-
Spink, A.; Wolfram, D.; Jansen, B.J.; Saracevic, T.: Searching the Web : the public and their queries (2001)
0.00
4.9908884E-4 = product of:
0.007486332 = sum of:
0.0063594985 = weight(_text_:in in 6980) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0063594985 = score(doc=6980,freq=26.0), product of:
0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.021569785 = queryNorm
0.2167489 = fieldWeight in 6980, product of:
5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
26.0 = termFreq=26.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=6980)
0.0011268335 = weight(_text_:s in 6980) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0011268335 = score(doc=6980,freq=2.0), product of:
0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.021569785 = queryNorm
0.048049565 = fieldWeight in 6980, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=6980)
0.06666667 = coord(2/30)
- Abstract
- In previous articles, we reported the state of Web searching in 1997 (Jansen, Spink, & Saracevic, 2000) and in 1999 (Spink, Wolfram, Jansen, & Saracevic, 2001). Such snapshot studies and statistics on Web use appear regularly (OCLC, 1999), but provide little information about Web searching trends. In this article, we compare and contrast results from our two previous studies of Excite queries' data sets, each containing over 1 million queries submitted by over 200,000 Excite users collected on 16 September 1997 and 20 December 1999. We examine how public Web searching changing during that 2-year time period. As Table 1 shows, the overall structure of Web queries in some areas did not change, while in others we see change from 1997 to 1999. Our comparison shows how Web searching changed incrementally and also dramatically. We see some moves toward greater simplicity, including shorter queries (i.e., fewer terms) and shorter sessions (i.e., fewer queries per user), with little modification (addition or deletion) of terms in subsequent queries. The trend toward shorter queries suggests that Web information content should target specific terms in order to reach Web users. Another trend was to view fewer pages of results per query. Most Excite users examined only one page of results per query, since an Excite results page contains ten ranked Web sites. Were users satisfied with the results and did not need to view more pages? It appears that the public continues to have a low tolerance of wading through retrieved sites. This decline in interactivity levels is a disturbing finding for the future of Web searching. Queries that included Boolean operators were in the minority, but the percentage increased between the two time periods. Most Boolean use involved the AND operator with many mistakes. The use of relevance feedback almost doubled from 1997 to 1999, but overall use was still small. An unusually large number of terms were used with low frequency, such as personal names, spelling errors, non-English words, and Web-specific terms, such as URLs. Web query vocabulary contains more words than found in large English texts in general. The public language of Web queries has its own and unique characteristics. How did Web searching topics change from 1997 to 1999? We classified a random sample of 2,414 queries from 1997 and 2,539 queries from 1999 into 11 categories (Table 2). From 1997 to 1999, Web searching shifted from entertainment, recreation and sex, and pornography, preferences to e-commerce-related topics under commerce, travel, employment, and economy. This shift coincided with changes in information distribution on the publicly indexed Web.
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 52(2001) no.3, S.226-234
-
Spink, A.; Saracevic, T.: Sources and use of search terms in online searching (1992)
0.00
4.8788113E-4 = product of:
0.0073182164 = sum of:
0.0053462577 = weight(_text_:in in 4523) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0053462577 = score(doc=4523,freq=6.0), product of:
0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.021569785 = queryNorm
0.1822149 = fieldWeight in 4523, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4523)
0.0019719584 = weight(_text_:s in 4523) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0019719584 = score(doc=4523,freq=2.0), product of:
0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.021569785 = queryNorm
0.08408674 = fieldWeight in 4523, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4523)
0.06666667 = coord(2/30)
- Abstract
- Reports selected results from a larger study whose objectives are to observe, under real life conditions, the nature and patterns of interaction between users, intermediaries, and computer sysrtems in the context of online information searching and retrieval. Reports various analyses on the relation of search term sources and the retrieval of items judges as to their relevance. While the users generated the largest proportion of search terms (61%) which were responsible for 68% of retrieved items judges relevant, other sources in the interaction process played an important role
- Pages
- S.249-255
-
Spink, A.; Saracevic, T.: Search term selection during mediated online searching (1993)
0.00
4.8788113E-4 = product of:
0.0073182164 = sum of:
0.0053462577 = weight(_text_:in in 7824) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0053462577 = score(doc=7824,freq=6.0), product of:
0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.021569785 = queryNorm
0.1822149 = fieldWeight in 7824, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=7824)
0.0019719584 = weight(_text_:s in 7824) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0019719584 = score(doc=7824,freq=2.0), product of:
0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.021569785 = queryNorm
0.08408674 = fieldWeight in 7824, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=7824)
0.06666667 = coord(2/30)
- Abstract
- Reports selected results from a large study, conducted at Rutgers University, NJ, which observed, under real life conditions the interactions between users, intermediaries and information retrieval systems before and during online searching. Examines the stages of the search process at which search terms from different sources were selected and how the search terms selected at different stages of the search process contributed to the retrieval of relevant items as judged by users. Notes the sequences in which terms were selected and analyzes the sequences to determine the types and frequencies of changes that occur in such sequences. Results indicate that there are regular patterns in search term selection during the online search process. Discusses the implications of these findings
- Pages
- S.387-397
-
Saracevic, T.: ¬A research project on classification of questions in information retrieval : preliminary work (1980)
0.00
4.8177355E-4 = product of:
0.0072266026 = sum of:
0.004409519 = weight(_text_:in in 2418) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.004409519 = score(doc=2418,freq=2.0), product of:
0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.021569785 = queryNorm
0.15028831 = fieldWeight in 2418, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2418)
0.0028170836 = weight(_text_:s in 2418) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0028170836 = score(doc=2418,freq=2.0), product of:
0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.021569785 = queryNorm
0.120123915 = fieldWeight in 2418, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2418)
0.06666667 = coord(2/30)
- Pages
- S.146-148
-
Saracevic, T.; Kantor, P.B.: Studying the value of library and information services : Part II: Methodology and taxonomy (1997)
0.00
4.6544487E-4 = product of:
0.0069816727 = sum of:
0.0052914224 = weight(_text_:in in 353) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0052914224 = score(doc=353,freq=8.0), product of:
0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.021569785 = queryNorm
0.18034597 = fieldWeight in 353, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=353)
0.0016902501 = weight(_text_:s in 353) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0016902501 = score(doc=353,freq=2.0), product of:
0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.021569785 = queryNorm
0.072074346 = fieldWeight in 353, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=353)
0.06666667 = coord(2/30)
- Abstract
- Details with specifics of the study: importance of taxonomy; the method used for gathering data on user assessments of value in 5 research libraries, involving 18 services and 528 interviews with users; development and presentation of the taxonomy; and statistics and tests of the taxonomy. A novel aspect is the division of value of information services into 3 general classes or facets; reasons for use of a service in the given instance; quality of interaction (use) related to that service; and worth, benefits, or implications of subsequent results from use
- Footnote
- 2nd part of a study to develop a taxonomy of value-in-use of library and information services based on users assessments and to propose methods and instruments for similar studies of library and information services in general
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 48(1997) no.6, S.543-563
-
Saracevic, T.: Effects of inconsistent relevance judgments on information retrieval test results : a historical perspective (2008)
0.00
3.8787074E-4 = product of:
0.0058180606 = sum of:
0.004409519 = weight(_text_:in in 5585) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.004409519 = score(doc=5585,freq=8.0), product of:
0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.021569785 = queryNorm
0.15028831 = fieldWeight in 5585, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5585)
0.0014085418 = weight(_text_:s in 5585) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0014085418 = score(doc=5585,freq=2.0), product of:
0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.021569785 = queryNorm
0.060061958 = fieldWeight in 5585, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5585)
0.06666667 = coord(2/30)
- Abstract
- The main objective of information retrieval (IR) systems is to retrieve information or information objects relevant to user requests and possible needs. In IR tests, retrieval effectiveness is established by comparing IR systems retrievals (systems relevance) with users' or user surrogates' assessments (user relevance), where user relevance is treated as the gold standard for performance evaluation. Relevance is a human notion, and establishing relevance by humans is fraught with a number of problems-inconsistency in judgment being one of them. The aim of this critical review is to explore the relationship between relevance on the one hand and testing of IR systems and procedures on the other. Critics of IR tests raised the issue of validity of the IR tests because they were based on relevance judgments that are inconsistent. This review traces and synthesizes experimental studies dealing with (1) inconsistency of relevance judgments by people, (2) effects of such inconsistency on results of IR tests and (3) reasons for retrieval failures. A historical context for these studies and for IR testing is provided including an assessment of Lancaster's (1969) evaluation of MEDLARS and its unique place in the history of IR evaluation.
- Content
- Beitrag in einem Themenheft 'The Influence of F. W. Lancaster on Information Science and on Libraries', das als Festschrift für F.W. Lancaster deklariert ist.
- Source
- Library trends. 56(2008) no.4, S.763-783
-
Spink, A.; Saracevic, T.: Where do the search terms come from? (1992)
0.00
3.854188E-4 = product of:
0.0057812817 = sum of:
0.003527615 = weight(_text_:in in 4032) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.003527615 = score(doc=4032,freq=2.0), product of:
0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.021569785 = queryNorm
0.120230645 = fieldWeight in 4032, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4032)
0.002253667 = weight(_text_:s in 4032) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.002253667 = score(doc=4032,freq=2.0), product of:
0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.021569785 = queryNorm
0.09609913 = fieldWeight in 4032, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4032)
0.06666667 = coord(2/30)
- Abstract
- Presents selected results from a large study which observed under real-life conditions the interaction between users, intermediaries and computers before and during online searching. Concentrates on the sources of search terms and the relation between given search terms and retrieval of relevant and nonrelevant items as answers. Users provided the largest proportion of search terms (61%), followed by the thesuaurs (19%), relevance feedback (11%), and intermediary (9%). Only 4% of search terms resulted in retrieval of relevant items only; 60% retrieved relevant and nonrelevant items; 25% retrieved nonrelevant items only; and 11% retrieved nothing.
- Pages
- S.363-373
-
Bellardo, T.; Saracevic, T.: Online searching and search output : relationships between overlap, relevance, recall and precision (1987)
0.00
3.6212345E-4 = product of:
0.0054318514 = sum of:
0.003741601 = weight(_text_:in in 4150) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.003741601 = score(doc=4150,freq=4.0), product of:
0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.021569785 = queryNorm
0.12752387 = fieldWeight in 4150, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4150)
0.0016902501 = weight(_text_:s in 4150) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0016902501 = score(doc=4150,freq=2.0), product of:
0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.021569785 = queryNorm
0.072074346 = fieldWeight in 4150, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4150)
0.06666667 = coord(2/30)
- Abstract
- A recent study begun at Case Western Reserve University and continued at Rutgers University compared the transcripts of 200 DIALOG searches conducted by 36 experienced searchers on real questions submitted by academic and industrial researchers. Relevance judgements by the researchers were used to give recall and precision scores to each search result. Findings included: a low degree of overlap between searches on the same question in selection of search terms or items retrieved; the more often an item was retrieved by different searchers, the more likely it was to be judged relevant; recall and precision were not necessarly inversly related; there was a significant positive impact on recall/precision from using more cycles (a sequence from selecting terms to displaying results); serious uncorrectd errors were a major problem in poor searches and proper selection of terms a key to successful searches.
- Pages
- S.11-13
-
Spink, A.; Saracevic, T.: Interaction in information retrieval : selection and effectiveness of search terms (1997)
0.00
2.890641E-4 = product of:
0.0043359613 = sum of:
0.0026457112 = weight(_text_:in in 206) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0026457112 = score(doc=206,freq=2.0), product of:
0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.021569785 = queryNorm
0.09017298 = fieldWeight in 206, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=206)
0.0016902501 = weight(_text_:s in 206) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0016902501 = score(doc=206,freq=2.0), product of:
0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.021569785 = queryNorm
0.072074346 = fieldWeight in 206, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=206)
0.06666667 = coord(2/30)
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 48(1997) no.8, S.741-761
-
Brenner, E.H.; Saracevic, T.: Indexing and searching in perspective (1985)
0.00
1.7638075E-4 = product of:
0.0052914224 = sum of:
0.0052914224 = weight(_text_:in in 8129) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0052914224 = score(doc=8129,freq=2.0), product of:
0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.021569785 = queryNorm
0.18034597 = fieldWeight in 8129, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=8129)
0.033333335 = coord(1/30)
-
Saracevic, T.; Kantor, P.: ¬A study of information seeking and retrieving : pt.2: users, questions, and effectiveness (1988)
0.00
1.5935833E-4 = product of:
0.00478075 = sum of:
0.00478075 = weight(_text_:s in 3258) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.00478075 = score(doc=3258,freq=4.0), product of:
0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.021569785 = queryNorm
0.20385705 = fieldWeight in 3258, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3258)
0.033333335 = coord(1/30)
- Abstract
- s. Abstract von T.1
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 39(1988) no.3, S.177-196
-
Saracevic, T.; Kantor, P.: ¬A study of information seeking and retrieving : pt.3: searchers, searches, and overlap (1988)
0.00
1.5935833E-4 = product of:
0.00478075 = sum of:
0.00478075 = weight(_text_:s in 3259) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.00478075 = score(doc=3259,freq=4.0), product of:
0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.021569785 = queryNorm
0.20385705 = fieldWeight in 3259, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3259)
0.033333335 = coord(1/30)
- Abstract
- s. Abstract von T.1
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 39(1988) no.3, S.197-216
-
Saracevic, T.: Charting the future of information science (1990)
0.00
1.5024448E-4 = product of:
0.004507334 = sum of:
0.004507334 = weight(_text_:s in 4078) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.004507334 = score(doc=4078,freq=2.0), product of:
0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.021569785 = queryNorm
0.19219826 = fieldWeight in 4078, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=4078)
0.033333335 = coord(1/30)
- Source
- Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science. 16(1990) no.4, S.13
-
Wolfram, D.; Spink, A.; Jansen, B.J.; Saracevic, T.: Vox populi : the public searching of the Web (2001)
0.00
1.12683345E-4 = product of:
0.0033805002 = sum of:
0.0033805002 = weight(_text_:s in 6949) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0033805002 = score(doc=6949,freq=2.0), product of:
0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.021569785 = queryNorm
0.14414869 = fieldWeight in 6949, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6949)
0.033333335 = coord(1/30)
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 52(2001) no.12, S.1073-1074
-
Jansen, B.J.; Spink, A.; Saracevic, T.: Real life, real users and real needs : a study and analysis of users queries on the Web (2000)
0.00
1.12683345E-4 = product of:
0.0033805002 = sum of:
0.0033805002 = weight(_text_:s in 411) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0033805002 = score(doc=411,freq=2.0), product of:
0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.021569785 = queryNorm
0.14414869 = fieldWeight in 411, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=411)
0.033333335 = coord(1/30)
- Source
- Information processing and management. 36(2000) no.2, S.207-227
-
Saracevic, T.: Measuring the degree of agreement between searchers (1984)
0.00
1.12683345E-4 = product of:
0.0033805002 = sum of:
0.0033805002 = weight(_text_:s in 2410) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0033805002 = score(doc=2410,freq=2.0), product of:
0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.021569785 = queryNorm
0.14414869 = fieldWeight in 2410, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=2410)
0.033333335 = coord(1/30)
- Pages
- S.227-230
-
Saracevic, T.; Kantor, P.: Online searching : still an imprecise art (1991)
0.00
9.390279E-5 = product of:
0.0028170836 = sum of:
0.0028170836 = weight(_text_:s in 4843) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0028170836 = score(doc=4843,freq=2.0), product of:
0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.021569785 = queryNorm
0.120123915 = fieldWeight in 4843, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4843)
0.033333335 = coord(1/30)
- Source
- Library journal. 116(1991) no.16, S.47-51
