Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

"relevant" results aren't #303

Closed
tpolecat opened this issue Dec 6, 2016 · 9 comments
Assignees
Labels

Comments

@tpolecat
Copy link

@tpolecat tpolecat commented Dec 6, 2016

When you search for database the "relevant" results are a bunch of noise. Anorm is the top recognizable result at 6, but it's a fork of the real one at 8; doobie is at 10; and Slick is down at 45.

I suggest you turn that option off and default to something like stars which at least has some relationship with reality.

@MasseGuillaume

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

@MasseGuillaume MasseGuillaume commented Dec 6, 2016

You can edit your projects to add keywords. I did just that and your project is on the top of the list: https://index.scala-lang.org/search?q=database

@heathermiller

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

@heathermiller heathermiller commented Dec 6, 2016

@MasseGuillaume, hang on. Before closing, let's ask @tpolecat if this solution is one that he's satisfied with.

I think what he's saying is that a bunch of things that aren't really related to databases show up in the search results, so he's suggesting that we think about tweaking how "relevant" results are calculated. This is less about doobie and more about the relevance of the results in general. It indeed might be helpful to take into consideration the # of stars for a given project when calculating relevance.

@MasseGuillaume MasseGuillaume reopened this Dec 6, 2016
@tpolecat

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Author

@tpolecat tpolecat commented Dec 6, 2016

Right, thanks @heathermiller. My issue isn't with doobie not being at the top (it shouldn't be, although it should be on the first page) but that Slick is at 45th. In the absence of curation (which is the case for most libraries in Scaladex) it seems like the relevance algorithm doesn't have much to work with and it's giving very misleading results.

So yes, I think it needs to be tweaked until it's giving plausible results and if that's not possible maybe pick something else as the default view.

@MasseGuillaume

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

@MasseGuillaume MasseGuillaume commented Dec 6, 2016

It look like slick was tagged with db not database. I'm renaming all db to database.

@heathermiller

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

@heathermiller heathermiller commented Dec 6, 2016

@MasseGuillaume, I think I side a bit more with @tpolecat here. While I do agree that people should be a bit more proactive about tagging their libraries, Scaladex can nonetheless still go a long way by tweaking how the results are calculated. In particular, I think that considering stuff like stars might be a good source of information when ranking relevance.

Where is relevance determined right now? I've seen this line of code but can't remember where it was. Maybe we can shuffle things around and improve the relevance of the search results by changing this one line of code (I too find that search results are sometimes quite bad...)

@julienrf

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

@julienrf julienrf commented Mar 1, 2017

Test cases: scalafix, doobie.

@tpolecat

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Author

@tpolecat tpolecat commented Mar 1, 2017

I renew my call to turn "relevant" off. It doesn't work.

@olafurpg

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

@olafurpg olafurpg commented Mar 14, 2017

One more test case that I bumped into when adding a library in scastie

screen shot 2017-03-14 at 11 16 57

I think it's better to return the json repo for the query "json" if it allows for people to find projects by name. Currently, the top results for scalafmt, scalafix and scalameta all return unrelated projects.

@MasseGuillaume MasseGuillaume moved this from In Progress to Backlog in Tasks Jun 20, 2017
@MasseGuillaume MasseGuillaume moved this from Backlog to In Progress in Tasks Jun 27, 2017
@MasseGuillaume MasseGuillaume moved this from In Progress to Done in Tasks Jun 30, 2017
@MasseGuillaume MasseGuillaume moved this from Done to Deployed in Tasks Jun 30, 2017
@MasseGuillaume MasseGuillaume moved this from Deployed to Done in Tasks Jun 30, 2017
@MasseGuillaume MasseGuillaume moved this from Done to Deployed in Tasks Jun 30, 2017
@MasseGuillaume MasseGuillaume moved this from Deployed to Done in Tasks Jun 30, 2017
@MasseGuillaume MasseGuillaume moved this from Done to Deployed in Tasks Jul 2, 2017
@MasseGuillaume MasseGuillaume removed this from Deployed in Tasks Jul 3, 2017
@MasseGuillaume MasseGuillaume added this to In Progress in Tasks Jul 11, 2017
@MasseGuillaume

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

@MasseGuillaume MasseGuillaume commented Jul 11, 2017

Let's merge this issue with this one #389

I added test cases for relevance issues pointed out in this issue: #389 (comment). I would be really cool if you guys could review the test.

@MasseGuillaume MasseGuillaume moved this from In Progress to Done in Tasks Jul 11, 2017
@MasseGuillaume MasseGuillaume moved this from Done to Deployed in Tasks Aug 15, 2017
@MasseGuillaume MasseGuillaume removed this from Deployed in Tasks Aug 15, 2017
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
5 participants
You can’t perform that action at this time.