Search (2 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Shah, C."
  • × language_ss:"e"
  • × theme_ss:"Informationsdienstleistungen"
  1. Shah, C.; Kitzie, V.: Social Q&A and virtual reference : comparing apples and oranges with the help of experts and users (2012) 0.00
    0.00499627 = product of:
      0.01498881 = sum of:
        0.01498881 = product of:
          0.04496643 = sum of:
            0.04496643 = weight(_text_:online in 457) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.04496643 = score(doc=457,freq=6.0), product of:
                0.1548489 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.051022716 = queryNorm
                0.29038906 = fieldWeight in 457, product of:
                  2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                    6.0 = termFreq=6.0
                  3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=457)
          0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    Abstract
    Online question-answering (Q&A) services are becoming increasingly popular among information seekers. We divide them into two categories, social Q&A (SQA) and virtual reference (VR), and examine how experts (librarians) and end users (students) evaluate information within both categories. To accomplish this, we first performed an extensive literature review and compiled a list of the aspects found to contribute to a "good" answer. These aspects were divided among three high-level concepts: relevance, quality, and satisfaction. We then interviewed both experts and users, asking them first to reflect on their online Q&A experiences and then comment on our list of aspects. These interviews uncovered two main disparities. One disparity was found between users' expectations with these services and how information was actually delivered among them, and the other disparity between the perceptions of users and experts with regard to the aforementioned three characteristics of relevance, quality, and satisfaction. Using qualitative analyses of both the interviews and relevant literature, we suggest ways to create better hybrid solutions for online Q&A and to bridge the gap between experts' and users' understandings of relevance, quality, and satisfaction, as well as the perceived importance of each in contributing to a good answer.
  2. Shah, C.: Collaborative information seeking (2014) 0.00
    0.004052635 = product of:
      0.012157904 = sum of:
        0.012157904 = product of:
          0.03647371 = sum of:
            0.03647371 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1193) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.03647371 = score(doc=1193,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.15433937 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.051022716 = queryNorm
                0.23632148 = fieldWeight in 1193, product of:
                  2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                    4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                  3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1193)
          0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    Abstract
    The notions that information seeking is not always a solitary activity and that people working in collaboration for information intensive tasks should be studied and supported have become more prevalent in recent years. Several new research questions, methodologies, and systems have emerged around these notions that may prove to be useful beyond the field of collaborative information seeking (CIS), with relevance to the broader area of information seeking and behavior. This article provides an overview of such key research work from a variety of domains, including library and information science, computer-supported cooperative work, human-computer interaction, and information retrieval. It starts with explanations of collaboration and how CIS fits in different contexts, emphasizing the interactive, intentional, and mutually beneficial nature of CIS activities. Relations to similar and related fields such as collaborative information retrieval, collaborative information behavior, and collaborative filtering are also clarified. Next, the article presents a synthesis of various frameworks and models that exist in the field today, along with a new synthesis of 12 different dimensions of group activities. A discussion on issues and approaches relating to evaluating various parameters in CIS follows. Finally, a list of known issues and challenges is presented to provide an overview of research opportunities in this field.