Popularity has a very wide range. Try my example, scale 1 million and 100 into the same 1.0-0.0 range. Even with log popularity.
As another poster pointed out, text relevance scores also have a wide range. In practice, I never could get additive boost to work right at Netflix at both ends of the popularity scale. I gave up and made it work for popular movies. Here at Chegg, multiplicative boost works fine. Don’t think so much about the absolute values of the scores. All we care about is ordering. Work with real user queries, not with theory. wunder Walter Underwood wun...@wunderwood.org http://observer.wunderwood.org/ (my blog) > On Mar 18, 2016, at 5:34 AM, <jimi.hulleg...@svensktnaringsliv.se> > <jimi.hulleg...@svensktnaringsliv.se> wrote: > > On Thursday, March 17, 2016 7:58 PM, wun...@wunderwood.org wrote: >> >> Think about using popularity as a boost. If one movie has a million rentals >> and one has a hundred rentals, there is no additive formula that balances >> that with text relevance. Even with log(popularity), it doesn't work. > > I'm not sure I follow your logic now. If one can express the popularity as a > value between 0.0 and 1.0, why can't one use that, together with a weight > (indicating how much the popularity should influence the score, in general) > and add that to the text relevance score? And how, exactly, would I achieve > that using any multiplicative formula? > > The logic of the weight, in this case, is that I want to be able to tweak how > much influence the popularity has on the final score (and thus the sort order > of the documents), where a weight of 0.0 would have the same effect as if the > popularity wasn't included in the boost logic at all, and a high enough > weight would have the same effect as if one sorted the documents solely on > popularity. > > /Jimi
