configurable?
> > - what you dislike about search engines
>
> My single biggest complaint about search engines isn't an issue with this -
> I find it very unlikely that any of the Lego sets will try to get a competitive
> edge by maximizing hit potential. ;)
I guess that's because so many search engines index things based its purely
the textual content rather than on attributes characterizing the content...?
> > - what you've never seen before in a search engine, but would like to see
>
> Stunning configurability, and super ease of use. I beleive in faeries, too.
Aw, configurability is just grunt work and lots of field testing. Of course
its still very helpful to know the types of things on wish-lists before
putting major pieces in stone.
But when you say "super ease of use" -- that's the real design challenge!
In your mind, what qualifies as "super ease of use? Can you give 5 examples
of queries you'd enter and the results you'd expect back in order for it to
qualify as "super ease of use"?
> > - the most frustrating search-engine experience you've ever had
>
> Most things internet ;) Seriously though, I really think this project needs to
> take a serious look at ways to minimize irrelevant hits. I think you're going
> a long way towards it with the fuzzy catagories line, but the single most
> frustrating thing that search-engines do is pull in irrelevant hits.
What other types of things can make (for example) LEGO-set or LEGO-theme
searches more relevant or irrelevant? Certainly, having lots of categorical
classifications is a good start.
Another thing that comes to my mind is tracking nicknames on sets. If you
type in "retrostation" it should give you 2150 (whose official name in the
U.S. is "Train Station." If you type in "big yellow castle" it should give
you 375/6075 at the top, followed by other big and/or yellow things or
things with big, yellow, and/or castle in their names.
--Todd
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Official and Unofficial theme categories
|
| (...) Actually, it depends a great deal on what the engine is searching - I'll come up with a list when my brain is less broken. (: (...) competitive (...) Absolutely. (although, the niggling little voice in the back of my head says "why not get (...) (26 years ago, 8-Jan-99, to lugnet.admin.database)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Official and Unofficial theme categories
|
| (...) I think I understand the concepts a bit better from reading other posts on this thread but just to make things clear (in my head) you're looking for something that would use a relationship key (or set designation, or fuzzy catagory) as it's (...) (26 years ago, 8-Jan-99, to lugnet.admin.database)
|
37 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
Active threads in Database
|
|
|
|
|
|
