Thanks a lot Doug. Maybe setting more importance to certain fields is the way to go in conjunction with the overall match.
Tanu On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 1:52 PM Doug Turnbull < dturnb...@opensourceconnections.com> wrote: > The usual advice is relevance scores don’t exist on a scale where a > threshold is useful. As these are just heuristics used for ranking , not a > confidence level. > > I would instead focus on what attributes of a document consider it relevant > or not (strong match in certain fields). > > A couple of things prevent field scores from being comparable: > - doc freq differs per field > - field length/ avg field length differs per field > - typical term frequency of a term in a field differs > > You might find this article useful: > > > https://opensourceconnections.com/blog/2013/07/02/getting-dissed-by-dismax-why-your-incorrect-assumptions-about-dismax-are-hurting-search-relevancy/ > > Doug > > On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 4:44 PM Tanya Bompi <tanya.bo...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Hi, > > As I am tuning the relevancy of my query parser, I see that 2 different > > queries with phrase matches get very different scores primarily > influenced > > by the Term Frequency component. Since I am using a threshold to filter > the > > results for a matched record based off the SOLR score, a somewhat > > normalized score is needed. > > Are there any similarity classes that are more suitable to my needs? > > > > Thanks, > > Tanu > > > -- > *Doug Turnbull **| *Search Relevance Consultant | OpenSource Connections > <http://opensourceconnections.com>, LLC | 240.476.9983 > Author: Relevant Search <http://manning.com/turnbull> > This e-mail and all contents, including attachments, is considered to be > Company Confidential unless explicitly stated otherwise, regardless > of whether attachments are marked as such. >
