If you have the latest cvs build, try using the -R 1 option (or
RankScheme( 1 ) if using SWISH::API) and see if that makes a difference.
You might try searching for 'test AND code=test' to see if that helps
make your results smaller (though that may not be what you want).
Tomek NoiĆski wrote on 9/12/04 1:45 PM:
> On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 13:28:02 -0700 (PDT)
> Peter Karman <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>>>It does work, but I wonder if there is a way to make meta name
>>>behave as it would have the rank stronger than 10?
>>because it is an experimental feature, I suggest you experiment and
>>let us know. :)
>>you can redefine the range here:
>>swish.h:#define RANK_BIAS_RANGE 10
>>set it to something larger than 10 and recompile swish-e. Then let us
>>know if a higher range is an effective tool.
>>the most recent CVS daily build has some other ranking improvements,
>>so you might experiment with that version for this test, to see if
>>those changes help with your biasing need.
> Thanks, I tried it.
> Changing to newer version (Debian 2.4.1-1 -> today's snapshot) helped,
> but I didn't have luck with MetaNamesRank with changed RANK_BIAS_RANGE.
> I didn't seem to matter if MetaNamesRank was set to 10, 100 or 1000.
> Maybe there's better way to do what I'm trying to do? It's not too
> important, but I'm curiout how to do it right.
> I have a base with algorythmic problems, with descriptions and some
> other data, like "code", identyfying the problem, author etc.
> I form it into xml, make an index from it and do queries like
> "test or code=test".
> The problem is, problem with code "test" has much lower rank than
> another, mentioning several "test cases" in the description, despite
> MetaNamesRank set to 10/100/1000 for code (but it does work somewhat,
> because when set to 0, it is even worse).
> Should I try to sort the records myself and not rely on swishes ranking?
> Or just wait for the MetaNamesRank to become stable? :)
> Oh, and thanks for help and a great piece of software!
Peter Karman 651-605-9009 email@example.com
Received on Mon Sep 13 07:16:33 2004