A possible approach @Falco could be a reverse approach of what our icurrent one does
For each topic try to extract/create 20 or so keywords and layer them on top of the existing keywords
I wonder if that helps
3개의 좋아요
Our relevance search does not take into account views or pagerank. And to add complication, views in all time can get really high skewing stuff so we probably would need views by year or something to correct for that.
But… with pagerank / accounting for view counts / likes it is possible we can come up with a far better relevance algorithm.
This is complex stuff, a multi trillion dollar company was built on these ideas and another multi trillion dollar company has no easy way catching up.
10개의 좋아요
거기서 고쳤습니다 … 이제 #1 위치에 있습니다.
과거에 @tgxworld와 @JammyDodger와 이 문제를 논의한 적이 있었는데, 여기서 우리가 매우 나쁜 결과를 만들어냈습니다.
간단한 우회 방법은 다음과 같습니다.
Customization > Plugin 카테고리의 모든 주제를 하나씩 살펴보고 끝에 "Plugin"을 추가하는 것입니다.
Discourse Advertising Plugin
Discourse Chat Plugin
그리고 그 외…
제목이 "win"과 일치하므로 예를 들어
- Customization > Plugin 카테고리의
Advertising는 random 카테고리의Discourse Advertising Plugin question에 패배합니다.
카테고리와 태그를 추가하여 제목 인덱스를 “부풀릴” 수 있습니다 - 저는 구글이 아마도 그렇게 하고 있다고 생각합니다.
따라서 인덱싱을 이렇게 하는 대신:
최우선 순위 “Discourse Advertising”
두 번째 “plugin”
세 번째 우선 순위 “content”
우리는 이렇게 인덱싱할 수 있습니다
최우선 순위 “Discourse Advertising - plugin tag1 tag2”
물론 우회 방법은 다음을 검색하는 것입니다:
#customization:plugin chat…
vs
참고로 … 지금 모든 공식 플러그인을 가서 수정하는 것도 좋을 것 같습니다, 몇 분만 걸릴 테니까요.
4개의 좋아요
How about taking into account the number of links to the topic?
2개의 좋아요
Yes, that is page rank, I mentioned that
So many trade offs though, should an exact title match lose to high page rank?
2개의 좋아요
No. Exact titles are what I must often look for, but I’m pretty special. When I’m looking for a “why didn’t you do a search” link I’m mostly looking for things I know exist (a step away from standard install, for many months I was stumped that “straightforward” would no longer find the Configure direct-delivery incoming email for self-hosted sites with Mail-Receiver, but I recently got it renamed so “mail receiver” works)
Ah. Now I see that you said that.
For the things I actually search for that I don’t know that I’m looking for, the most-recent usually does best.
FWIW, on my own (largely just for me) sites, with relatively few topics and posts, I think search works pretty well!
4개의 좋아요
This is the way, there are many search tools to test before wasting too much effort on the internal one. I don’t know any site with an internal search that doesn’t get this complain. Even reddit which is one of the largest sites around get criticized for their search.
1개의 좋아요
By correlating user behavior during searches and reading (and possibly through inquiries, as Google Maps does, for example), Discourse could internally generate knowledge about anticipated outcomes of queries.
I also wonder if AI could help steer a conversation towards the desired results. Such a dialog could start with a button that says: “I am dissatisfied with the results”. The role of the AI would then be to ask questions whose answers either narrow down the range of outcomes or prioritize them appropriately.
A typesense plugin sounds amazing.
Good topic! Search in forums is a really tricky thing, and the solution of using Google tends to come up a bit too often for my tastes.
Would agree here. You don’t want old topics to dominate your search results.
Judging from my own search expectations, I would want the best results to be threads that are both recent and active, and which are a good match in terms of title and category. And even after that I would prefer recency to have a notable impact, because I often search for things that I vaguely remember.
Unfortunately also true. Personally, I’m not even sure how much links would really contribute to relevance (though they probably would be a factor), because in the forums I’m active in, but which are not support or technical forums of some kind, linking is relatively rare.
So I tend to consider recency and activity, i.e. number of views, likes/reactions, replies, within the not-too-distant past more important (not if this is also factored into the current search implementation or not).
3개의 좋아요
I think it’s worth looking the algorithm reddit uses for it’s “hot” score:
That is something like
1개의 좋아요
동의합니다. 참고로, subscriptions #customization:plugin이 더 잘 작동합니다.
Yeah. Don’t make me think.
The query in the OP yields the same topics in the same order as it did one year ago (with the exception of this very topic polluting the search results…)
I was wondering, did this end up bearing fruit in any way?
4개의 좋아요
I’ve started relying too much on Google when I can’t find something here, and I don’t like that. 
That’s said. I’m sure the team will find a way to improve the search sooner or later.
6개의 좋아요
We learned a good amount from the experiment, but it was eating up a lot of time and we have switched to other priorities.
6개의 좋아요
May I know the current state of the experiment? Should it be continued, or does it need to be started from scratch?
I don’thave much experience looking into the code to identify breaking changes, so a simple summary would be enough for me to understand 
Centralizing searches should give Discourse more exposure on blogs and similar websites with more online services.
That’s our initial use case; I think it could add value to offer a front door for discussing blog articles directly on the searchbar.
1개의 좋아요
The experiment was retired, it may pop up again, we are certainly still interested in improving search
1개의 좋아요
That’s nice to know, thanks!
I understand that offering a simplified search across multiple apps (wikis, blogs, docs, forums) is mandatory to realize the full potential of the new technology and the radical changes we are experiencing.
We do support algolia in an algolia plugin, so you could lean on that.
1개의 좋아요