## Work

• The highlight is that I came up with a new formulation for how we compute search result relevancy. We decided to stop our existing A/B test after noticing some really strange results—it looked like Elasticsearch 6 was ranking popular pages highly for all sorts of queries simply because the query and the page both contained a common word like “your”. Our metrics showed that people were refining their searches more with ES6, and clicking on results less. We also got a support ticket from a department. Not great.

At first we thought that this was because we switched from classic similarity to BM25 similarity, so we just undid that change, going back to classic similarity. Unfortunately, ES6 removed a feature which was essential for the classic similarity to work.

If you have a bool query with several clauses, like our old core query:

{
bool: {
should: [
core_query.match_phrase("title"),
core_query.match_phrase("acronym"),
core_query.match_phrase("description"),
core_query.match_phrase("indexable_content"),
core_query.match_all_terms(%w(title acronym description indexable_content)),
core_query.match_any_terms(%w(title acronym description indexable_content)),
core_query.minimum_should_match("all_searchable_text")
],
}
}


Then in ES5 and below, the score is:

sum(clause_scores) * num_matching_clauses / num_clauses

Whereas in ES6 and above, it’s just sum(clause_scores). This totally threw off our relevancy scores. The ES6 changelog had this to say:

As a consequence, use of the TF-IDF similarity is now discouraged as this was an important component of the quality of the scores that this similarity produces. BM25 is recommended instead.

So we had to stick with BM25, and solve the weird over-weighting of common words.

I’ll skip the trail of discovery, and give you the result. This is what the new core query looks like:

{
dis_max: {
queries: [
core_query.match_phrase("title", boost: 5),
core_query.match_phrase("acronym", boost: 5),
core_query.match_phrase("description", boost: 2),
core_query.match_phrase("indexable_content"),
core_query.match_all_terms(%w(title acronym description indexable_content)),
core_query.match_any_terms(%w(title acronym description indexable_content), boost: 0.2),
core_query.minimum_should_match("all_searchable_text", boost: 0.2)
],
tie_breaker: 0.7
}
}


This has the score:

max(clause_scores) + 0.7 * (sum(clause_scores) - max(clause_scores))

Where the clause scores are as they were before, but multiplied by the boost factors.

The main thoughts I had when coming up with this were:

• If two clauses match, that’s good, but not twice as good as one clause matching (which was what the should gave)
• Titles, acronyms, and descriptions are the most important fields (in that order)
• If only some of the terms are present, then that’s good enough to get the document included in the results, but shouldn’t influence the scores anywhere near as much as the other factors

We manually inspected the results for a hundred or so popular search queries, and there was some weirdness, but on the whole it looked much better than what we had before.

On Friday afternoon we started the A/B test again, this time comparing ES5 with the old query against ES6 with the new query.

Something nice to do in the future would be to sit down and start from scratch, thinking about what makes a document relevant to a query, rather than tweak what we already have (which is what I did). But since ES5 is end-of-life we want to switch to ES6 soon, so a good-enough tweaked query is fine for now.

## Miscellaneous

• I switched to ProtonMail, which went pretty smoothly. But I’m unable to import my emails from gmail, as the import/export tool keeps crashing with an invalid pointer dereference. It’s a Go program, and as I understand it the justification for the verbosity and awkwardness of Go is that it makes it easy to write correct programs. I’m not convinced…

I’m waiting to hear back from support on that, and then I should be able to never look at my gmail account again.

• My Call of Cthulhu game reached the thrilling conclusion of another chapter. I just need to get the players to decide whether they’re going to Australia, Egypt, or Kenya, and then I can start to prepare the next big chunk.