Re: [IUG] RightResult - 2 questions

[Deb Bergeron <bergeron at macalester dot edu>]

Susan,

Are you running WebPac Pro?

Thanks
deb

Susan Jurist wrote:
> I love you. thanks,
> csj
>
>
> On Nov 28, 2006, at 2:35 PM, Bob Duncan wrote:
>
> > At 12:36 PM 11/28/2006 -0800, Susan wrote:
> > > 1. I think we all figured out that RightResult gives preference to
> > > the 245 $a.
> > >
> > > Yet in our test version of pro, a kw search on "bioengineering skin,
> > > the highest relevancy category was 2 bars even though the title of
> > > one of the books was "bioengineering of the skin."
> > >
> > > Does this mean that even though we have the option "avs performs
> > > adjacency search" set to "no," RightResult only thinks that words
> > > that are adjacent deserve 5 bars?
> >
> > The "AVS performs adjacency search" option is ignored in WebPAC Pro.  
> > See <http://csdirect.iii.com/faq/woptions.shtml>.  But you are 
> > correct that RightResult will only give the 5-bar rating to records 
> > where the exact search query string appears in the 245|a.
> >
> > For my money, the best explanation of RR groupings is Bowling 
> > Green's, mentioned by Mark Strang in an early September post:  
> > <http://maurice.bgsu.edu/screens/help_index4.html>.
> >
> > According to this document (and I believe that it's correct), in 
> > order to be placed in the 3-, 4-, or 5-bars group, a record needs to 
> > have the exact search query phrase somewhere in a keyword-indexed field.
> >
> >
> > > 2. For those of you who have already installed RightResult - do you
> > > leave the text ("most relevant titles," etc.), or do you blank it out?
> > >
> > > In the example above, I'm wondering if the wording will confuse
> > > people more than it will help them. The search result (by my
> > > thinking) should have been 5 bars.
> >
> > Oooo, we haven't installed Pro yet, but I can I still answer?  ;o)
> >
> > I don't think the default text will necessarily *confuse* people, but 
> > it may not make total sense to some, especially when a book in the 
> > 1-bar group might be more relevant to a user's need than a book in 
> > the 5-bar group.  And in your example where the first group is only 2 
> > bars, I don't think seeing the top group labeled plain old "Relevant" 
> > will confuse anyone unless they're looking for that magical "Most 
> > relevant" group that they've seen before.
> >
> > That said, I think RR grouping could benefit from more accurate and 
> > straightforward labeling of groups.  To that end, we're thinking of 
> > doing away with the varying-level bars altogether and using the 
> > ICON_REL_GROUP wwwoptions to label the groups along the following 
> > lines (assuming these labels indeed prove correct and the wwwoptions 
> > can be so configured):
> >
> > Exact search appears in main title
> > Exact search appears in subtitle
> > Exact search appears in record
> > Search terms appear in title
> > Search terms appear in record
> >
> > ...or words to that effect.
> >
> > Bob Duncan
> >
> >
> > ~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~
> > Robert E. Duncan
> > Systems Librarian
> > Editor of IT Communications
> > Lafayette College
> > Easton, PA  18042
> > duncanr at lafayette dot edu
> > http://www.library.lafayette.edu/
> >
> > --
> > This message was distributed through the Innovative Users Group 
> > INNOPAC list
> > Public replies:  INNOPAC at innopacusers dot org
> > Update your subscription options: 
> > http://innopacusers.org/mailman/listinfo/innopac
>
> --
> This message was distributed through the Innovative Users Group 
> INNOPAC list
> Public replies:  INNOPAC at innopacusers dot org
> Update your subscription options: 
> http://innopacusers.org/mailman/listinfo/innopac


--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
multipart/mixed
 multipart/alternative
   text/plain (text body -- kept)
   text/html
 text/x-vcard
---