Paper detail

A New Email Retrieval Ranking Approach

Email Retrieval task has recently taken much attention to help the user retrieve the email(s) related to the submitted query. Up to our knowledge, existing email retrieval ranking approaches sort the retrieved emails based on some heuristic rules, which are either search clues or some predefined user criteria rooted in email fields. Unfortunately, the user usually does not know the effective rule that acquires best ranking related to his query. This paper presents a new email retrieval ranking approach to tackle this problem. It ranks the retrieved emails based on a scoring function that depends on crucial email fields, namely subject, content, and sender. The paper also proposes an architecture to allow every user in a network/group of users to be able, if permissible, to know the most important network senders who are interested in his submitted query words. The experimental evaluation on Enron corpus prove that our approach outperforms known email retrieval ranking approaches

preprint2010arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.