-
Lewandowski, D.: Was Google nicht kann, aber Yahoo (2004)
0.00
4.4490883E-4 = product of:
0.010232903 = sum of:
0.010232903 = weight(_text_:und in 3291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.010232903 = score(doc=3291,freq=2.0), product of:
0.052235067 = queryWeight, product of:
2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
0.023567878 = queryNorm
0.19590102 = fieldWeight in 3291, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3291)
0.04347826 = coord(1/23)
- Abstract
- Die meisten Nutzer verwenden für ihre Recherchen ausschließlich Google. Allerdings zeigt sich gerade bei komplexeren Anfragen, dass diese Suchmaschine nicht immer am geeignetsten ist. Die Autorin Tara Calishain stellt in einem kostenlos verfügbaren Paper (http://www. researchbuzz.com/FourThingsFinal .pdf) vier Arten von Suchanfragen vor, die nicht mit Google, wohl aber mit Yahoo gestellt werden können. Vor allem für Webmaster sind die umfangreichen Möglichkeiten der Linksuche interessant. Für andere Profi-Rechercheure bieten sich bessere Möglichkeiten der Domainbeschränkung und die Möglichkeit, längere Suchanfragen zu formulieren.
-
Lewandowski, D.: Evaluierung von Suchmaschinen (2011)
0.00
4.4490883E-4 = product of:
0.010232903 = sum of:
0.010232903 = weight(_text_:und in 349) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.010232903 = score(doc=349,freq=2.0), product of:
0.052235067 = queryWeight, product of:
2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
0.023567878 = queryNorm
0.19590102 = fieldWeight in 349, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=349)
0.04347826 = coord(1/23)
- Abstract
- Die Evaluierung von Suchmaschinen ist von hoher Bedeutung, sowohl wenn es um die Überprüfung der Leistungsfähigkeit selbst entwickelter Systeme geht als auch, um die Qualität der bekannten Suchdienste untereinander zu vergleichen. In diesem Kapitel wird der Standardaufbau von Tests zur Messung der Retrievaleffektivität von Suchmaschinen beschrieben, um darauf aufbauend systematisch die Grenzen dieser Tests aufzuzeigen und erste Lösungsmöglichkeiten zu diskutieren. Es werden Hinweise für die Praxis gegeben, wie sich Retrievaltests mit vertretbarem Aufwand gestalten lassen, die trotzdem zu verwertbaren Ergebnissen führen.
-
Lewandowski, D.; Sünkler, S.: What does Google recommend when you want to compare insurance offerings? (2019)
0.00
3.470785E-4 = product of:
0.007982805 = sum of:
0.007982805 = product of:
0.01596561 = sum of:
0.01596561 = weight(_text_:22 in 5288) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.01596561 = score(doc=5288,freq=2.0), product of:
0.08253069 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.023567878 = 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)
0.04347826 = coord(1/23)
- Date
- 20. 1.2015 18:30:22
-
Schaer, P.; Mayr, P.; Sünkler, S.; Lewandowski, D.: How relevant is the long tail? : a relevance assessment study on million short (2016)
0.00
3.149623E-4 = product of:
0.0072441325 = sum of:
0.0072441325 = product of:
0.014488265 = sum of:
0.014488265 = weight(_text_:international in 3144) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.014488265 = score(doc=3144,freq=2.0), product of:
0.078619614 = queryWeight, product of:
3.33588 = idf(docFreq=4276, maxDocs=44218)
0.023567878 = queryNorm
0.18428308 = fieldWeight in 3144, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.33588 = idf(docFreq=4276, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3144)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.04347826 = coord(1/23)
- Footnote
- To appear in Experimental IR Meets Multilinguality, Multimodality, and Interaction. 7th International Conference of the CLEF Association, CLEF 2016, \'Evora, Portugal, September 5-8, 2016.
-
Behnert, C.; Lewandowski, D.: ¬A framework for designing retrieval effectiveness studies of library information systems using human relevance assessments (2017)
0.00
1.707938E-4 = product of:
0.0039282576 = sum of:
0.0039282576 = product of:
0.007856515 = sum of:
0.007856515 = weight(_text_:1 in 3700) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.007856515 = score(doc=3700,freq=2.0), product of:
0.057894554 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
0.023567878 = queryNorm
0.13570388 = fieldWeight in 3700, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3700)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.04347826 = coord(1/23)
- 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.
