Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

pcplantdb - Re: [pcplantdb] comments on 0.2.0

pcplantdb@lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: pcplantdb

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Stephanie Gerson <sgerson@stanfordalumni.org>
  • To: pcplantdb <pcplantdb@lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [pcplantdb] comments on 0.2.0
  • Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 23:11:03 -0700

a few responses IN CAPS:
>
> Order is determined by relevance score, the number on the left. One
> of the reasons I think that sorting alphabetically is a bad idea is it
> ignores the context of relevance. Alphabetically sorted a search
> result may have the best match somewhere in the middle or near the
> end. Tell me again why this is good... I mean imagine if google
> sorted results alphabetically. I put a visible relevance score back
> into 0.2.0 so folks can see it. Rich suggested translating this into
> different sized graphics (trees) at one point.
>
It depends on the type of search. For plants there is a lot more order
in the names I've found it easier locate plants when they are arranged
alphabetically.

A table based layout could be a way round this there could be three
columns

Botanical Name|Common Name|Ranking|... other stuff we want to display

a user could click on a column heading to order by that field.
Alternativly this could be in a user preference or a set of radio
buttons.
URL could end with &ORDERBY=Common etc.

CAN'T USERS SORT BY DIFFERENT CHARACTERISTICS? SORT ALPHABETICALLY, BY
RELEVANCE, BY USER RANKING, ETC.?
>
>
>>Are you planning to incorporate +, AND, OR (Boolean features)?
>>Currently, it ignores lower case and , but seems to include upper case
>>AND without actually using it. I'm a bit confused are you still
>>working with this?
>>
>>Also, it seems to ignore quotation marks if I want to search two words
>>together (i.e. ``three siste rs). Can we incorporate quotation marks
>>to keep multi-word terms intact?
>
> Both of these things are what I mean when I alluded to a search
> grammar. I think this would make a good feature request if we can
> agree on the definition of the grammar.
>
SURE, LET'S DEFINE THE GRAMMAR. CAN YOU PLEASE POST SOME SPECIFIC
QUESTIONS/ISSUES FOR US TO DISCUSS?

>
>>I seem to get way too many results, but as I mentioned above, I assume
>>search capabilities are stil l evolving (and will allow for more
>>refined searches that will return less results).
>
>
> I don't think that too many results is a problem if they are sorted by
> relevance. If you look at the scores on the side usually only about
> 1% have a relevance greater than 1. It could be a client side option
> to limit the results to scores greater than 1 insuring a higher degree
> of relevance.

THAT WOULD MAKE IT A LOT EASIER. IT'S INTIMIDATING TO GET SO MANY 'HITS'
SOMETIMES. ESPECIALLY SINCE THERE ARE NO PHOTOS (YET), IT'S HARD TO TELL
WHICH RESULT IS THE ONE YOU SEARCHED FOR WHEN THERE ARE SO MANY.


>>It seems that the easiest/most common search users will want to do
>>will be to search for all variet ies of a given plant, i.e. corn. But
>>when I search for corn, I get all plants with any reference to
>>corn. So I try searching by family, but that includes many things that
>>are not corn. So I try sear ching by genus (``zea'') and I get
>>anything with ``zea'' in it (New Zealand, etc.) and I didn't eve n get
>>corn! There must be a way to get the results I want all varieties of
>>corn considering that this will be a very common search. How to make
>>this possible?
>
>
> This is because there is only one search method in use and it happens
> to search everything in the dataset. This is good for somethings, but
> as you can see fails at more targeted searches. I think that
> development of this area in particular will be the most rewarding for
> end users. In particular I would like to make an advanced search form
> that allowed searching any and all of botanical name, common name,
> uses, attributes, cultivars, comments (Ken Ferns mostly), references,
> and users. Press one button and bingo much better results.
>
SOUNDS GREAT! LOOKING FORWARD TO CHECKING OUT THE ADVANCED SEARCH YOU
JUST RELEASED.

>>I searched for chayote and got many results, none of which are chayote
>>or say ``chayote'' anywhere in their description. What's going on?
>
>
> select * from botanical_name where common_name ='chayote';
> Empty set (0.23 sec)
>
> Chayote is a common name not currently in our dataset... Hmmm, maybe
> we need a way to add more common names ;-)

WILL THERE BE A WAY TO DO THIS?

The reason you get matches
> for it is because the sub-strings in chayote, 'chay' and 'ote' are
> found as parts of other names.
>
OY VE. THIS SUB-STRINGS THING COULD BE PROBLEMATIC. I.E. WITH PLANTS
THAT HAVE NAMES OF COLORS IN THEM. HMMM... OR WILL RELEVANCE CLEAR THIS
UP?

>>If you click on a family name, it simply takes you to search results
>>for that family. I assume we w ill elaborate here, add info about that
>>family? Family info seems critical to relationship-building and
>>substitution, right?

In some sense that is the correct behaviour, i.e. it gives the members
of that family. There are some shared chateristics of families don't
have too much real data for this.

BUT WHEN IT COMES TO COMPANION PLANTING, ITS OFTEN FAMILIES THAT GROW/
DON'T GROW WELL TOGETHER...

Have a look at
http://www.ibiblio.org/pfaf/D_fam.html
and see if you can spot the similarities.

I'LL CHECK IT OUT TOMORROW, ALONG WITH 0.2.3

NIGHTY NIGHT,
*s




+++++++++++++++
Stephanie Gerson
sgerson@stanfordalumni.org
(c) 415.871.5683


____________________________________________________________________






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page