On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 14:10:15 +0100, zimoun wrote:
> Well, your comment is pointing: a) that the description is badly
> written and b) the 'relevance' score is too rough.

[...]

> The real problem is not the non-obvious name (ghc-pandoc instead of
> simply pandoc) but it is: a) some descriptions are badly written and
> b) the 'relevance' scoring function is not enough "smart" to detect
> them.

Thank you for taking the time to explain this.

-- 
Mike Gerwitz