Dave,
Thanks for reminding me about the A, B, C and D rankings.
It's definitely a good idea to split these 4 rankings (+ fulltext) into 5 db columns. It's important to note that right now the FTS interface only supports 2 columns (afaicr): title and text. We'll have to keep a backwards-compatible 2-field interface as well as providing a 5-field interface.
In my experience, I tend to use the B ranking for most titles. That keeps the A ranking free as a "trump card" when needed. I find it helpful to use it when I know I have a certain class of results that I want to sort to the top or if I want to give a bit more priority to content that has only one line (such as links) of text versus content that has 5K of text.
Do you think we need to assign semantic names to A, B, C, and D, or should we leave them with those nonsemantic names? Personally I haven't been able to think of suitable names, so I might just leave them as A, B, C, and D. The letters probably make enough sense to a programmer anyway and they're the only ones who are going to be dealing with this code.
