> We use two fields, one with and one without stopwords. The exact > field has a higher boost than the other. That works pretty well.
Thanks for the tip, wunder! We are doing likewise for our pf parm of DisMax and that part works well -- exact matches are highly relevant and stopped-matches less so but still present in the results set. The main problem is getting past the qf parm such that we don't have invisible titles (stop-words removed by the qf pipeine leaving an empty query) or over-specified generated queries (where stop-words turn out to be required but can't match for various reasons). > It helps to have an automated relevance test when tuning the boost > (and other things). I extracted queries and clicks from the logs > for a couple of months. Not perfect, but it is hard to argue with > 32 million clicks. I'd say -- a dream data set. :-) Good idea on the relevance test -- eyeballing boost changes seems definitely prone to unexpected effects across all of the queries one didn't think to try. (A dark art, boost tuning...) Ron
