+1 on reviewing existing features. That it is standard does not mean that it works, and it's nice to be able to pass results back upstream.
On 6 November 2015 at 03:41, David Causse <[email protected]> wrote: > Le 05/11/2015 22:56, Erik Bernhardson a écrit : >> >> I really want to see us focus on fixing what we already have and >> validating the features we already support before we go whole hog on >> incorperating all kinds of new data. > > Hi, > > I totally agree, there's some existing features that need to be reviewed, > tuned or rewritten. Some queries give better results if disabled: > - kennedy[1] with default features enable does not bring JFK in the first > page > - kennedy[2] with some features disabled (all fields, boost links) brings > JFK in the top 3 > > Working without a relevancy lab will always lead to discrepancies like that, > the developer will focus on a limited set of 4/5 queries to develop the > feature with a high risk to break previous features. > I'd really like to use the relevancy lab to review existing features. > > [1] > https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&profile=default&search=kennedy&fulltext=Search > [2] > https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&profile=default&search=kennedy&fulltext=Search&cirrusUseAllFields=no&cirrusBoostLinks=no > > > _______________________________________________ > discovery mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/discovery -- Oliver Keyes Count Logula Wikimedia Foundation _______________________________________________ discovery mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/discovery
