| |
In lugnet.admin.general, Todd Lehman writes:
> oops, doy! I didn't put in the propagation of that URL term. I don't >consider
> it 100% "documented" yet (it's still subject to change without notice), but I
> still shouldn't have missed that. Thanks. I'll fix that.
> The reason it's subject to change is partially because the letter 's' in 'qs'
> is named after the word (or greek letter, rather) 'sigma' -- sigma being 1
> standard deviation in the bell curve function f(x) = exp(-x^2/2) -- and that
> formula isn't being used anymore in the searches, and partially because 'qs'
> might better someday be used for "query subject." Anyway, it's still not 100%
> in stone. But it'll work until it breaks.
Wow! So you have terms for the ampersand options in a URL? My standpoint
on this would be to put everything in a form and kill 2 birds with 1 stone -
not having to think of how to name URL terms (unless you enjoy doing that)
and having the search more user-friendly (not everyone will remember the
options or find it easy to edit the URL).
> > If given thousands of results, most search engines have some advanced
> > options like sorting.
>
> Well, they -are- sorted. They're always sorted -- always highest probability
> of relevance first, lowest last. Usually, the metric for relevance is a
> combination of non-temporal factors such as word frequencies, word >proximities,
> and word orderings. I don't know of any search engine that doesn't sort (on
> some criteria) the matches it finds. But anyway, I think you meant sorting
> by time?
No, I meant having the option to pick between what I want the results to be
sorting on. Dejanews has a great power search:
http://www.deja.com/home_ps.shtml
which includes the option to sort by relevance, subject, forum, author and
date. That's how I would like to see the sort options here. But knowing
that you most likely don't have the resources that dejanews has and how
flawlessly Lugnet runs on the current setup, I'm satisfied with editing the
URL for now :-)
> > I'd be interested in seeing some statistics on how far the average user goes
> > when given back let's say 10, 100 and 1,000 pages of results. It would help
> > in the design of an effective search engine.
>
> Me too. I'd expect a f(x)=1/x type of curve, but it would be fun to see >actual numbers. :-)
It could be done. Include another version of jump.cgi into the 5 more, 10
more... on the search results page and log the number of results returned,
the IP address and the query subject. Then run an average, min, max query
grouped by all 3 fields. Sounds complicated, depends on how badly you want
to see the results. I wouldn't want to go through the process of
implementing that but would really like to see the results :-)
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
45 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
|
|
|
|
