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: Thu, 21 Jul 2005 09:49:02 -0700

more responses in CAPS:

I think I'm beating a dead horse here, but if you can understand why
Google doesn't sort alphabetically then you can understand why I also
think it's a bad idea. Google displays the results first that it
thinks are the closest match to your search query. Alphabetizing the
results would cause the best matches to placed in some arbitrary
location based on spelling not on relevance to the search query.
PIW/Eden works the exact same way and focuses on creating search
results that are arranged hierarchically according to perceived
relevance. Alphabetical arrangement could be implemented in the
client (client/Search.py) but I'm not into creating something I think
will detract from the end product. I need cranky screaming users
waving pitchforks before I will willing add this option.

Currently we don't access the PFAF rating and don't have a user
rating. As we discussed earlier, a moderation system (although
important to some folks esp. me) is not currently slated for
implementation in PIW 1.0. Adding/editing plants and plant data,
locales, and relationships are the major tasks left IIRC.

I COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND WHY GOOGLE DOESN'T SORT ALPHABETICALLY, AND I
DON'T THINK WE SHOULD. I WAS SIMPLY SUGGESTING THAT WE GIVE USERS THE
OPTION OF HOW THEY'D LIKE TO SORT SEARCH RESULTS - SO THEY CAN SORT THEM
ACCORDING TO WHATEVER CRITERIA THEY WANT (RELEVANCE, USER RANKING, OR
OTHERWISE). I WAS ALSO WONDERING (IN THE COMMENTS ON 023 I JUST SENT
YOU) HOW IT SORTS RESULTS WHEN THEY HAVE EXACTLY THE SAME RELEVANCE.

[REGARDING SEARCH GRAMMAR] With the advent of the advanced search, I'm
inclined to let this one
slide a little. How about after locales and relationships?

NO WORRIES, SOUNDS FINE. BUT IT WOULD BE GREAT IF YOU FORMULATED
QUESTIONS ABOUT SEARCH GRAMMAR SOON, SO WE COULD AT LEAST START
DISCUSSING. BUT IF THERE'S TOO MUCH ELSE GOING ON, IT CAN WAIT UNTIL THE
TIME IS RIPE.

What I've been trying really hard to do is make the result you want be
the first one. If this is not the case or it's not on the first page
then either the search query needs refining or I have more work to do.

I TRUST YOU.

There are 32090 comments and 7396 giving a total of 40786 possible
hits. I'm having trouble undestanding why number of hits is a
problem, esp. when this will likely grow to over 100000 possibilities
as we start adding stuff. Are the number of results returned from
Google problematic? Does anyone even look at that anymore? I did a
search on Google for 'laetrile' and got 54500 hits... hmmm PIW only has
13, 7 of them are false positives where botanical names match the
substrings.

I SEE YOUR POINT. I GUESS THAT HELP PAGE ON THE WEBSITE DESCRIBING PIW,
EDEN, SEARCH RESULTS, ETC. WOULD BE HELPFUL TO USERS. I'LL WORK ON THAT.

TIME FOR THE EMAIL MONSTER TO TAKE A BREAK,
*s




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


____________________________________________________________________






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page