From: Nathan T. <nta...@gm...> - 2012-11-30 14:25:16
|
One of our users today pointed out something funny. When they searched for angels, results on Los Angeles were returned. Assuming this to be an auto-spelling kind-of enhancement, they searched for "angels", assuming the quotes would search for exact only and got the same result. Is there anyway around this, to return just results with angels and not Los Angeles? I thought the quote would return an exact result too. Thanks, Nathan |
From: Filipe MS B. (UA) <fs...@ua...> - 2012-11-30 14:37:25
|
Hi Nathan! Yup fuzzy searches are powerful ways to retrieve records with slight variations of the term or misspells ones, but have that side effects... >From the little I know, a solution would be twiking the SOLR Biblio index schema.xml, solrconfig.xml use DisMax to boost the relative weights. Googling it for a solution keeping stemming (http://wiki.apache.org/solr/AnalyzersTokenizersTokenFilters#Stemming) enabled, but besides requiring a re-indexing of all the records, not sure what the full implications might be -- so I pass the "token" to someone who really knows SOLR: http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Exact-match-on-a-field-with-stemming-tt2808086.html#a2809293 All the best, Filipe On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 2:24 PM, Nathan Tallman <nta...@gm...> wrote: > Angeles |
From: Nathan T. <nta...@gm...> - 2012-11-30 14:41:11
|
Thanks, Filipe! I look into this, but in the mean time will instruct the user to search for: (angel OR angels) NOT angeles. Best, Nathan On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 9:36 AM, Filipe MS Bento (UA) <fs...@ua...> wrote: > Hi Nathan! > > Yup fuzzy searches are powerful ways to retrieve records with slight > variations of the term or misspells ones, but have that side > effects... > > From the little I know, a solution would be twiking the SOLR Biblio > index schema.xml, solrconfig.xml use DisMax to boost the relative > weights. > > Googling it for a solution keeping stemming > (http://wiki.apache.org/solr/AnalyzersTokenizersTokenFilters#Stemming) > enabled, but besides requiring a re-indexing of all the records, not > sure what the full implications might be -- so I pass the "token" to > someone who really knows SOLR: > > > http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Exact-match-on-a-field-with-stemming-tt2808086.html#a2809293 > > All the best, > > Filipe > > On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 2:24 PM, Nathan Tallman <nta...@gm...> > wrote: > > Angeles > |
From: Filipe MS B. (UA) <fs...@ua...> - 2012-11-30 14:41:28
|
PS: And yes, as they say in that thread, "Using quoted means "use this as a phrase", not "use this as a literal". :)" and the solution would be "I think copying to unstemmed field is the only/common work-around." but would you do this just for the title or also subject/topics and alike? On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 2:36 PM, Filipe MS Bento (UA) <fs...@ua...> wrote: > Hi Nathan! > > Yup fuzzy searches are powerful ways to retrieve records with slight > variations of the term or misspells ones, but have that side > effects... > > From the little I know, a solution would be twiking the SOLR Biblio > index schema.xml, solrconfig.xml use DisMax to boost the relative > weights. > > Googling it for a solution keeping stemming > (http://wiki.apache.org/solr/AnalyzersTokenizersTokenFilters#Stemming) > enabled, but besides requiring a re-indexing of all the records, not > sure what the full implications might be -- so I pass the "token" to > someone who really knows SOLR: > > http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Exact-match-on-a-field-with-stemming-tt2808086.html#a2809293 > > All the best, > > Filipe > > On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 2:24 PM, Nathan Tallman <nta...@gm...> wrote: >> Angeles |
From: Nathan T. <nta...@gm...> - 2012-11-30 14:54:04
|
Forgot to change to reply-all, sorry. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Nathan Tallman <nta...@gm...> Date: Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 9:52 AM Subject: Re: [VuFind-Tech] Search Quirk To: Václav Rosecký <xro...@gm...> Thank you, Filipe and Vasek. One approach is to add unstemmed field and give it a higher relevancy than > stemmed field. This seems like a good approach, but I'm unsure how to implement it. Filipe, is that the same thing you mentioned in you first email? I would need to add a field to schema.xml, tell solr what to do with it in solrconfig.xml, and then adjust searchspecs.yaml to boost queries to that field? If I understand correctly, this approach wouldn't care what whether it was a title or subject, right? Thanks for the assist. Nathan |
From: Filipe MS B. (UA) <fs...@ua...> - 2012-11-30 16:07:26
|
Hi Nathan, sorry for the delay in replying (was writing the message I've sent meanwhile [and it's more than time to have lunch over here -- 4pm]). Yes, > Vasek. > >> One approach is to add unstemmed field and give it a higher relevancy than >> stemmed field. it's what I was mentioning in my first email > use copyField and boost the unstemmed field ( unstemmedField^10.0 stemmedField^5.0) Please refer to the first answer given here: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2630879/solr-exact-word-search And I believe you have to do this for each field (or Allfields) according to desired.. Warms wishes, Filipe -------------------------- Filipe Manuel S. Bento | http://about.filipebento.pt/ |
From: Nathan T. <nta...@gm...> - 2012-11-30 16:20:07
|
Thanks again, Filipe! The stackoverflow link is very helpful. When I sent into schema.xml to start tweaking, I noticed this field: <field name="allfields_unstemmed" type="textProper" indexed="true" stored="false"/> Can I just used this field instead of creating a new one? Thanks, and I hope you've eaten by now! Nathan On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 11:06 AM, Filipe MS Bento (UA) <fs...@ua...> wrote: > Hi Nathan, sorry for the delay in replying (was writing the message > I've sent meanwhile [and it's more than time to have lunch over here > -- 4pm]). > > Yes, > > > Vasek. > > > >> One approach is to add unstemmed field and give it a higher relevancy > than > >> stemmed field. > > it's what I was mentioning in my first email > use copyField and boost > the unstemmed field ( unstemmedField^10.0 stemmedField^5.0) > > Please refer to the first answer given here: > > http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2630879/solr-exact-word-search > > And I believe you have to do this for each field (or Allfields) > according to desired.. > > Warms wishes, > > Filipe > > -------------------------- > > Filipe Manuel S. Bento | http://about.filipebento.pt/ > |
From: Nathan T. <nta...@gm...> - 2012-11-30 16:44:06
|
Looking in searchspec.yaml, I noticed - allfields_unstemmed under AllFields, however boosting it to 900 doesn't seem to be having an affect on search results... On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 11:19 AM, Nathan Tallman <nta...@gm...> wrote: > Thanks again, Filipe! The stackoverflow link is very helpful. When I sent > into schema.xml to start tweaking, I noticed this field: > > <field name="allfields_unstemmed" type="textProper" indexed="true" > stored="false"/> > > > Can I just used this field instead of creating a new one? > > Thanks, and I hope you've eaten by now! > > Nathan > > > > On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 11:06 AM, Filipe MS Bento (UA) <fs...@ua...> wrote: > >> Hi Nathan, sorry for the delay in replying (was writing the message >> I've sent meanwhile [and it's more than time to have lunch over here >> -- 4pm]). >> >> Yes, >> >> > Vasek. >> > >> >> One approach is to add unstemmed field and give it a higher relevancy >> than >> >> stemmed field. >> >> it's what I was mentioning in my first email > use copyField and boost >> the unstemmed field ( unstemmedField^10.0 stemmedField^5.0) >> >> Please refer to the first answer given here: >> >> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2630879/solr-exact-word-search >> >> And I believe you have to do this for each field (or Allfields) >> according to desired.. >> >> Warms wishes, >> >> Filipe >> >> -------------------------- >> >> Filipe Manuel S. Bento | http://about.filipebento.pt/ >> > > |
From: Demian K. <dem...@vi...> - 2012-11-30 17:38:04
|
Many fields in the default schema have stemmed and unstemmed versions. Changing the boosts may affect the order of the results, but you would have to remove all the stemmed fields from searchspecs.yaml (or remove the stemming step from the field definitions in the schema) in order to completely eliminate stemmed matches in the results. - Demian ________________________________ From: Nathan Tallman [nta...@gm...] Sent: Friday, November 30, 2012 11:43 AM To: Filipe MS Bento (UA) Cc: vufind-tech Subject: Re: [VuFind-Tech] Fwd: Search Quirk Looking in searchspec.yaml, I noticed - allfields_unstemmed under AllFields, however boosting it to 900 doesn't seem to be having an affect on search results... On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 11:19 AM, Nathan Tallman <nta...@gm...<mailto:nta...@gm...>> wrote: Thanks again, Filipe! The stackoverflow link is very helpful. When I sent into schema.xml to start tweaking, I noticed this field: <field name="allfields_unstemmed" type="textProper" indexed="true" stored="false"/> Can I just used this field instead of creating a new one? Thanks, and I hope you've eaten by now! Nathan On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 11:06 AM, Filipe MS Bento (UA) <fs...@ua...<mailto:fs...@ua...>> wrote: Hi Nathan, sorry for the delay in replying (was writing the message I've sent meanwhile [and it's more than time to have lunch over here -- 4pm]). Yes, > Vasek. > >> One approach is to add unstemmed field and give it a higher relevancy than >> stemmed field. it's what I was mentioning in my first email > use copyField and boost the unstemmed field ( unstemmedField^10.0 stemmedField^5.0) Please refer to the first answer given here: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2630879/solr-exact-word-search And I believe you have to do this for each field (or Allfields) according to desired.. Warms wishes, Filipe -------------------------- Filipe Manuel S. Bento | http://about.filipebento.pt/ |
From: Filipe MS B. (UA) <fs...@ua...> - 2012-11-30 17:11:17
|
Hi Nathan, I'm back. Could please try use Solr's debugQuery feature, as Demian sent in this previous message: "to investigate the relevance scores of your strange search results? In case you haven't done this before: 1.) Turn on debug mode in config.ini 2.) Do a search 3.) Copy the Solr URL from the search (http://localhost:8080/solr/....) 4.) Paste the URL into a browser, change "localhost" to your Solr server's name as necessary, and append "&debugQuery=true" onto the end. This will result in a debug section in the Solr output that explains the scoring of all the matched documents. This might give you a clue about what's going on (...)" And also as Demian said, "Feel free to share debug output here if you need help interpreting it." (before and after boosting allfields_unstemmed) VuFind was my first ever SOLR "site-seeing", so like mentioned, not an expert at all, sorry... Anyway, are you restarting VuFind (i.e., SOLR)? Not sure if it needs so to read the new specs, but just in case... I was just checking all the relevant files and yes, unstemmed relevant fields are defined by default (schema.xml), with a 50 diference (400 > 450) value, for instance (searchspecs.yaml). Perhaps the records with "Los Angeles" have a significant relevance that makes them have a higher tha the ones with "Angels"... Well, only Solr's debugQuery is able to trough some light so that we can see what's going on... Warm wishes / have a nice weekend, Filipe From: Nathan Tallman [mailto:nta...@gm...] Sent: sexta-feira, 30 de Novembro de 2012 16:43 To: Filipe MS Bento (UA) Cc: vufind-tech Subject: Re: [VuFind-Tech] Fwd: Search Quirk Looking in searchspec.yaml, I noticed - allfields_unstemmed under AllFields, however boosting it to 900 doesn't seem to be having an affect on search results... On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 11:19 AM, Nathan Tallman <nta...@gm...<mailto:nta...@gm...>> wrote: Thanks again, Filipe! The stackoverflow link is very helpful. When I sent into schema.xml to start tweaking, I noticed this field: <field name="allfields_unstemmed" type="textProper" indexed="true" stored="false"/> Can I just used this field instead of creating a new one? Thanks, and I hope you've eaten by now! Nathan On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 11:06 AM, Filipe MS Bento (UA) <fs...@ua...<mailto:fs...@ua...>> wrote: Hi Nathan, sorry for the delay in replying (was writing the message I've sent meanwhile [and it's more than time to have lunch over here -- 4pm]). Yes, > Vasek. > >> One approach is to add unstemmed field and give it a higher relevancy than >> stemmed field. it's what I was mentioning in my first email > use copyField and boost the unstemmed field ( unstemmedField^10.0 stemmedField^5.0) Please refer to the first answer given here: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2630879/solr-exact-word-search And I believe you have to do this for each field (or Allfields) according to desired.. Warms wishes, Filipe -------------------------- Filipe Manuel S. Bento | http://about.filipebento.pt/ |
From: Demian K. <dem...@vi...> - 2012-11-30 17:39:45
|
Be aware that boosting allfields that high means that words in every field in the record have equal value.. i.e. a match in an obscure note field will have just as much weight as a subject, title or author. This solution may have some unwanted side effects. You may want to put the high boosts on more targeted unstemmed fields instead. - Demian ________________________________ From: Nathan Tallman [nta...@gm...] Sent: Friday, November 30, 2012 12:36 PM To: Filipe MS Bento (UA) Cc: vufind-tech Subject: Re: [VuFind-Tech] Fwd: Search Quirk Hi Filipe, I'm attaching the debug output from a boost of 10 and a boost of 900 on allfields_unstemmed. I did not restart solr after adjusting searchspecs because from past experience (and also the debug output), it doesn't need it. After taking a look thought, you were correct. Other fields were outweighing the allfields_unstemmed, even with the boost. I changed the boost to a whooping 3000 and am seeing the results I want. Many thanks for the assistance! (If my boosting that high was known unintended consequences, please give me a heads up :-) Warm regards and I hope you have a nice weekend too! Nathan On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 12:10 PM, Filipe MS Bento (UA) <fs...@ua...<mailto:fs...@ua...>> wrote: Hi Nathan, I’m back. Could please try use Solr's debugQuery feature, as Demian sent in this previous message: "to investigate the relevance scores of your strange search results? In case you haven't done this before: 1.) Turn on debug mode in config.ini 2.) Do a search 3.) Copy the Solr URL from the search (http://localhost:8080/solr/....) 4.) Paste the URL into a browser, change "localhost" to your Solr server's name as necessary, and append "&debugQuery=true" onto the end. This will result in a debug section in the Solr output that explains the scoring of all the matched documents. This might give you a clue about what's going on (…)” And also as Demian said, “Feel free to share debug output here if you need help interpreting it." (before and after boosting allfields_unstemmed) VuFind was my first ever SOLR “site-seeing”, so like mentioned, not an expert at all, sorry… Anyway, are you restarting VuFind (i.e., SOLR)? Not sure if it needs so to read the new specs, but just in case… I was just checking all the relevant files and yes, unstemmed relevant fields are defined by default (schema.xml), with a 50 diference (400 > 450) value, for instance (searchspecs.yaml). Perhaps the records with “Los Angeles” have a significant relevance that makes them have a higher tha the ones with “Angels”… Well, only Solr's debugQuery is able to trough some light so that we can see what’s going on… Warm wishes / have a nice weekend, Filipe From: Nathan Tallman [mailto:nta...@gm...<mailto:nta...@gm...>] Sent: sexta-feira, 30 de Novembro de 2012 16:43 To: Filipe MS Bento (UA) Cc: vufind-tech Subject: Re: [VuFind-Tech] Fwd: Search Quirk Looking in searchspec.yaml, I noticed - allfields_unstemmed under AllFields, however boosting it to 900 doesn't seem to be having an affect on search results... On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 11:19 AM, Nathan Tallman <nta...@gm...<mailto:nta...@gm...>> wrote: Thanks again, Filipe! The stackoverflow link is very helpful. When I sent into schema.xml to start tweaking, I noticed this field: <field name="allfields_unstemmed" type="textProper" indexed="true" stored="false"/> Can I just used this field instead of creating a new one? Thanks, and I hope you've eaten by now! Nathan On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 11:06 AM, Filipe MS Bento (UA) <fs...@ua...<mailto:fs...@ua...>> wrote: Hi Nathan, sorry for the delay in replying (was writing the message I've sent meanwhile [and it's more than time to have lunch over here -- 4pm]). Yes, > Vasek. > >> One approach is to add unstemmed field and give it a higher relevancy than >> stemmed field. it's what I was mentioning in my first email > use copyField and boost the unstemmed field ( unstemmedField^10.0 stemmedField^5.0) Please refer to the first answer given here: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2630879/solr-exact-word-search And I believe you have to do this for each field (or Allfields) according to desired.. Warms wishes, Filipe -------------------------- Filipe Manuel S. Bento | http://about.filipebento.pt/ |
From: Nathan T. <nta...@gm...> - 2012-11-30 17:47:01
|
Thanks, Demian. I thought I might be doing something unwise. I've dropped the boost on allfields_unstemmed to 500, and boosted title_full_unstemmed and topic_unstemmed to 1000. I'm still seeing the desired results and hopefully not too heavily promoting obscure notes. Nathan On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 12:39 PM, Demian Katz <dem...@vi...>wrote: > Be aware that boosting allfields that high means that words in every > field in the record have equal value.. i.e. a match in an obscure note > field will have just as much weight as a subject, title or author. This > solution may have some unwanted side effects. You may want to put the high > boosts on more targeted unstemmed fields instead. > > - Demian > ------------------------------ > *From:* Nathan Tallman [nta...@gm...] > *Sent:* Friday, November 30, 2012 12:36 PM > > *To:* Filipe MS Bento (UA) > *Cc:* vufind-tech > *Subject:* Re: [VuFind-Tech] Fwd: Search Quirk > > Hi Filipe, > > I'm attaching the debug output from a boost of 10 and a boost of 900 on > allfields_unstemmed. I did not restart solr after adjusting searchspecs > because from past experience (and also the debug output), it doesn't need > it. > > After taking a look thought, you were correct. Other fields were > outweighing the allfields_unstemmed, even with the boost. I changed the > boost to a whooping 3000 and am seeing the results I want. > > Many thanks for the assistance! (If my boosting that high was > known unintended consequences, please give me a heads up :-) > > Warm regards and I hope you have a nice weekend too! > > Nathan > > > On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 12:10 PM, Filipe MS Bento (UA) <fs...@ua...> wrote: > >> Hi Nathan, I’m back.**** >> >> >> Could please try use Solr's debugQuery feature, as Demian sent in this >> previous message:**** >> >> ** ** >> >> "to investigate the relevance scores of your strange search results? In >> case you haven't done this before: >> >> 1.) Turn on debug mode in config.ini >> >> 2.) Do a search >> >> 3.) Copy the Solr URL from the search (http://localhost:8080/solr/....) >> >> 4.) Paste the URL into a browser, change "localhost" to your Solr >> server's name as necessary, and append "&debugQuery=true" onto the end. >> >> This will result in a debug section in the Solr output that explains the >> scoring of all the matched documents. This might give you a clue about >> what's going on (…)” >> >> **** >> >> And also as Demian said,**** >> >> >> “Feel free to share debug output here if you need help interpreting it." >> >> (before and after boosting allfields_unstemmed)**** >> >> ** ** >> >> VuFind was my first ever SOLR “site-seeing”, so like mentioned, not an >> expert at all, sorry… Anyway, are you restarting VuFind (i.e., SOLR)? Not >> sure if it needs so to read the new specs, but just in case… >> >> I was just checking all the relevant files and yes, unstemmed relevant >> fields are defined by default (schema.xml), with a 50 diference (400 > 450) >> value, for instance (searchspecs.yaml). >> >> Perhaps the records with “Los Angeles” have a significant relevance that >> makes them have a higher tha the ones with “Angels”… >> >> Well, only Solr's debugQuery is able to trough some light so that we can >> see what’s going on…**** >> >> ** ** >> >> Warm wishes / have a nice weekend,**** >> >> ** ** >> >> Filipe**** >> >> ** ** >> >> *From:* Nathan Tallman [mailto:nta...@gm...] >> *Sent:* sexta-feira, 30 de Novembro de 2012 16:43 >> *To:* Filipe MS Bento (UA) >> *Cc:* vufind-tech >> *Subject:* Re: [VuFind-Tech] Fwd: Search Quirk**** >> >> ** ** >> >> Looking in searchspec.yaml, I noticed - allfields_unstemmed under >> AllFields, however boosting it to 900 doesn't seem to be having an affect >> on search results...**** >> >> ** ** >> >> ** ** >> >> On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 11:19 AM, Nathan Tallman <nta...@gm...> >> wrote:**** >> >> Thanks again, Filipe! The stackoverflow link is very helpful. When I sent >> into schema.xml to start tweaking, I noticed this field:**** >> >> ** ** >> >> <field name="allfields_unstemmed" type="textProper" indexed="true" >> stored="false"/>**** >> >> ** ** >> >> Can I just used this field instead of creating a new one?**** >> >> ** ** >> >> Thanks, and I hope you've eaten by now!**** >> >> ** ** >> >> Nathan**** >> >> ** ** >> >> ** ** >> >> On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 11:06 AM, Filipe MS Bento (UA) <fs...@ua...> wrote: >> **** >> >> Hi Nathan, sorry for the delay in replying (was writing the message >> I've sent meanwhile [and it's more than time to have lunch over here >> -- 4pm]). >> >> Yes,**** >> >> >> > Vasek. >> > >> >> One approach is to add unstemmed field and give it a higher relevancy >> than >> >> stemmed field.**** >> >> it's what I was mentioning in my first email > use copyField and boost >> the unstemmed field ( unstemmedField^10.0 stemmedField^5.0) >> >> Please refer to the first answer given here: >> >> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2630879/solr-exact-word-search >> >> And I believe you have to do this for each field (or Allfields) >> according to desired.. >> >> Warms wishes, >> >> Filipe >> >> -------------------------- >> >> Filipe Manuel S. Bento | http://about.filipebento.pt/**** >> >> ** ** >> >> ** ** >> > > |
From: Filipe MS B. (UA) <fs...@ua...> - 2012-11-30 17:55:25
|
:) Yup, if get One Trade Center 2x, 3x higher, Crysler Building, Empire State et al. will seem like their just ground-floor ones / few stories high... :) And like Demian mentioned also, the only way for you to achieve that would be "to remove all the stemmed fields from searchspecs.yaml (or remove the stemming step from the field definitions in the schema)", because in the output you've sent the number of times that "Los Angels" appears is so high, that like I've mentioned is overshadowing any with "Angels", or so it looks like from a fast eyes-through... :| Have a nice weekend (all the best fro Aveiro, Portugal), Filipe From: Demian Katz [mailto:dem...@vi...] Sent: sexta-feira, 30 de Novembro de 2012 17:40 To: Nathan Tallman; Filipe MS Bento (UA) Cc: vufind-tech Subject: RE: [VuFind-Tech] Fwd: Search Quirk Be aware that boosting allfields that high means that words in every field in the record have equal value.. i.e. a match in an obscure note field will have just as much weight as a subject, title or author. This solution may have some unwanted side effects. You may want to put the high boosts on more targeted unstemmed fields instead. - Demian ________________________________ From: Nathan Tallman [nta...@gm...] Sent: Friday, November 30, 2012 12:36 PM To: Filipe MS Bento (UA) Cc: vufind-tech Subject: Re: [VuFind-Tech] Fwd: Search Quirk Hi Filipe, I'm attaching the debug output from a boost of 10 and a boost of 900 on allfields_unstemmed. I did not restart solr after adjusting searchspecs because from past experience (and also the debug output), it doesn't need it. After taking a look thought, you were correct. Other fields were outweighing the allfields_unstemmed, even with the boost. I changed the boost to a whooping 3000 and am seeing the results I want. Many thanks for the assistance! (If my boosting that high was known unintended consequences, please give me a heads up :-) Warm regards and I hope you have a nice weekend too! Nathan On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 12:10 PM, Filipe MS Bento (UA) <fs...@ua...<mailto:fs...@ua...>> wrote: Hi Nathan, I'm back. Could please try use Solr's debugQuery feature, as Demian sent in this previous message: "to investigate the relevance scores of your strange search results? In case you haven't done this before: 1.) Turn on debug mode in config.ini 2.) Do a search 3.) Copy the Solr URL from the search (http://localhost:8080/solr/....) 4.) Paste the URL into a browser, change "localhost" to your Solr server's name as necessary, and append "&debugQuery=true" onto the end. This will result in a debug section in the Solr output that explains the scoring of all the matched documents. This might give you a clue about what's going on (...)" And also as Demian said, "Feel free to share debug output here if you need help interpreting it." (before and after boosting allfields_unstemmed) VuFind was my first ever SOLR "site-seeing", so like mentioned, not an expert at all, sorry... Anyway, are you restarting VuFind (i.e., SOLR)? Not sure if it needs so to read the new specs, but just in case... I was just checking all the relevant files and yes, unstemmed relevant fields are defined by default (schema.xml), with a 50 diference (400 > 450) value, for instance (searchspecs.yaml). Perhaps the records with "Los Angeles" have a significant relevance that makes them have a higher tha the ones with "Angels"... Well, only Solr's debugQuery is able to trough some light so that we can see what's going on... Warm wishes / have a nice weekend, Filipe From: Nathan Tallman [mailto:nta...@gm...<mailto:nta...@gm...>] Sent: sexta-feira, 30 de Novembro de 2012 16:43 To: Filipe MS Bento (UA) Cc: vufind-tech Subject: Re: [VuFind-Tech] Fwd: Search Quirk Looking in searchspec.yaml, I noticed - allfields_unstemmed under AllFields, however boosting it to 900 doesn't seem to be having an affect on search results... On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 11:19 AM, Nathan Tallman <nta...@gm...<mailto:nta...@gm...>> wrote: Thanks again, Filipe! The stackoverflow link is very helpful. When I sent into schema.xml to start tweaking, I noticed this field: <field name="allfields_unstemmed" type="textProper" indexed="true" stored="false"/> Can I just used this field instead of creating a new one? Thanks, and I hope you've eaten by now! Nathan On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 11:06 AM, Filipe MS Bento (UA) <fs...@ua...<mailto:fs...@ua...>> wrote: Hi Nathan, sorry for the delay in replying (was writing the message I've sent meanwhile [and it's more than time to have lunch over here -- 4pm]). Yes, > Vasek. > >> One approach is to add unstemmed field and give it a higher relevancy than >> stemmed field. it's what I was mentioning in my first email > use copyField and boost the unstemmed field ( unstemmedField^10.0 stemmedField^5.0) Please refer to the first answer given here: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2630879/solr-exact-word-search And I believe you have to do this for each field (or Allfields) according to desired.. Warms wishes, Filipe -------------------------- Filipe Manuel S. Bento | http://about.filipebento.pt/ |