Recommended
More Related Content
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Featured
Featured (20)
Refining the GKEY search for better keyword relevance
- 1. REFINING THE GKEY SEARCH FOR BETTER KEYWORD RELEVANCE Jorge Cruz, Lynn Murray, and Sarah Haight Sanabria Southern Methodist University
- 2. The Problem
- 14. The new keyword search
- 16. Know when to give up the quest
Editor's Notes
- The actual novel does not appear in list until #11– also numbers 17, 42, 56. Top ten were all commentaries, and several did not include the terms “moby dick” in the title.
- Over time, we had drifted pretty far from the system defaults. System defaults = select fields set to 100
- *This makes logical sense…if you give everything the same weight, it defeats the purpose of relevance ranking. *Ex Libris advises against using 500 too often. It is the highest weight, and if you use it on fields that are not common in many records, you end up with skewed search results. Our results ended up being strange if more than a couple of fields had a weight of 500. In our final implementation, nothing has a 500 weight. 395 is the highest.
- Otherwise, you end up really skewing the search results. Case in point: field 600a. It currently has a weight of 500; someone in the past obviously thought that name subjects were very important and should have the highest weights possible. But if you look at the field distribution, only about 15% percent of Bib records even have 600a’s! Without even doing any testing, this is probably telling us that the field 600a is currently over weighted.
- 2: All series title fields have same weight, all main author fields have same weight, etc. Still in order with title most impt. 3: Highest weight assigned to most impt. Title fields, then most impt. Author fields, etc., so it does not ascend from bottom. The author’s name would come before an analytic title, for instance.