Search (14 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × language_ss:"d"
  • × theme_ss:"Suchmaschinen"
  • × year_i:[2010 TO 2020}
  1. Tetzchner, J. von: As a monopoly in search and advertising Google is not able to resist the misuse of power : is the Internet turning into a battlefield of propaganda? How Google should be regulated (2017) 0.02 
    0.015307425 = product of:
  0.03061485 = sum of:
    0.03061485 = product of:
      0.0612297 = sum of:
        0.0612297 = weight(_text_:i in 3891) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0612297 = score(doc=3891,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.17138503 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045439374 = queryNorm
            0.35726398 = fieldWeight in 3891, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3891)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Content
    "Let us start with your positive experiences with Google. I have known Google longer than most. At Opera, we were the first to add their search into the browser interface, enabling it directly from the search box and the address field. At that time, Google was an up-and-coming geeky company. I remember vividly meeting with Google's co-founder Larry Page, his relaxed dress code and his love for the Danger device, which he played with throughout our meeting. Later, I met with the other co-founder of Google, Sergey Brin, and got positive vibes. My first impression of Google was that it was a likeable company. Our cooperation with Google was a good one. Integrating their search into Opera helped us deliver a better service to our users and generated revenue that paid the bills. We helped Google grow, along with others that followed in our footsteps and integrated Google search into their browsers. Then the picture for you and for opera darkened. Yes, then things changed. Google increased their proximity with the Mozilla foundation. They also introduced new services such as Google Docs. These services were great, gained quick popularity, but also exposed the darker side of Google. Not only were these services made to be incompatible with Opera, but also encouraged users to switch their browsers. I brought this up with Sergey Brin, in vain. For millions of Opera users to be able to access these services, we had to hide our browser's identity. The browser sniffing situation only worsened after Google started building their own browser, Chrome. ...
    How should Google be regulated? We should limit the amount of information that is being collected. In particular we should look at information that is being collected across sites. It should not be legal to combine data from multiple sites and services. The fact that these sites and services are using the same underlying technology does not change the fact that the user's dealings is with a site at a time and each site should not have the right to share the data with others. I believe this the cornerstone of laws in many countries today, but these laws need to be enforced. Data about us is ours alone and it should not be possible to sell it. We should also limit the ability to target users individually. In the past, ads on sites were ads on sites. You might know what kind of users visited a site and you would place tech ads on tech sites and fashion ads on fashion sites. Now the ads follow you individually. That should be made illegal as it uses data collected from multiple sources and invades our privacy. I also believe there should be regulation as to how location data is used and any information related to our mobile devices. In addition, regulators need to be vigilant as to how companies that have monopoly power use their power. That kind of goes without saying. Companies with monopoly powers should not be able to use those powers when competing in an open market or using their monopoly services to limit competition."
  2. Peters, I.: Folksonomies und kollaborative Informationsdienste : eine Alternative zur Websuche? (2011) 0.01 
    0.014283955 = product of:
  0.02856791 = sum of:
    0.02856791 = product of:
      0.05713582 = sum of:
        0.05713582 = weight(_text_:i in 343) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05713582 = score(doc=343,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17138503 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045439374 = queryNorm
            0.33337694 = fieldWeight in 343, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=343)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
  3. Sünkler, S.; Kerkmann, F.: How to do ... ? : Konzeption einer Spezialsuchmaschine für Tutorials (2016) 0.01 
    0.014283955 = product of:
  0.02856791 = sum of:
    0.02856791 = product of:
      0.05713582 = sum of:
        0.05713582 = weight(_text_:i in 2570) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05713582 = score(doc=2570,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17138503 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045439374 = queryNorm
            0.33337694 = fieldWeight in 2570, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2570)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Content
    Vgl.: http://www.b-i-t-online.de/heft/2016-04-fachbeitrag-suenkler.pdf.
  4. Ulbrich, D.: Suchmaschinenoptimierung für öffentliche Bibliotheken am Beispiel von Google (2016) 0.01 
    0.014283955 = product of:
  0.02856791 = sum of:
    0.02856791 = product of:
      0.05713582 = sum of:
        0.05713582 = weight(_text_:i in 3180) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05713582 = score(doc=3180,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17138503 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045439374 = queryNorm
            0.33337694 = fieldWeight in 3180, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3180)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Content
    Vgl.: www.b-i-t-online.de/heft/2016-02-fachbeitrag-ulbrich.pdf.
  5. Sünkler, S.; Kerkmann, F.; Schultheiß, S.: Ok Google . the end of search as we know it : sprachgesteuerte Websuche im Test (2018) 0.01 
    0.012498461 = product of:
  0.024996921 = sum of:
    0.024996921 = product of:
      0.049993843 = sum of:
        0.049993843 = weight(_text_:i in 5626) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049993843 = score(doc=5626,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17138503 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045439374 = queryNorm
            0.29170483 = fieldWeight in 5626, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5626)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Content
    Vgl.: https://www.b-i-t-online.de/heft/2018-01-index.php.
  6. Lewandowski, D.: Query understanding (2011) 0.01 
    0.0123128155 = product of:
  0.024625631 = sum of:
    0.024625631 = product of:
      0.049251262 = sum of:
        0.049251262 = weight(_text_:22 in 344) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049251262 = score(doc=344,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15912095 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045439374 = 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
  7. Tober, M.; Hennig, L.; Furch, D.: SEO Ranking-Faktoren und Rang-Korrelationen 2014 : Google Deutschland (2014) 0.01 
    0.0123128155 = product of:
  0.024625631 = sum of:
    0.024625631 = product of:
      0.049251262 = sum of:
        0.049251262 = weight(_text_:22 in 1484) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049251262 = score(doc=1484,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15912095 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045439374 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 1484, 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=1484)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    13. 9.2014 14:45:22
  8. Schaat, S.: Von der automatisierten Manipulation zur Manipulation der Automatisierung (2019) 0.01 
    0.0123128155 = product of:
  0.024625631 = sum of:
    0.024625631 = product of:
      0.049251262 = sum of:
        0.049251262 = weight(_text_:22 in 4996) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049251262 = score(doc=4996,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15912095 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045439374 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 4996, 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=4996)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    19. 2.2019 17:22:00
  9. Lewandowski, D.: ¬Die Macht der Suchmaschinen und ihr Einfluss auf unsere Entscheidungen (2014) 0.01 
    0.009234612 = product of:
  0.018469224 = sum of:
    0.018469224 = product of:
      0.036938448 = sum of:
        0.036938448 = weight(_text_:22 in 1491) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.036938448 = score(doc=1491,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15912095 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045439374 = 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
  10. dpa: Benutzer können künftig mit Google sprechen : Konzern stellt Neuerungen auf Entwicklerkonferenz vor (2013) 0.01 
    0.008837746 = product of:
  0.017675493 = sum of:
    0.017675493 = product of:
      0.035350986 = sum of:
        0.035350986 = weight(_text_:i in 765) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035350986 = score(doc=765,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17138503 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045439374 = queryNorm
            0.20626646 = fieldWeight in 765, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=765)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Content
    "Eigentlich müssten die Besucher der GoogleEntwicklerkonferenz I/O in diesem Jahr enttäuscht sein: Alle Spekulationen im Vorfeld der Konferenz über ein neues Android-Betriebssystem sowie über einen Tablet-Computer mit Super-Display erwiesen sich am Mittwoch (Ortszeit) als Luftnummer. Und die über drei Stunden dauernde Eröffnungsveranstaltung wurde auch nicht wie im vergangenen Jahr durch die Aktion mutiger Fallschirmspringer aufgelockert. Sie hatten damals ihren Flug von einem Luftschiff auf das Dach des Konferenzcenters live mit einem Prototypen der Cyberbrille Google Glass als Videostream auf eine riesige Leinwand übertragen. Als Flop wird die Google I/O 2013 aber nicht in die Technik-Geschichte eingehen, ganz im Gegenteil. Rückblickend könnte die Entwicklerkonferenz als der Zeitpunkt eingeschätzt werden, an dem Google die Internet-Suche neu erfunden hat. Für die meisten Internet-Anwender ist die Google-Suche synonym mit dem Eintippen eines Begriffs in einen einfach gestalteten Suchschlitz. Das wird sich ändern. Künftig werden Suchabfragen immer öfter - auch auf dem Desktop-Computer - in gesprochener Sprache erfolgen. Der Befehl "Okay Google" öffnet das virtuelle Ohr. Danach kann man der Suchmaschine wie einem Menschen mündlich eine Frage stellen: "Wie ist das Wetter in Berlin?". Google versteht dann auch die Abschlussfrage "Und in München?" richtig, obwohl in dem Kurzsatz das Wort "Wetter" gar nicht mehr auftaucht. Google-Manager Amit Singhal sieht damit "das Ende der Suche - wie wir sie kennen" in naher Zukunft kommen. Das liegt zum einen an dem Wissensschatz, der sich inzwischen in den Google-Servern angehäuft hat und über Technologien wie den "Google Knowledge Graph" effizient abgerufen werden kann. Dazu kommt aber auch eine "soziale" Komponente, da der US-Konzern fast alles über die Vorlieben seinen Anwender weiß - zumindest wenn diese bereit sind, diese mit ihm zu teilen. Das führt dazu, dass es künftig nicht mehr eine einzige universelle Internet-Suche gibt, sondern unzählige verschiedene Suchergebnisse, die stets auf die Präferenzen der User angepasst sind.
  11. epd: Kaiserslauterer Forscher untersuchen Google-Suche (2017) 0.01 
    0.00769551 = product of:
  0.01539102 = sum of:
    0.01539102 = product of:
      0.03078204 = sum of:
        0.03078204 = weight(_text_:22 in 3815) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03078204 = score(doc=3815,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15912095 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045439374 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 3815, 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=3815)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    22. 7.2004 9:42:33
  12. Kaeser, E.: ¬Das postfaktische Zeitalter (2016) 0.01 
    0.006529857 = product of:
  0.013059714 = sum of:
    0.013059714 = product of:
      0.026119428 = sum of:
        0.026119428 = weight(_text_:22 in 3080) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026119428 = score(doc=3080,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15912095 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045439374 = queryNorm
            0.16414827 = fieldWeight in 3080, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3080)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Content
    "Es gibt Daten, Informationen und Fakten. Wenn man mir eine Zahlenreihe vorsetzt, dann handelt es sich um Daten: unterscheidbare Einheiten, im Fachjargon: Items. Wenn man mir sagt, dass diese Items stündliche Temperaturangaben der Aare im Berner Marzilibad bedeuten, dann verfüge ich über Information - über interpretierte Daten. Wenn man mir sagt, dies seien die gemessenen Aaretemperaturen am 22. August 2016 im Marzili, dann ist das ein Faktum: empirisch geprüfte interpretierte Daten. Dieser Dreischritt - Unterscheiden, Interpretieren, Prüfen - bildet quasi das Bindemittel des Faktischen, «the matter of fact». Wir alle führen den Dreischritt ständig aus und gelangen so zu einem relativ verlässlichen Wissen und Urteilsvermögen betreffend die Dinge des Alltags. Aber wie schon die Kurzcharakterisierung durchblicken lässt, bilden Fakten nicht den Felsengrund der Realität. Sie sind kritikanfällig, sowohl von der Interpretation wie auch von der Prüfung her gesehen. Um bei unserem Beispiel zu bleiben: Es kann durchaus sein, dass man uns zwei unterschiedliche «faktische» Temperaturverläufe der Aare am 22. August 2016 vorsetzt.
  13. Gillitzer, B.: Yewno (2017) 0.01 
    0.0061564078 = product of:
  0.0123128155 = sum of:
    0.0123128155 = product of:
      0.024625631 = sum of:
        0.024625631 = weight(_text_:22 in 3447) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024625631 = score(doc=3447,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15912095 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045439374 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 3447, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3447)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    22. 2.2017 10:16:49
  14. Averesch, D.: Googeln ohne Google : Mit alternativen Suchmaschinen gelingt ein neutraler Überblick (2010) 0.00 
    0.004617306 = product of:
  0.009234612 = sum of:
    0.009234612 = product of:
      0.018469224 = sum of:
        0.018469224 = weight(_text_:22 in 3374) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018469224 = score(doc=3374,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15912095 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045439374 = queryNorm
            0.116070345 = fieldWeight in 3374, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3374)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    3. 5.1997 8:44:22

Authors

Types

Themes