Search (45 results, page 2 of 3)

  • × author_ss:"Lewandowski, D."
  • × theme_ss:"Suchmaschinen"
  1. Lewandowski, D.; Kerkmann, F.; Rümmele, S.; Sünkler, S.: ¬An empirical investigation on search engine ad disclosure (2018) 0.00 
    0.001674345 = product of:
  0.00334869 = sum of:
    0.00334869 = product of:
      0.00669738 = sum of:
        0.00669738 = weight(_text_:a in 4115) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.00669738 = score(doc=4115,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.12611452 = fieldWeight in 4115, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4115)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    This representative study of German search engine users (N?=?1,000) focuses on the ability of users to distinguish between organic results and advertisements on Google results pages. We combine questions about Google's business with task-based studies in which users were asked to distinguish between ads and organic results in screenshots of results pages. We find that only a small percentage of users can reliably distinguish between ads and organic results, and that user knowledge of Google's business model is very limited. We conclude that ads are insufficiently labelled as such, and that many users may click on ads assuming that they are selecting organic results.
    Type
    a
  2. Lewandowski, D.: ¬The retrieval effectiveness of web search engines : considering results descriptions (2008) 0.00 
    0.0014647468 = product of:
  0.0029294936 = sum of:
    0.0029294936 = product of:
      0.005858987 = sum of:
        0.005858987 = weight(_text_:a in 2345) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.005858987 = score(doc=2345,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.11032722 = fieldWeight in 2345, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2345)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to compare five major web search engines (Google, Yahoo, MSN, Ask.com, and Seekport) for their retrieval effectiveness, taking into account not only the results, but also the results descriptions. Design/methodology/approach - The study uses real-life queries. Results are made anonymous and are randomized. Results are judged by the persons posing the original queries. Findings - The two major search engines, Google and Yahoo, perform best, and there are no significant differences between them. Google delivers significantly more relevant result descriptions than any other search engine. This could be one reason for users perceiving this engine as superior. Research limitations/implications - The study is based on a user model where the user takes into account a certain amount of results rather systematically. This may not be the case in real life. Practical implications - The paper implies that search engines should focus on relevant descriptions. Searchers are advised to use other search engines in addition to Google. Originality/value - This is the first major study comparing results and descriptions systematically and proposes new retrieval measures to take into account results descriptions.
    Type
    a
  3. Lewandowski, D.; Sünkler, S.; Kerkmann, F.: Are ads on Google search engine results pages labeled clearly enough? : the influence of knowledge on search ads on users' selection behaviour (2017) 0.00 
    0.0014647468 = product of:
  0.0029294936 = sum of:
    0.0029294936 = product of:
      0.005858987 = sum of:
        0.005858987 = weight(_text_:a in 3567) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.005858987 = score(doc=3567,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.11032722 = fieldWeight in 3567, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3567)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    In an online experiment using a representative sample of the German online population (n = 1.000), we compare users' selection behaviour on two versions of the same Google search engine results page (SERP), one showing advertisements and organic results, the other showing organic results only. Selection behaviour is analyzed in relation to users' knowledge on Google's business model, on SERP design, and on these users' actual performance in marking advertisements on SERPs correctly. We find that users who were not able to mark ads correctly selected ads significantly more often. This leads to the conclusion that ads need to be labeled more clearly, and that there is a need for more information literacy in search engine users.
    Type
    a
  4. Lewandowski, D.; Krewinkel, A.; Gleissner, M.; Osterode, D.; Tolg, B.; Holle, M.; Sünkler, S.: Entwicklung und Anwendung einer Software zur automatisierten Kontrolle des Lebensmittelmarktes im Internet mit informationswissenschaftlichen Methoden (2019) 0.00 
    0.0014351527 = product of:
  0.0028703054 = sum of:
    0.0028703054 = product of:
      0.005740611 = sum of:
        0.005740611 = weight(_text_:a in 5025) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.005740611 = score(doc=5025,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.10809815 = fieldWeight in 5025, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5025)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Type
    a
  5. Lewandowski, D.: Wie können sich Bibliotheken gegenüber Wissenschaftssuchmaschinen positionieren? (2007) 0.00 
    0.001353075 = product of:
  0.00270615 = sum of:
    0.00270615 = product of:
      0.0054123 = sum of:
        0.0054123 = weight(_text_:a in 5112) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0054123 = score(doc=5112,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.10191591 = fieldWeight in 5112, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5112)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Type
    a
  6. Lewandowski, D.: "Find what I mean not what I say" : Neuere Ansätze zur Qualifizierung von Suchmaschinen-Ergebnissen (2001) 0.00 
    0.001353075 = product of:
  0.00270615 = sum of:
    0.00270615 = product of:
      0.0054123 = sum of:
        0.0054123 = weight(_text_:a in 5932) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0054123 = score(doc=5932,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.10191591 = fieldWeight in 5932, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5932)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Type
    a
  7. Lewandowski, D.: Aktualität als erfolgskritischer Faktor bei Suchmaschinen (2006) 0.00 
    0.001353075 = product of:
  0.00270615 = sum of:
    0.00270615 = product of:
      0.0054123 = sum of:
        0.0054123 = weight(_text_:a in 1816) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0054123 = score(doc=1816,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.10191591 = fieldWeight in 1816, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1816)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Type
    a
  8. Lewandowski, D.: Was Google nicht kann, aber Yahoo (2004) 0.00 
    0.001353075 = product of:
  0.00270615 = sum of:
    0.00270615 = product of:
      0.0054123 = sum of:
        0.0054123 = weight(_text_:a in 3291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0054123 = score(doc=3291,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.10191591 = fieldWeight in 3291, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3291)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Type
    a
  9. Lewandowski, D.: Evaluierung von Suchmaschinen (2011) 0.00 
    0.001353075 = product of:
  0.00270615 = sum of:
    0.00270615 = product of:
      0.0054123 = sum of:
        0.0054123 = weight(_text_:a in 349) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0054123 = score(doc=349,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.10191591 = fieldWeight in 349, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=349)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Type
    a
  10. Lewandowski, D.: Wie "Next Generation Search Systems" die Suche auf eine neue Ebene heben und die Informationswelt verändern (2017) 0.00 
    0.001353075 = product of:
  0.00270615 = sum of:
    0.00270615 = product of:
      0.0054123 = sum of:
        0.0054123 = weight(_text_:a in 3611) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0054123 = score(doc=3611,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.10191591 = fieldWeight in 3611, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3611)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Type
    a
  11. Lewandowski, D.: ¬The retrieval effectiveness of search engines on navigational queries (2011) 0.00 
    0.0011959607 = product of:
  0.0023919214 = sum of:
    0.0023919214 = product of:
      0.0047838427 = sum of:
        0.0047838427 = weight(_text_:a in 4537) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0047838427 = score(doc=4537,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.090081796 = fieldWeight in 4537, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4537)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    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.
    Type
    a
  12. Lewandowski, D.: Suchmaschinen als Konkurrenten der Bibliothekskataloge : Wie Bibliotheken ihre Angebote durch Suchmaschinentechnologie attraktiver und durch Öffnung für die allgemeinen Suchmaschinen populärer machen können (2006) 0.00 
    0.0011839407 = product of:
  0.0023678814 = sum of:
    0.0023678814 = product of:
      0.0047357627 = sum of:
        0.0047357627 = weight(_text_:a in 3449) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0047357627 = score(doc=3449,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.089176424 = fieldWeight in 3449, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3449)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Type
    a
  13. Lewandowski, D.: Nachweis deutschsprachiger bibliotheks- und informationswissenschaftlicher Aufsätze in Google Scholar (2007) 0.00 
    0.0011839407 = product of:
  0.0023678814 = sum of:
    0.0023678814 = product of:
      0.0047357627 = sum of:
        0.0047357627 = weight(_text_:a in 284) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0047357627 = score(doc=284,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.089176424 = fieldWeight in 284, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=284)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Type
    a
  14. Lewandowski, D.: Perspektiven eines Open Web Index (2016) 0.00 
    0.0011839407 = product of:
  0.0023678814 = sum of:
    0.0023678814 = product of:
      0.0047357627 = sum of:
        0.0047357627 = weight(_text_:a in 2935) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0047357627 = score(doc=2935,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.089176424 = fieldWeight in 2935, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2935)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Type
    a
  15. Behnert, C.; Plassmeier, K.; Borst, T.; Lewandowski, D.: Evaluierung von Rankingverfahren für bibliothekarische Informationssysteme (2019) 0.00 
    0.0011839407 = product of:
  0.0023678814 = sum of:
    0.0023678814 = product of:
      0.0047357627 = sum of:
        0.0047357627 = weight(_text_:a in 5023) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0047357627 = score(doc=5023,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.089176424 = fieldWeight in 5023, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5023)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Type
    a
  16. Lewandowski, D.: Zusammenarbeit von Google, Yahoo und Microsoft (2005) 0.00 
    0.0010253227 = product of:
  0.0020506454 = sum of:
    0.0020506454 = product of:
      0.004101291 = sum of:
        0.004101291 = weight(_text_:a in 3378) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.004101291 = score(doc=3378,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.07722905 = fieldWeight in 3378, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3378)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Content
    "Alle drei Suchmaschinen werden künftig das neue "Nofollow"-Attribut unterstützen. Dieses kennzeichnet, dass der damit ausgezeichnete Link nicht von Suchmaschinen verfolgt werden soll. Der Hintergrund dafür ist die automatisierte Vermüllung von Gästebüchern, Foren und Weblogs. Bisher werden solche Links ebenso in das Ranking mit einberechnet wie jeder andere Link auch. Die Links sind für die Suchmaschinen von großer Bedeutung, da sie als eine Stimme für eine Seite gezählt werden, d.h. es wird angenommen, dass ein Link eine Empfehlung für diejenige Seite ist, auf die verlinkt wird. Vereinfacht bedeutet dies, dass Suchmaschinen oftverlinkte Seiten auf höheren Rangplätzen zeigen als weniger verlinkte Seiten. Diese Berechnung wird durch automatisch erzeugte Links ad absurdum geführt. Um die Anzahl der Links auf ihre Seiten zu erhöhen, greifen Spammer immer mehr Foren, Gästebücher und Weblogs an und hinterlassen in diesen Hinweise auf ihre Seiten. Mit dem neuen Attribut ist es möglich, sämtliche Links beispielsweise in einem Gästebuch so auszuzeichnen, dass sie von den Suchmaschinen nicht mehr beachtet werden. Die Nicht-Beachtung äußert sich auf mehreren Ebenen: - Die Links werden von den Suchmaschinen nicht mehr verfolgt. Dies bedeutet, dass diejenigen Seiten, auf die verlinkt wird, unter Umständen nicht mehr in den Index der Suchmaschinen aufgenommen werden. Allerdings dürfte dieser Fall in der Praxis nur selten auftauchen, da von nahezu allen Seiten angenommen werden kann, dass sie auch auf konventionelle Weise verlinkt sind. - Die entsprechend ausgezeichneten Links werden nicht in die Kalkulation des Rankings mit einbezogen. Dadurch soll verhindert werden, dass die entsprechend verlinkten Seiten aufgrund ihrer vermeintlichen Popularität auf den vorderen Plätzen der Trefferlisten auftauchen. - Auch die Ankertexte, also der in den meisten Web-Browsern blau unterstrichene Text, wird bei diesen Links nicht ausgewertet Die Ankertexte dienen den Suchmaschinen, den Text der indexierten Dokumente durch weitere Wörter anzureichern, die das Dokument beschreiben, aber nur in externen Dokumenten vorkommen. Letztlich bedeutet das Setzen eines "Nofollow"-Attributs also nicht, dass die Zielseite schlecht beurteilt wird. Zumindest sehen dies die Suchmaschinen-Betreiber nicht vor. Um Links mit dem "Nofollow"-Attribut anzulegen, muss folgende Syntax verwendetwerden: <a href="http://www. server.de/seite.html" rel="nofollow">Ankertext</a>. Gegenüber anderen Links unterscheiden sich diese nur durch das hier hervorgehobene Attribut. Es erscheint wenig sinnvoll, manuell solche Links anzulegen. Sobald man aber den Besuchern einer Website erlaubt, selbst Inhalte mit Links anzulegen, ist der (automatisierte) Einsatz sinnvoll. Auch diese neue Initiative der großen Suchmaschinen wird die Spam-Flut in den Trefferlisten nicht verhindern, wohl aber ein wenig mindern. Bemerkenswert ist die Tatsache, dass die drei großen Suchmaschinen diesmal an einem Strang ziehen: Dies könnte als ein erster Schritt gesehen werden, dass die Suchmaschinen sich tatsächlich als Branche begreifen und die Notwendigkeit erkannt haben, gemeinsame Regeln und Standards zu schaffen. Bleibt die Frage, wieso die vierte der größeren (US-)Suchmaschinen, Ask Jeeves, nicht mit dabei ist. Diese lässt knapp verlauten, dass man in der eigenen Suchmaschine das Problem nicht in dem Maße hätte wie Google oder Yahoo. Man werde ein anderes Verfahren einsetzen, um die Wertigkeit von Links zu berechnen."
    Type
    a
  17. Lewandowski, D.: Bewertung von linktopologischen Verfahren als bestimmender Ranking-Faktor bei WWW Suchmaschinen (2006) 0.00 
    0.0010148063 = product of:
  0.0020296127 = sum of:
    0.0020296127 = product of:
      0.0040592253 = sum of:
        0.0040592253 = weight(_text_:a in 5892) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0040592253 = score(doc=5892,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.07643694 = fieldWeight in 5892, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5892)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Type
    a
  18. Lewandowski, D.: Mit welchen Kennzahlen lässt sich die Qualität von Suchmaschinen messen? (2007) 0.00 
    0.0010148063 = product of:
  0.0020296127 = sum of:
    0.0020296127 = product of:
      0.0040592253 = sum of:
        0.0040592253 = weight(_text_:a in 378) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0040592253 = score(doc=378,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.07643694 = fieldWeight in 378, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=378)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Type
    a
  19. Lewandowski, D.; Sünkler, S.; Hanisch, F.: Anzeigenkennzeichnung auf Suchergebnisseiten : Empirische Ergebnisse und Implikationen für die Forschung (2019) 0.00 
    0.0010148063 = product of:
  0.0020296127 = sum of:
    0.0020296127 = product of:
      0.0040592253 = sum of:
        0.0040592253 = weight(_text_:a in 5022) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0040592253 = score(doc=5022,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.07643694 = fieldWeight in 5022, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5022)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Type
    a
  20. Lewandowski, D.; Sünkler, S.: ¬Das Relevance Assessment Tool : eine modulare Software zur Unterstützung bei der Durchführung vielfältiger Studien mit Suchmaschinen (2019) 0.00 
    0.0010148063 = product of:
  0.0020296127 = sum of:
    0.0020296127 = product of:
      0.0040592253 = sum of:
        0.0040592253 = weight(_text_:a in 5026) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0040592253 = score(doc=5026,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.07643694 = fieldWeight in 5026, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5026)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Type
    a

Authors

Years

Languages

  • d 32
  • e 14

Types

  • a 45
  • el 2
  • More… Less…

Themes