You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Hi,
I've started using Goggles and they exceed my expectations. They really give me a way to escape what is imposed by the "one size fits all" approach. Thanks.
In applying reranking offsets I'd like to use real numbers instead of integers.
For example: "/SomeDetail$boost=3.54,"
Instead of "/SomeDetail$boost=4,"
I tried that and the syntax checker doesn't accept it.
I suggest that boost or demotion amounts of real numbers would be useful.
My use of that might not need more than 3 extra digits of precision, like 3.141.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Thanks for taking the time to open an issue to make this suggestion. For simplicity's sake, we have currently limited the boost factor to be an integer. We will keep your suggestion in mind for future updates to Goggles! It might be hard to intuitively know what a float factor would result in, though, so we will need to carefully weigh this idea before making a change (it can already be challenging with integers).
Hi,
I've started using Goggles and they exceed my expectations. They really give me a way to escape what is imposed by the "one size fits all" approach. Thanks.
In applying reranking offsets I'd like to use real numbers instead of integers.
For example: "/SomeDetail$boost=3.54,"
Instead of "/SomeDetail$boost=4,"
I tried that and the syntax checker doesn't accept it.
I suggest that boost or demotion amounts of real numbers would be useful.
My use of that might not need more than 3 extra digits of precision, like 3.141.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: