Search (8 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Lewandowski, D."
  1. Lewandowski, D.; Sünkler, S.: What does Google recommend when you want to compare insurance offerings? (2019) 0.05 
    0.047331374 = sum of:
  0.029767288 = product of:
    0.11906915 = sum of:
      0.11906915 = weight(_text_:authors in 5288) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.11906915 = score(doc=5288,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.2363972 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05185498 = queryNorm
          0.50368255 = fieldWeight in 5288, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5288)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.017564086 = product of:
    0.035128172 = sum of:
      0.035128172 = weight(_text_:22 in 5288) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.035128172 = score(doc=5288,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18158731 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05185498 = 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)
    Abstract
    Purpose The purpose of this paper is to describe a new method to improve the analysis of search engine results by considering the provider level as well as the domain level. This approach is tested by conducting a study using queries on the topic of insurance comparisons. Design/methodology/approach The authors conducted an empirical study that analyses the results of search queries aimed at comparing insurance companies. The authors used a self-developed software system that automatically queries commercial search engines and automatically extracts the content of the returned result pages for further data analysis. The data analysis was carried out using the KNIME Analytics Platform. Findings Google's top search results are served by only a few providers that frequently appear in these results. The authors show that some providers operate several domains on the same topic and that these domains appear for the same queries in the result lists. Research limitations/implications The authors demonstrate the feasibility of this approach and draw conclusions for further investigations from the empirical study. However, the study is a limited use case based on a limited number of search queries. Originality/value The proposed method allows large-scale analysis of the composition of the top results from commercial search engines. It allows using valid empirical data to determine what users actually see on the search engine result pages.
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22
  2. Lewandowski, D.: Alles nur noch Google? : Entwicklungen im Bereich der WWW-Suchmaschinen (2002) 0.01 
    0.014051268 = product of:
  0.028102536 = sum of:
    0.028102536 = product of:
      0.05620507 = sum of:
        0.05620507 = weight(_text_:22 in 997) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05620507 = score(doc=997,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18158731 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05185498 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 997, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=997)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    29. 9.2002 18:49:22
  3. Lewandowski, D.: Abfragesprachen und erweiterte Funktionen von WWW-Suchmaschinen (2004) 0.01 
    0.014051268 = product of:
  0.028102536 = sum of:
    0.028102536 = product of:
      0.05620507 = sum of:
        0.05620507 = weight(_text_:22 in 2314) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05620507 = score(doc=2314,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18158731 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05185498 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 2314, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2314)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    28.11.2004 13:11:22
  4. Lewandowski, D.: Query understanding (2011) 0.01 
    0.014051268 = product of:
  0.028102536 = sum of:
    0.028102536 = product of:
      0.05620507 = sum of:
        0.05620507 = weight(_text_:22 in 344) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05620507 = score(doc=344,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18158731 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05185498 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 344, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=344)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    18. 9.2018 18:22:18
  5. Lewandowski, D.: ¬Die Macht der Suchmaschinen und ihr Einfluss auf unsere Entscheidungen (2014) 0.01 
    0.01053845 = product of:
  0.0210769 = sum of:
    0.0210769 = product of:
      0.0421538 = sum of:
        0.0421538 = weight(_text_:22 in 1491) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0421538 = score(doc=1491,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18158731 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05185498 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1491, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1491)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    22. 9.2014 18:54:11
  6. Sundin, O.; Lewandowski, D.; Haider, J.: Whose relevance? : Web search engines as multisided relevance machines (2022) 0.01 
    0.01041855 = product of:
  0.0208371 = sum of:
    0.0208371 = product of:
      0.0833484 = sum of:
        0.0833484 = weight(_text_:authors in 542) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0833484 = score(doc=542,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2363972 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05185498 = queryNorm
            0.35257778 = fieldWeight in 542, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=542)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    This opinion piece takes Google's response to the so-called COVID-19 infodemic, as a starting point to argue for the need to consider societal relevance as a complement to other types of relevance. The authors maintain that if information science wants to be a discipline at the forefront of research on relevance, search engines, and their use, then the information science research community needs to address itself to the challenges and conditions that commercial search engines create in. The article concludes with a tentative list of related research topics.
  7. Lewandowski, D.: Suchmaschine im Betriebssystem (2005) 0.01 
    0.008938824 = product of:
  0.017877648 = sum of:
    0.017877648 = product of:
      0.035755295 = sum of:
        0.035755295 = weight(_text_:x in 3438) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035755295 = score(doc=3438,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21896711 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.2226825 = idf(docFreq=1761, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05185498 = queryNorm
            0.16329071 = fieldWeight in 3438, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.2226825 = idf(docFreq=1761, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3438)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Content
    "Bei der Vielzahl der angebotenen Werkzeuge fällt die Entscheidung schwer. Schließlich braucht man ein solches Tool lediglich, um die auf dem eigenen Rechner vorhandenen Dateien durchsuchbar zu machen. Warum benötigt man überhaupt ein Zusatzprogramm? Die Antwort lautet, dass die gängigen Betriebssysteme mangelhaft sind: Wer die Dateisuche zum Beispiel in Windows einmal benutzt hat, möchte dies am liebsten nie wieder tun. Die Dateien des eigenen Rechners sind nicht indiziert, so dass die gesamte Festplatte bei jeder Suchanfrage durchsucht werden muss. Die Suche dauert lange und erfasst in der Standardeinstellung nur die Dateinamen, nicht den Inhalt der Dateien. Seit längerem haben sowohl Microsoft als auch Apple angekündigt, damit in künftigen Versionen ihrer Betriebssysteme Schluss zu machen. Während der Start der neuen Windows-Version "Longhorn" in weiter Ferne liegt, hat die neueste Version von Apples OS X ("Tiger") mit dem prominent platzierten Suchtool "Spotlight" eine Desktop-Suche integriert. Diese durchsucht schnell Dokumente, Ordner, Kontakte, Lesezeichen und E-Mails. Voraussetzung ist allerdings, dass man für EMails und Internet auch die Apple-eigenen Programme verwendet. Eine Kombination von Desktop- und Web-Suche ist (zumindest bisher) nicht realisiert. Die Anwendung zeigt jedoch, wie sich die Suche direkt ins Betriebssystem integrieren lässt. Ähnliches dürfte von Microsoft zu erwarten sein. Da die Suche in Zukunft zu einem integralen Bestandteil der Arbeitsumgebung wird und damit die Unterschiede zwischen der Suche auf dem eigenen Rechner und der Suche im Web verschwimmen, stellen die in die Betriebssysteme integrierten Suchfunktionen eine Konkurrenz für die Suchmaschinen dar. Diese reagieren, indem sie eigene Suchtools anbieten und damit rechnen, dass sich die Nutzer so an diese gewöhnen, dass sie sie trotz der vorinstallierten Konkurrenz weiter benutzen. Dazu müssen sie allerdings einen Zusatznutzen bieten. Die Einführung der Google-Desktop-Suche (siehe Password 11 /2004) hat diese Art von Suchwerkzeug schlagartig bekannt gemacht. Seitdem hat sich auf dem Markt einiges getan. Nach dem Privatnutzer haben die Anbieter die Unternehmenskunden in den Blick gneommen. So wendet sich eine neue Version des Google-Tools speziell an diese Nutzergruppe. Auch sie ist kostenlos und kann nach vorheriger Registrierung unter http://desktop.google.com/enterprise heruntergeladen werden.
  8. Lewandowski, D.; Spree, U.: Ranking of Wikipedia articles in search engines revisited : fair ranking for reasonable quality? (2011) 0.01 
    0.008782043 = product of:
  0.017564086 = sum of:
    0.017564086 = product of:
      0.035128172 = sum of:
        0.035128172 = weight(_text_:22 in 444) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035128172 = score(doc=444,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18158731 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05185498 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    30. 9.2012 19:27:22

Authors

Years

Languages