https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=18316 Nicolas Legrand <nicolas.legrand@bulac.fr> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |nicolas.legrand@bulac.fr --- Comment #12 from Nicolas Legrand <nicolas.legrand@bulac.fr> --- (In reply to Alex Arnaud from comment #11)
(In reply to Séverine Queune from comment #10)
Patchs work as described.
I misunderstood the way to use numbers, thinking "1" was the most important field(s) I wanted to search in. Maybe a warning or more detailed description would be useful for reindex can take time for big databases, it would be sad if others make the same mistake as I. You mean add a warning to tell users that more the weight is hight more the field is important?
I think that's what she meant.
This weighting add a lot of relevance to the simple search.
In reaction to Gaetan's comment, it also appears that having weight on sub-fields used on the same index would be great. For example, when searching with index "title" in our Unimarc system, we would like to display books that contains the searched word in 200$b before the ones in 410$t. I'm not yet confortable enough with all ES capabilities, but it could be done by adding a "other-title" search field with a different weight. Does it make sens for you?
Yes, but not to our librarians colleagues who want to describe titles in a myriad of MARC' subfield while uniting them all under one index entry. I'm not sure to be able to convince them this may not be a good idea :). The 4XX$t as a title index for instance, is a relevancy killer. I'll try to convince them to bind it to a linked-with-title index. Anyway, having a different relevancy for same index/different subfield may be another bug. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.