RE: [IUG] FW: Relevancy symbols

["Valentina Mayz" <mayz at nova dot edu>]

How about little magic 8-balls? 
:-P


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
V A L E N T I N A   M A Y Z 
L i b r a r y   W e b  A d m i n i s t r a t o r
A l v i n   S h e r m a n   L i b r a r y 
N o v a   S o u t h e a s t e r n  U n i v e r s i t y
9 5 4 - 2 6 2 - 4 6 0 5
-----Original Message-----
From: Turner, Anne [mailto:A dot Turner at shu dot ac dot uk] 
Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2007 11:17 AM
To: IUG INNOPAC List
Subject: [IUG] FW: Relevancy symbols

We're now trying to decide on our relevancy symbol - has anyone come up with
anything other than stars - or modified the original bar symbol at all? 

  Thanks,
    Anne Turner
    Sheffield Hallam University UK

-----Original Message-----
From: Turner, Anne
Sent: 11 January 2007 16:11
To: 'IUG INNOPAC List'
Subject: RE: [IUG] Wording of relevancy ranking

Also, it looks as though Bob's suggestion (which we liked) for labelling the
5 relevancy groups breaks down a bit for libraries which have keyworded more
fields.  We have keyworded the author statement 245$c and also 100 and 700
fields.  Matches in 245$c are going into group 2 (subtitle), matches in 100
are going into group 4 (terms in title) and matches in 700 are going into
group 5 (terms in rest of catalogue record).  So for us it's not too easy
using Bob's approach to explain what's going on  - although we're not happy
about using the relevance word either because of the apparent randomness of
the 'relevance' groupings into which some records happen to fall.

Anne Turner
Sheffield Hallam University UK

-----Original Message-----
From: innopac-bounces at innopacusers dot org
[mailto:innopac-bounces at innopacusers dot org] On Behalf Of Susan Jurist
Sent: 10 January 2007 20:30
To: IUG INNOPAC List
Subject: Re: [IUG] Wording of relevancy ranking

it's issues like this that lead to our using the generic text of "relevance"
instead of a more detailed explanation. Our public service people didn't
think users would read or try to understand whatever it was we wrote.

Think about author title kw searches which mostly get dumped into two stars.

Using Bob's text of "Search terms appear in title" for 2 stars, think about
how librarian that explanation is. Sure we all know that 245 is the title
field and that the author statement is in 245$c, but do you want to have to
explain that to an undergrad? To them the *title* is "hamlet." Just because
the word "shakespeare" appears on the same line in the same boldness,
whatever is not going to make sense to them if you tell them it's part of
the "title." Shakespeare is the author, not the title.

I cheated when I did my help page for relevancy (http://
roger.ucsd.edu/screens/help_relevancy.html) by choosing a search that was
just words. I really really really didn't want to go into MARC cataloging
concepts.
csj






On Jan 10, 2007, at 9:53 AM, Sue E Boggs wrote:

> I actually thought of that caveat after I'd sent the message. However, 
> it leads to a question of how RightResult treats single word keyword 
> searches. Has anyone come up with a term that gets less than three 
> bars (very relevant)? I've been trying and can't. Even my favorite 
> search of viking, which returns those records where it only appears in 
> the publisher, gets a minimum of three bars.
>
> I am working on a page that explains the relevancy ranking (actually 
> trying to get permission from Univ. Miami to copy theirs 
> http://ibisweb.miami.edu/screens/relranking_help.html. It is really
> good) Adapting the blurb from CSDirect I realized it is aimed at 
> phrase searching but trying to include how single terms are ranked is 
> proving more difficult.
>
> Sue
>
> Sue Boggs
> Cataloging & Library Technician
> Technical Services
> Library
> University of Puget Sound
> 1500 N. Warner St. #1021
> Tacoma, WA 98416-1021
> (253) 879-2667
> boggs at ups dot edu
>
>  -----Original Message-----
> From: innopac-bounces at innopacusers dot org 
> [mailto:innopac-bounces at innopacusers dot org] On Behalf Of Bob Duncan
> Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2007 6:32 AM
> To: IUG INNOPAC List
> Subject: Re: [IUG] Wording of relevancy ranking
>
> On Mon, 8 Jan 2007 11:57:03 -0800
>   "Sue E Boggs" <boggs at ups dot edu> wrote:
>> Thanks Susan & Bob. Just before I read your message Bob I found 
>> Manhattan School of Music is using those (your?) terms. Now that you 
>> referenced it I remember your message from before when we were still 
>> contemplating going Pro. The one change I might make is instead of 
>> "exact search" I'd recommend "exact phrase". . .
>
> "Exact search" will always be accurate;  "Exact phrase" will only be 
> accurate when the user has entered more than one search term.
>
> Bob Duncan
>
> ~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~
> Robert E. Duncan
> Systems Librarian
> David Bishop Skillman Library
> Lafayette College
> Easton, PA  18042
> duncanr at lafayette dot edu
> http://www.library.lafayette.edu/
> --
> This message was distributed through the Innovative Users Group 
> INNOPAC list Public replies:  INNOPAC at innopacusers dot org Update your 
> subscription options:
> http://innopacusers.org/mailman/listinfo/innopac
>
> --
> This message was distributed through the Innovative Users Group 
> INNOPAC list Public replies:  INNOPAC at innopacusers dot org Update your 
> subscription options: http://innopacusers.org/mailman/ 
> listinfo/innopac



--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative
  text/plain (text body -- kept)
  text/html
---
--
This message was distributed through the Innovative Users Group INNOPAC list
Public replies:  INNOPAC at innopacusers dot org Update your subscription options:
http://innopacusers.org/mailman/listinfo/innopac