lucene-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mark Miller <>
Subject Re: Open Relevance Project?
Date Tue, 19 May 2009 03:00:08 GMT
Grant Ingersoll wrote:
> Some interesting discussion at 

That was an interesting read. I think a lot of the argument misses the 
point. It doesn't seem to me that the main benefit or intent comes from 
'bake offs' with other search engines ("Selling search applications to 
enterprises isn't, in my experience, about winning relevance 
bake-offs.") - the main benefit is allowing us to measure changes and 
improvements to Lucene's relevancy calculations and to make judgments 
about how Lucene currently performs. I see it easily as important as the 
Lucene benchmark contrib. Its not going to be a secret sauce, just like 
the benchmarker has been no secret sauce - but its going to make it 
easier to reliably improve Lucene in the future.

- Mark
> On May 18, 2009, at 1:57 PM, Grant Ingersoll wrote:
>> On May 18, 2009, at 11:41 AM, Ted Dunning wrote:
>>> On the other hand, it is likely that we could find query and click 
>>> logs for
>>> the documentation.
>> Only if they are redacted/aggregated first.  ASF Members have access, 
>> but we'd need to get permission to distribute (after 
>> redaction/aggregation) I suspect.   Given the AOL marketing fiasco, 
>> we'd have to go over them in pretty good detail before releasing to 
>> make sure there is no personal information.  AFAIK, I'm the only ASF 
>> Member who has so far volunteered on this thread and I highly doubt I 
>> have the time for what I imagine to be a pretty decent sized endeavor.
>> Stripping IP address is pretty straightforward, but the query terms 
>> might be a bit more involved.
>> Still, can't hurt to find out what's involved.
>> -Grant

- Mark

View raw message