Things that I'd still love to see.

OK folks, suggestion: we need a one page printout /PDF containing all the little keyboard shortcuts.  I'll tape it  up by my desk for a while.

I'd be happy just to have the help files. Then if they didn't have the shortcut keys I'd ask for more.

Chris

We have ranks per article, since that's the unit we're searching. How do you suggest we map this to books? The book with the highest ranking article, or the highest average rank across the articles in which it has hits? In other words...

Book A: 3 articles, ranked 90, 10 and 10.

Book B: 2 articles, ranked 80 and 70.

Which book ranks highest?

How about Book C, with 50 articles with hits, all ranked in the 60's?

Book D, with a 91 and fifty articles ranked below 10? 

I think just totaling the hits (or totaling the article rank) for all the articles in a book and sorting the books that way would be better than alphabetical, for me.

Or why not the highest average rank across the all the book's articles (not just the articles with hits)? That way the books that have more articles with hits, hit higher.  If I'm ranking books, I don't care so much to see a dictionary with a high ranking article in it (that can be found in the current "Ranked" search).  Rather, I want to find a book that discusses it throughout, so all the articles should figure in the ranking.  It might be better than just totaling the hits for a book, but I don't know.

PLUS, I think book ranking should include the data from the library ranking algorithm as well. If the search string is in the title or subject fields then it should have a strong influence on the book ranking higher than a book with an equivalent article hit rank.

And what title? The hits are shown either "Ranked" or "By Book", but "Ranked by Book" isn't really accurate. It's more like "Ranked, Grouped By Book" -- but this depends on the answer to the ranking definition....

Change them to these three options:

"Ranked by Article" / "Sorted by Book" / "Ranked by Book"

How do you suggest we map this to books?

My
first thought is that any arrangement would likely do a better job of
producing useful results than the current alphabetical arrangement,
which seems to put almost completely unrelated books in the top spots.

I can think of three possibilities in keeping with Bob's above:

1.
"Book with highest article of Rank first" - This would put the books in
this order D, A, B, C (This will find articles most relevant to the
topic, though the book may cover a variety of topics (encyclopedias,
dictionaries, systematic theologies, etc)

2. "Book with Highest Average first" - Order: B, A, C, D (This may mean a book about the topic, although the specific hits are
throughout the book rather than concentrated in one article.)

3. "Book with most articles with hits" - Order: C/D, A, B (Like #2, this may be a book about the topic which hits scattered throughout rather than concentrated.)

Note: This would still likely put books A, B, C and D all at the
top of the list above E, F, .... which only have 1 random hit, but may
still show up at the top of an alphabetical list. So no matter what
system is chosen would still be better than alphabetical.

Which to choose:

Why not put the choice for all three, at least now in the Beta stage? Let us see how they work out in practice and give our thoughts.

If
I have to chose one without trying it, I would tend to go with #1. This
may move books about the topic slightly lower on the list, but would
dig up many articles that focus on that topic.

Again, no matter which scenario is chosen, I think it will be better than a straight alphabetical and the top 10 books will have a lot of similarities no matter which method is used since the random, one hit books will all get moved to the bottom.

It shouldn't be too hard for you Thomas. Just search for "handouts"  

ROTFLOL [:D]   I literally laughed till I had tears in my eyes.

Ok, so I'm persistent.  It used to be that way with Andrew and notes in L3.