Skip to main content.
home | support | download

Back to List Archive

Re: [SWISH-E:293] Re: Swish comments

From: Paul J. Lucas <pjl(at)not-real.ptolemy.arc.nasa.gov>
Date: Sat May 09 1998 - 03:17:33 GMT
On Fri, 8 May 1998, Frank Heasley wrote:

> If you know that a term has been ignored, you can compensate for it by
> selecting another word that will be less likeley to be ignored.

	Perhaps.

> If you don't know that the word has been ignored, you simply go on about
> your business, assuming that the item you're looking for isn't in the
> database.  Your user will go away unsatisfied, and you will lose a customer
> and perhaps a sale.

	Fortunately, I don't have to deal with customers or sales.

> This attitude toward to search engine development is unacceptable.

	Unfortunately for you, I'm not your employee, so you are free
	to find it as unacceptable as you like -- I couldn't care less.
	If you find it so unacceptable, don't use my search engine.
	Nobody is putting a gun to your head to use it.

	Don't like that answer?  Too bad.

> It's a defect needs to be fixed.

	In your opinion.

> As a band-aid, it may be possible to program around this defect by
> pre-parsing the search query and warning the user that his/her terms are
> being ignored.

	Pre-parse?  As I already stated, I don't store stop words.  The
	best that could be done would be to report that certain words
	are either not found or occur too frequently.  Which of those
	two cases it is is irrelevant since your action (to select
	another word) is exactly the same in both cases.

	- Paul
Received on Fri May 8 20:26:32 1998