Mailing-List: contact solr-dev-help@lucene.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: solr-dev@lucene.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (herse.apache.org: domain of wunderwood@netflix.com
 designates 216.35.131.152 as permitted sender)
User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/11.2.5.060620
Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2006 10:38:33 -0800
Subject: Re: Adding Phonetic Search to Solr
From: Walter Underwood <wunderwood@netflix.com>
To: <solr-dev@lucene.apache.org>
Message-ID: <C1776429.2BF9%wunderwood@netflix.com>
Thread-Topic: Adding Phonetic Search to Solr
Thread-Index: AccDZRfYVqQgfG9YEduIBQAUUTF+rA==
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0611081018390.20337@hal.rescomp.berkeley.edu>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain;
	charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit


On 11/8/06 10:30 AM, "Chris Hostetter" <hossman_lucene@fucit.org> wrote:

> : Also, the phonetic matches are ranked a bit high, so I'm trying a
> : sub-1.0 boost. I was expecting the lower idf to fix that automatically.
> : The metaphone will almost always have a lower idf because multiple
> : words are mapped to one metaphone, so the encoded term occurs in more
> : documents than the surface terms.
> 
> That all makes sense, and yet it's not what you are observing ... which
> leads me to believe you (and I since i want to agree with you) are missing
> something subtle .... what does the the Explanation look like for two
> documenets where you feel like one should score higher then the other but
> they don't?

That is my next step. Maybe create some test documents in my corpus and
spend some quality time with Explain and grokking DisMax. I need to
customize Similarity anyway.

wunder
-- 
Walter Underwood
Search Guru, Netflix