Login | Register For Free | Help
Search for: (Advanced)

Mailing List Archive: Lucene: General

Open Relevance Project?

 

 

First page Previous page 1 2 Next page Last page  View All Lucene general RSS feed   Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded


otis_gospodnetic at yahoo

May 18, 2009, 8:25 PM

Post #26 of 29 (880 views)
Permalink
Re: Open Relevance Project? [In reply to]

I agree! A a matter of fact, that is exactly what I just wrote here:
http://www.jroller.com/otis/entry/followup_open_relevance_project#comment-1242703187000

"....For example, couldn't a vendor use it to compare old implementation to
new implementation and provide some kind of metric showing improvements
in new version?...."

The first "vendor" in ORP's case might be Lucene. My hope would be that others could and would take what ORP builds and apply it to their implementations. My next wish after that would be to see others publish the results. But, I think we'll never see any results from commercial vendors - I have a feeling they don't have much to gain by exposing their results to the competition and to the public.

Otis
--
Sematext -- http://sematext.com/ -- Lucene - Solr - Nutch



----- Original Message ----
> From: Ted Dunning <ted.dunning [at] gmail>
> To: general [at] lucene
> Sent: Monday, May 18, 2009 11:12:41 PM
> Subject: Re: Open Relevance Project?
>
> I completely agee with this. In practice, search engines and to a larger
> extent recommendation engines shape user behavior and are, in turn, shaped
> by user behavior so that static relevancy tests are of only very limited
> value in the end game.
>
> But it is still *very* nice to have them.
>
> On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 8:00 PM, Mark Miller wrote:
>
> > Grant Ingersoll wrote:
> >
> >> Some interesting discussion at
> >>
> http://thenoisychannel.com/2009/05/18/copying-trec-is-the-wrong-track-for-the-enterprise/
> >>
> > That was an interesting read. I think a lot of the argument misses the
> > point. It doesn't seem to me that the main benefit or intent comes from
> > 'bake offs' with other search engines ("Selling search applications to
> > enterprises isn't, in my experience, about winning relevance bake-offs.") -
> > the main benefit is allowing us to measure changes and improvements to
> > Lucene's relevancy calculations and to make judgments about how Lucene
> > currently performs. I see it easily as important as the Lucene benchmark
> > contrib. Its not going to be a secret sauce, just like the benchmarker has
> > been no secret sauce - but its going to make it easier to reliably improve
> > Lucene in the future.
> >
> >


gsingers at apache

May 18, 2009, 8:53 PM

Post #27 of 29 (888 views)
Permalink
Re: Open Relevance Project? [In reply to]

+1. Let's not get ahead of ourselves w/ changing the world or
anything like that. First and foremost, we need this for Lucene, if
others benefit, so be it. You are right on in that we need a shared,
free way of judging whether Lucene is improving on relevance (even if
it is already very good out of the box). Otherwise, we can't even
have the conversation. For instance, it would help in evaluating the
Axiomatic patch in JIRA or the SweetSpot stuff or a whole host of
things (for instance, our current len. norm tends to favor shorter
docs, is this the right default?)


On May 18, 2009, at 11:00 PM, Mark Miller wrote:

> Grant Ingersoll wrote:
>> Some interesting discussion at http://thenoisychannel.com/2009/05/18/copying-trec-is-the-wrong-track-for-the-enterprise/
> That was an interesting read. I think a lot of the argument misses
> the point. It doesn't seem to me that the main benefit or intent
> comes from 'bake offs' with other search engines ("Selling search
> applications to enterprises isn't, in my experience, about winning
> relevance bake-offs.") - the main benefit is allowing us to measure
> changes and improvements to Lucene's relevancy calculations and to
> make judgments about how Lucene currently performs. I see it easily
> as important as the Lucene benchmark contrib. Its not going to be a
> secret sauce, just like the benchmarker has been no secret sauce -
> but its going to make it easier to reliably improve Lucene in the
> future.
>
> - Mark
>>
>> On May 18, 2009, at 1:57 PM, Grant Ingersoll wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On May 18, 2009, at 11:41 AM, Ted Dunning wrote:
>>>
>>>> On the other hand, it is likely that we could find query and
>>>> click logs for
>>>> the documentation.
>>>
>>> Only if they are redacted/aggregated first. ASF Members have
>>> access, but we'd need to get permission to distribute (after
>>> redaction/aggregation) I suspect. Given the AOL marketing
>>> fiasco, we'd have to go over them in pretty good detail before
>>> releasing to make sure there is no personal information. AFAIK,
>>> I'm the only ASF Member who has so far volunteered on this thread
>>> and I highly doubt I have the time for what I imagine to be a
>>> pretty decent sized endeavor.
>>>
>>> Stripping IP address is pretty straightforward, but the query
>>> terms might be a bit more involved.
>>>
>>> Still, can't hurt to find out what's involved.
>>>
>>> -Grant
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> - Mark
>
> http://www.lucidimagination.com
>
>
>

--------------------------
Grant Ingersoll
http://www.lucidimagination.com/

Search the Lucene ecosystem (Lucene/Solr/Nutch/Mahout/Tika/Droids)
using Solr/Lucene:
http://www.lucidimagination.com/search


gsingers at apache

May 27, 2009, 8:15 AM

Post #28 of 29 (867 views)
Permalink
Re: Open Relevance Project? [In reply to]

So, of those who have expressed interest, who is willing to step up
and be a committer? Right now, we have me, Andrzej, Simon and Otis
who have put their name on the wiki, but Ted and Mike have also
implied they are interested. Please add your name if you think you
can work on it and can fulfill the obligations of being a committer (http://www.apache.org/dev/#committers
).

I'm going to call a vote on adding ORP as a subproject of Lucene very
soon and would like to finalize the proposal.

-Grant


lucene at mikemccandless

May 27, 2009, 10:49 AM

Post #29 of 29 (864 views)
Permalink
Re: Open Relevance Project? [In reply to]

I think for now I won't add myself as committer. I'm plenty swamped :)

I'll try to keep close tabs though. This is an important effort!

Mike

On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 11:15 AM, Grant Ingersoll <gsingers [at] apache> wrote:
> So, of those who have expressed interest, who is willing to step up and be a
> committer?  Right now, we have me, Andrzej, Simon and Otis who have put
> their name on the wiki, but Ted and Mike have also implied they are
> interested.    Please add your name if you think you can work on it and can
> fulfill the obligations of being a committer
> (http://www.apache.org/dev/#committers).
>
> I'm going to call a vote on adding ORP as a subproject of Lucene very soon
> and would like to finalize the proposal.
>
> -Grant
>

First page Previous page 1 2 Next page Last page  View All Lucene general RSS feed   Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded
 
 


Interested in having your list archived? Contact Gossamer Threads
 
  Web Applications & Managed Hosting Powered by Gossamer Threads Inc.