-
Lewandowski, D.; Drechsler, J.; Mach, S. von: Deriving query intents from web search engine queries (2012)
0.04
0.035037868 = product of:
0.14015147 = sum of:
0.029650755 = weight(_text_:web in 385) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.029650755 = score(doc=385,freq=4.0), product of:
0.11629491 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.035634913 = queryNorm
0.25496176 = fieldWeight in 385, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=385)
0.08084996 = weight(_text_:log in 385) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08084996 = score(doc=385,freq=2.0), product of:
0.22837062 = queryWeight, product of:
6.4086204 = idf(docFreq=197, maxDocs=44218)
0.035634913 = queryNorm
0.3540296 = fieldWeight in 385, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
6.4086204 = idf(docFreq=197, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=385)
0.029650755 = weight(_text_:web in 385) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.029650755 = score(doc=385,freq=4.0), product of:
0.11629491 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.035634913 = queryNorm
0.25496176 = fieldWeight in 385, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=385)
0.25 = coord(3/12)
- Abstract
- The purpose of this article is to test the reliability of query intents derived from queries, either by the user who entered the query or by another juror. We report the findings of three studies. First, we conducted a large-scale classification study (~50,000 queries) using a crowdsourcing approach. Next, we used clickthrough data from a search engine log and validated the judgments given by the jurors from the crowdsourcing study. Finally, we conducted an online survey on a commercial search engine's portal. Because we used the same queries for all three studies, we also were able to compare the results and the effectiveness of the different approaches. We found that neither the crowdsourcing approach, using jurors who classified queries originating from other users, nor the questionnaire approach, using searchers who were asked about their own query that they just entered into a Web search engine, led to satisfying results. This leads us to conclude that there was little understanding of the classification tasks, even though both groups of jurors were given detailed instructions. Although we used manual classification, our research also has important implications for automatic classification. We must question the success of approaches using automatic classification and comparing its performance to a baseline from human jurors.
-
Schaer, P.; Mayr, P.; Sünkler, S.; Lewandowski, D.: How relevant is the long tail? : a relevance assessment study on million short (2016)
0.01
0.012104871 = product of:
0.07262922 = sum of:
0.03631461 = weight(_text_:web in 3144) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03631461 = score(doc=3144,freq=6.0), product of:
0.11629491 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.035634913 = queryNorm
0.3122631 = fieldWeight in 3144, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3144)
0.03631461 = weight(_text_:web in 3144) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03631461 = score(doc=3144,freq=6.0), product of:
0.11629491 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.035634913 = queryNorm
0.3122631 = fieldWeight in 3144, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3144)
0.16666667 = coord(2/12)
- Abstract
- Users of web search engines are known to mostly focus on the top ranked results of the search engine result page. While many studies support this well known information seeking pattern only few studies concentrate on the question what users are missing by neglecting lower ranked results. To learn more about the relevance distributions in the so-called long tail we conducted a relevance assessment study with the Million Short long-tail web search engine. While we see a clear difference in the content between the head and the tail of the search engine result list we see no statistical significant differences in the binary relevance judgments and weak significant differences when using graded relevance. The tail contains different but still valuable results. We argue that the long tail can be a rich source for the diversification of web search engine result lists but it needs more evaluation to clearly describe the differences.
-
Behnert, C.; Lewandowski, D.: ¬A framework for designing retrieval effectiveness studies of library information systems using human relevance assessments (2017)
0.01
0.009883585 = product of:
0.05930151 = sum of:
0.029650755 = weight(_text_:web in 3700) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.029650755 = score(doc=3700,freq=4.0), product of:
0.11629491 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.035634913 = queryNorm
0.25496176 = fieldWeight in 3700, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3700)
0.029650755 = weight(_text_:web in 3700) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.029650755 = score(doc=3700,freq=4.0), product of:
0.11629491 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.035634913 = queryNorm
0.25496176 = fieldWeight in 3700, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3700)
0.16666667 = coord(2/12)
- Abstract
- Purpose This paper demonstrates how to apply traditional information retrieval evaluation methods based on standards from the Text REtrieval Conference (TREC) and web search evaluation to all types of modern library information systems including online public access catalogs, discovery systems, and digital libraries that provide web search features to gather information from heterogeneous sources. Design/methodology/approach We apply conventional procedures from information retrieval evaluation to the library information system context considering the specific characteristics of modern library materials. Findings We introduce a framework consisting of five parts: (1) search queries, (2) search results, (3) assessors, (4) testing, and (5) data analysis. We show how to deal with comparability problems resulting from diverse document types, e.g., electronic articles vs. printed monographs and what issues need to be considered for retrieval tests in the library context. Practical implications The framework can be used as a guideline for conducting retrieval effectiveness studies in the library context. Originality/value Although a considerable amount of research has been done on information retrieval evaluation, and standards for conducting retrieval effectiveness studies do exist, to our knowledge this is the first attempt to provide a systematic framework for evaluating the retrieval effectiveness of twenty-first-century library information systems. We demonstrate which issues must be considered and what decisions must be made by researchers prior to a retrieval test.
-
Lewandowski, D.: ¬A framework for evaluating the retrieval effectiveness of search engines (2012)
0.01
0.0083865 = product of:
0.050318997 = sum of:
0.025159499 = weight(_text_:web in 106) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.025159499 = score(doc=106,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11629491 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.035634913 = queryNorm
0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 106, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=106)
0.025159499 = weight(_text_:web in 106) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.025159499 = score(doc=106,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11629491 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.035634913 = queryNorm
0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 106, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=106)
0.16666667 = coord(2/12)
- Abstract
- This chapter presents a theoretical framework for evaluating next generation search engines. The author focuses on search engines whose results presentation is enriched with additional information and does not merely present the usual list of "10 blue links," that is, of ten links to results, accompanied by a short description. While Web search is used as an example here, the framework can easily be applied to search engines in any other area. The framework not only addresses the results presentation, but also takes into account an extension of the general design of retrieval effectiveness tests. The chapter examines the ways in which this design might influence the results of such studies and how a reliable test is best designed.
-
Lewandowski, D.: Evaluating the retrieval effectiveness of web search engines using a representative query sample (2015)
0.01
0.0083865 = product of:
0.050318997 = sum of:
0.025159499 = weight(_text_:web in 2157) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.025159499 = score(doc=2157,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11629491 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.035634913 = queryNorm
0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 2157, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2157)
0.025159499 = weight(_text_:web in 2157) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.025159499 = score(doc=2157,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11629491 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.035634913 = queryNorm
0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 2157, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2157)
0.16666667 = coord(2/12)
-
Lewandowski, D.: ¬The retrieval effectiveness of search engines on navigational queries (2011)
0.01
0.0069887503 = product of:
0.0419325 = sum of:
0.02096625 = weight(_text_:web in 4537) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02096625 = score(doc=4537,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11629491 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.035634913 = queryNorm
0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 4537, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4537)
0.02096625 = weight(_text_:web in 4537) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02096625 = score(doc=4537,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11629491 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.035634913 = queryNorm
0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 4537, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4537)
0.16666667 = coord(2/12)
- Abstract
- Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to test major web search engines on their performance on navigational queries, i.e. searches for homepages. Design/methodology/approach - In total, 100 user queries are posed to six search engines (Google, Yahoo!, MSN, Ask, Seekport, and Exalead). Users described the desired pages, and the results position of these was recorded. Measured success and mean reciprocal rank are calculated. Findings - The performance of the major search engines Google, Yahoo!, and MSN was found to be the best, with around 90 per cent of queries answered correctly. Ask and Exalead performed worse but received good scores as well. Research limitations/implications - All queries were in German, and the German-language interfaces of the search engines were used. Therefore, the results are only valid for German queries. Practical implications - When designing a search engine to compete with the major search engines, care should be taken on the performance on navigational queries. Users can be influenced easily in their quality ratings of search engines based on this performance. Originality/value - This study systematically compares the major search engines on navigational queries and compares the findings with studies on the retrieval effectiveness of the engines on informational queries.
-
Lewandowski, D.; Spree, U.: Ranking of Wikipedia articles in search engines revisited : fair ranking for reasonable quality? (2011)
0.00
0.0010058414 = product of:
0.012070097 = sum of:
0.012070097 = product of:
0.024140194 = sum of:
0.024140194 = weight(_text_:22 in 444) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.024140194 = score(doc=444,freq=2.0), product of:
0.12478739 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.035634913 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 444, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=444)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.083333336 = coord(1/12)
- Date
- 30. 9.2012 19:27:22
-
Lewandowski, D.; Sünkler, S.: What does Google recommend when you want to compare insurance offerings? (2019)
0.00
0.0010058414 = product of:
0.012070097 = sum of:
0.012070097 = product of:
0.024140194 = sum of:
0.024140194 = weight(_text_:22 in 5288) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.024140194 = score(doc=5288,freq=2.0), product of:
0.12478739 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.035634913 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5288, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5288)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.083333336 = coord(1/12)
- Date
- 20. 1.2015 18:30:22
