Search (32 results, page 2 of 2)

  • × author_ss:"Bar-Ilan, J."
  • × type_ss:"a"
  1. Lazinger, S.S.; Bar-Ilan, J.; Peritz, B.C.: Internet use by faculty members in various disciplines : a comparative case study (1997) 0.00
    0.0041178903 = product of:
      0.01235367 = sum of:
        0.01235367 = weight(_text_:information in 390) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01235367 = score(doc=390,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09099081 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0518325 = queryNorm
            0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 390, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=390)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 48(1997) no.6, S.508-518
  2. Bar-Ilan, J.: Evaluating the stability of the search tools Hotbot and Snap : a case study (2000) 0.00
    0.0041178903 = product of:
      0.01235367 = sum of:
        0.01235367 = weight(_text_:information in 1180) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01235367 = score(doc=1180,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09099081 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0518325 = queryNorm
            0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 1180, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1180)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    Source
    Online information review. 24(2000) no.6, S.439-449
  3. Bar-Ilan, J.; Peritz, B.C.: Evolution, continuity, and disappearance of documents on a specific topic an the Web : a longitudinal study of "informetrics" (2004) 0.00
    0.0041178903 = product of:
      0.01235367 = sum of:
        0.01235367 = weight(_text_:information in 2886) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01235367 = score(doc=2886,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09099081 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0518325 = queryNorm
            0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 2886, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2886)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 55(2004) no.11, S.980-990
  4. Bar-Ilan, J.; Azoulay, R.: Map of nonprofit organization websites in Israel (2012) 0.00
    0.0035296201 = product of:
      0.01058886 = sum of:
        0.01058886 = weight(_text_:information in 253) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01058886 = score(doc=253,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09099081 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0518325 = queryNorm
            0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 253, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=253)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 63(2012) no.6, S.1142-1167
  5. Shema, H.; Bar-Ilan, J.; Thelwall, M.: Do blog citations correlate with a higher number of future citations? : Research blogs as a potential source for alternative metrics (2014) 0.00
    0.0035296201 = product of:
      0.01058886 = sum of:
        0.01058886 = weight(_text_:information in 1258) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01058886 = score(doc=1258,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09099081 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0518325 = queryNorm
            0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 1258, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1258)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 65(2014) no.5, S.1018-1027
  6. Bar-Ilan, J.; Keenoy, K.; Levene, M.; Yaari, E.: Presentation bias is significant in determining user preference for search results : a user study (2009) 0.00
    0.00294135 = product of:
      0.0088240495 = sum of:
        0.0088240495 = weight(_text_:information in 2703) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0088240495 = score(doc=2703,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09099081 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0518325 = queryNorm
            0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 2703, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2703)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 60(2009) no.1, S.135-149
  7. Barsky, E.; Bar-Ilan, J.: ¬The impact of task phrasing on the choice of search keywords and on the search process and success (2012) 0.00
    0.00294135 = product of:
      0.0088240495 = sum of:
        0.0088240495 = weight(_text_:information in 455) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0088240495 = score(doc=455,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09099081 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0518325 = queryNorm
            0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 455, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=455)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 63(2012) no.10, S.1987-2005
  8. Shema, H.; Bar-Ilan, J.; Thelwall, M.: How is research blogged? : A content analysis approach (2015) 0.00
    0.00294135 = product of:
      0.0088240495 = sum of:
        0.0088240495 = weight(_text_:information in 1863) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0088240495 = score(doc=1863,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09099081 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0518325 = queryNorm
            0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 1863, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1863)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 66(2015) no.6, S.1136-1149
  9. Zhitomirsky-Geffet, M.; Erez, E.S.; Bar-Ilan, J.: Toward multiviewpoint ontology construction by collaboration of non-experts and crowdsourcing : the case of the effect of diet on health (2017) 0.00
    0.00294135 = product of:
      0.0088240495 = sum of:
        0.0088240495 = weight(_text_:information in 3439) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0088240495 = score(doc=3439,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09099081 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0518325 = queryNorm
            0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 3439, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3439)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 68(2017) no.3, S.681-694
  10. Zhitomirsky-Geffet, M.; Bar-Ilan, J.; Levene, M.: Analysis of change in users' assessment of search results over time (2017) 0.00
    0.00294135 = product of:
      0.0088240495 = sum of:
        0.0088240495 = weight(_text_:information in 3593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0088240495 = score(doc=3593,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09099081 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0518325 = queryNorm
            0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 3593, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3593)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 68(2017) no.5, S.1137-1148
  11. Zhitomirsky-Geffet, M.; Bar-Ilan, J.; Levene, M.: Categorical relevance judgment (2018) 0.00
    0.00294135 = product of:
      0.0088240495 = sum of:
        0.0088240495 = weight(_text_:information in 4457) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0088240495 = score(doc=4457,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09099081 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0518325 = queryNorm
            0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 4457, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4457)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 69(2018) no.9, S.1084-1094
  12. Bar-Ilan, J.; Levene, M.; Mat-Hassan, M.: Methods for evaluating dynamic changes in search engine rankings : a case study (2006) 0.00
    0.00235308 = product of:
      0.00705924 = sum of:
        0.00705924 = weight(_text_:information in 616) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.00705924 = score(doc=616,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09099081 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0518325 = queryNorm
            0.0775819 = fieldWeight in 616, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=616)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    Abstract
    Purpose - The objective of this paper is to characterize the changes in the rankings of the top ten results of major search engines over time and to compare the rankings between these engines. Design/methodology/approach - The papers compare rankings of the top-ten results of the search engines Google and AlltheWeb on ten identical queries over a period of three weeks. Only the top-ten results were considered, since users do not normally inspect more than the first results page returned by a search engine. The experiment was repeated twice, in October 2003 and in January 2004, in order to assess changes to the top-ten results of some of the queries during the three months interval. In order to assess the changes in the rankings, three measures were computed for each data collection point and each search engine. Findings - The findings in this paper show that the rankings of AlltheWeb were highly stable over each period, while the rankings of Google underwent constant yet minor changes, with occasional major ones. Changes over time can be explained by the dynamic nature of the web or by fluctuations in the search engines' indexes. The top-ten results of the two search engines had surprisingly low overlap. With such small overlap, the task of comparing the rankings of the two engines becomes extremely challenging. Originality/value - The paper shows that because of the abundance of information on the web, ranking search results is of extreme importance. The paper compares several measures for computing the similarity between rankings of search tools, and shows that none of the measures is fully satisfactory as a standalone measure. It also demonstrates the apparent differences in the ranking algorithms of two widely used search engines.