From e85dde8c80b0995d7f513ed58b4e3eb26ff8158a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Luuk Arts
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2018 12:26:17 +0100
Subject: Update Evaluation.md

---
 Evaluation.md | 4 +++-
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

(limited to 'Evaluation.md')

diff --git a/Evaluation.md b/Evaluation.md
index 3edae0c..84bcf4e 100644
--- a/Evaluation.md
+++ b/Evaluation.md
@@ -20,8 +20,10 @@ Our conclusion is that it would be best to add `<rdfs:comment>` and `<dc:descrip
 ### Hill climbing to validate or improve the results of our statical analysis of the importance of fields.
 Unfortunately, we couldn't apply hill climbing to our own research because we did not have enough programmers in order to carry out this. In further research, it would still be interesting to apply hill climbing for search engine optimalization. Then, we could use hill climbing to add all the fields to the index in order to test the importance of those fields. It would be interesting to see how this hill climbing algorithm can be optimized.
 
+#### In welk opzicht is Hill Climbing beter dan statical analysis?
+
 ### Adding the fields to the index and comparing the new NDCG scores with baseline runs.
-In further research, it would also be interesting to really implement the suggestion we do now. In that case, we would add the fields: `<rdfs:comment>` and `<dc:description>` to see whether it really optimizes the seach results. In that case we would have to add those fields to the index and compare them with the NDCG scores with baseline runs.
+In further research, it would also be interesting to really implement the suggestion we do now. In that case, we would add the fields: `<rdfs:comment>` and `<dc:description>` to see whether it really optimizes the search results. In that case we would have to add those fields to the index and compare them with the NDCG scores with baseline runs.
 
 
 
-- 
cgit v1.2.3