Yes, the spam issue is something I'm aware of. I plan on having some sanity checks in place to make sure that the boosts are in line with expectations either at query time or while indexing the scores into Solr.

I just read through that document along with some of the more recent posts about signals, and it appears that I'm going down the same path as Lucidworks. I'm storing the aggregated search term and product id in an alternate index. It seems that the piece that I'm missing is getting the boost per document. In the following post, it appears to me that Fusion is applying a boost to the main query by obtaining the scores from a set number of documents from the aggregate collection. I'm going to assume that part of it's query processing pipeline is to run a query on the aggregation collection to obtain the scores from that query and return them for use on the main query.

https://lucidworks.com/blog/2015/09/01/better-search-fusion-signals/

I think I could possibly hack something together on my side that mimics what I think is happening in Fusion, but with my tinkering, it seems to me that using a !join query (with scoring) like I've been trying could handle the job if I could only understand how the query executes on the joined collection and how I can pass a calculated score back to the main query for use in calculating a final score on the main collection.


On 7/7/2016 1:34 PM, Walter Underwood wrote:
If it is running in an environment protected from spammers, you might want to 
start with the work that LucidWorks did on click scoring.

https://lucidworks.com/blog/2015/03/23/mixed-signals-using-lucidworks-fusions-signals-api/
 
<https://lucidworks.com/blog/2015/03/23/mixed-signals-using-lucidworks-fusions-signals-api/>

Of course, there are no environments free of spammers. I’ve seen them in 
enterprise search, too. But they are easier to deal with there. Call them up 
and tell them they need to stop immediately or their pages disappear from the 
search engine.

wunder
Walter Underwood
wun...@wunderwood.org
http://observer.wunderwood.org/  (my blog)


On Jul 7, 2016, at 11:29 AM, Walter Underwood <wun...@wunderwood.org> wrote:

You understand that you are making your site extremely easy to spam, right? 
This is how Microsoft became the top hit for “evil empire” on Google.

wunder
Walter Underwood
wun...@wunderwood.org
http://observer.wunderwood.org/  (my blog)


On Jul 7, 2016, at 11:25 AM, Mark T. Trembley <mark.tremb...@etrailer.com> 
wrote:

I've found that it is definitely complicated!

Essentially what I am attempting to do is boost products based on the number of 
times that particular product has been selected via historical searches using 
the same search term or phrase.


On 7/7/2016 11:55 AM, Walter Underwood wrote:
That is a very complicated design. What are you trying to achieve? Maybe there 
is a different approach that is simpler.

wunder
Walter Underwood
wun...@wunderwood.org
http://observer.wunderwood.org/  (my blog)


On Jul 7, 2016, at 9:26 AM, Mark T. Trembley <mark.tremb...@etrailer.com> wrote:

That works with static boosts based on documents matching the query "Boost2". I 
want to apply a different boost to documents based on the value assigned to Boost2 within 
the document.

 From my sample documents, when running a query with "Boost2," I want Document2 
boosted by 20.0 and Document6 boosted by 15.0:

{
  "id" : "Document2_Boost2",
  "B1_s" : "Boost2",
  "B1_f" : 20
}
{
  "id" : "Document6_Boost2",
  "B1_s" : "Boost2",
  "B1_f" : 15
}


On 7/7/2016 10:21 AM, Walter Underwood wrote:
This looks like a job for “bq”, the boost query parameter. I used this to boost 
textbooks which were used at the student’s school. bq does not force documents 
to be included in the result set. It does affect the ranking of the included 
documents.

bq=B1_ss:Boost2 will boost documents that match that. You can use weights, like 
bq=B1_ss:Boost2^10

Here is the relationship between fq, q, and bq:

fq: selection, does not affect ranking
q: selection and ranking
bq: does not affect selection, affects ranking

wunder
Walter Underwood
wun...@wunderwood.org
http://observer.wunderwood.org/  (my blog)


On Jul 7, 2016, at 7:30 AM, Mark T. Trembley <mark.tremb...@etrailer.com> wrote:

I have a question about the best way to rank my results based on a score field 
that can have different values per document and where each document can have 
different scores based on which term is queried.

Essentially what I'm wanting to have happen is provide a list of terms that when matched via a 
query it returns a corresponding score to help boost the original document. So if I had a document 
with a multi-valued field named B1_ss with terms [Boost1|10], [Boost2|20], [Boost3|100] and my 
search query is "Boost2", I want that document's result to be boosted by 20. Also note 
that "Boost2" can boost different documents at different levels. The query to select the 
actual documents will select against other fields in the document and could possibly return 
documents with any combination of B1 terms.

I'm still trying to figure out how best to model this in my index, either as 
child documents, or in another collection, or if it would make more sense to 
figure out how to make it work via payloads or by boosting the terms at index 
time.

I'm running Solr 5.5.1 in cloud mode. Each server has a complete replica of all 
collections.

The document structure I've been toying with the most is to put the boosts into a 
separate index and join them using !join syntax and returning the scores, but I've not 
had any luck getting quality results from those tests. The extra "scores" index 
is structured like this (I'll add the json for my test collections at the end of the 
email):
id:Document1_Boost1
B1_s:Boost1
B1_f:10
id:Document1_Boost3
B1_s:Boost3
B1_f:100
Using this structure, I get close, but the scores are not what I'm expecting. 
If I use the following query, the explain says it's using the score from 
Document6_Boost2 even though my query is specifying B1_s:Boost3
http://localhost:8983/solr/generic/select?q={!join from=id to=B1_name_ss 
fromIndex=scores score=max}B1_s:Boost3{!func}B1_f&fl=*,score&debugQuery=true

<lstname="explain">
<strname="Document6">
*3.379996* = Score based on join value Document6_Boost2
</str>
<strname="Document1">
*2.2533307* = Score based on join value Document1_Boost1
</str>
<strname="Document7">
*0.24786638* = Score based on join value Document7_Boost333
</str>
<strname="Document3">*0.0* = Score based on join value Document3_NoBoost</str>
</lst>

My guess is that it's now doing an all document query on the "scores" collection to 
return the scores in addition to the B1_s query I've passed in. I can't figure out where it's 
getting those scores from as a simple query against the "scores" collection returns 
scores like I'd expect to see them based on a similar query:
http://192.168.1.194:8983/solr/scores/select?q=B1_s:Boost3 AND 
_val_:B1_f&fl=score,*&debugQuery=true

<lstname="explain">
<strname="Document1_Boost3">
*46.834885* = sum of: 1.7682717 = weight(B1_s:Boost3 in 1) [ClassicSimilarity], 
result of: 1.7682717 = score(doc=1,freq=1.0), product of: 0.8926926 = 
queryWeight, product of: 1.9808292 = idf(docFreq=2, maxDocs=8) 0.45066613 = 
queryNorm 1.9808292 = fieldWeight in 1, product of: 1.0 = tf(freq=1.0), with 
freq of: 1.0 = termFreq=1.0 1.9808292 = idf(docFreq=2, maxDocs=8) 1.0 = 
fieldNorm(doc=1) 45.066612 = FunctionQuery(float(B1_f)), product of: 100.0 = 
float(B1_f)=100.0 1.0 = boost 0.45066613 = queryNorm
</str>
<strname="Document6_Boost3">
*15.288256* = sum of: 1.7682717 = weight(B1_s:Boost3 in 5) [ClassicSimilarity], 
result of: 1.7682717 = score(doc=5,freq=1.0), product of: 0.8926926 = 
queryWeight, product of: 1.9808292 = idf(docFreq=2, maxDocs=8) 0.45066613 = 
queryNorm 1.9808292 = fieldWeight in 5, product of: 1.0 = tf(freq=1.0), with 
freq of: 1.0 = termFreq=1.0 1.9808292 = idf(docFreq=2, maxDocs=8) 1.0 = 
fieldNorm(doc=5) 13.519984 = FunctionQuery(float(B1_f)), product of: 30.0 = 
float(B1_f)=30.0 1.0 = boost 0.45066613 = queryNorm
</str>
</lst>

I feel like I'm getting close to what I need, but it's just not clear to me 
what I'm missing at this point.

The other option I've been toying with is using payloads, but actually 
utilizing the payloads as part of the scoring process is beyond me at this time.

Any thoughts or hints on the best way to boost the relevancy of these 
scoreswould be appreciated.
Thanks
Mark







GENERIC:
{
   "id" : "Document1",
   "B1_ss" : ["Boost1|10","Boost3|100"],
   "title_s" : "Title1"
   ,"otherstuff_ss" : ["stuff1","suggestion"]
   ,"B1_name_ss" : ["Document1_Boost1","Document1_Boost3"]
},
{
   "id" : "Document2",
   "B1_ss" : ["Boost2|20"],
   "name_s" : "Product2",
   "title_s" : "Title2"
   ,"otherstuff_ss" : ["stuff2","recommendation"]
   ,"B1_name_ss" : ["Document2_Boost1"]
},
{
   "id" : "Document3",
   "name_s" : "Product3",
   "B1_ss" : ["NoBoost"],
   "title_s" : "Title3"
   ,"otherstuff_ss" : ["stuff3","new","suggestion"]
   ,"B1_name_ss" : ["Document3_NoBoost"]
},
  {
  "id" : "Document4",
   "name_s" : "Product4",
   "title_s" : "Title4"
   ,"otherstuff_ss" : ["stuff4","old","suggestion"]
} ,
  {
  "id" : "Document5",
   "name_s" : "Product5",
   "title_s" : "Title5"
   ,"otherstuff_ss" : ["stuff5","recommendation"]
},
  {
   "id" : "Document6",
   "name_s" : "Product6",
   "B1_ss" : ["Boost2|15","Boost3|30"],
   "title_s" : "Title6"
   ,"B1_name_ss" : ["Document6_Boost2","Document6_Boost3"]
},
  {
    "id" : "Document7",
   "name_s" : "Product7",
   "B1_ss" : ["NoBoost","Boost333|1.1"],
   "title_s" : "Title7"
   ,"B1_name_ss" : ["Document7_NoBoost","Document7_Boost333"]
}

SCORES:
{
   "id" : "Document1_Boost1",
   "B1_s" : "Boost1",
   "B1_f" : 10
},
   {
   "id" : "Document1_Boost3",
   "B1_s" : "Boost3",
   "B1_f" : 100
},
{
   "id" : "Document2_Boost2",
   "B1_s" : "Boost2",
   "B1_f" : 20
},
{
   "id" : "Document3_NoBoost",
   "B1_s" : "NoBoost"
},
{
   "id" : "Document6_Boost2",
   "B1_s" : "Boost2",
   "B1_f" : 15
},
{
   "id" : "Document6_Boost3",
   "B1_s" : "Boost3",
   "B1_f" : 30
},
{
   "id" : "Document7_NoBoost",
   "B1_s" : "NoBoost"
},
{
   "id" : "Document7_Boost333",
   "B1_s" : "Boost333",
   "B1_f" : 1.1
}



Reply via email to