Search (454 results, page 2 of 23)

0.0020790326 = product of:
  0.020790325 = sum of:
    0.0071366085 = weight(_text_:in in 760) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0071366085 = score(doc=760,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.039165888 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02879306 = queryNorm
        0.1822149 = fieldWeight in 760, 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=760)
    0.013653717 = product of:
      0.027307434 = sum of:
        0.027307434 = weight(_text_:22 in 760) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027307434 = score(doc=760,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10082839 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02879306 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 760, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=760)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.1 = coord(2/20)

Abstract

The degree of variability in the percentage of subject searching in an online public access catalog (OPAC) among branch libraries of one university was studied. A full semester's worth of transactions was analyzed, not sampled. The time units used were hour of the day, day of the week, and week of the semester. The findings show that subject searching varies from a low of 22% to a high of 74% over the hours of a day. Variability for the days of the week ranged from 17% to 64%, and for the weeks of the semester variability ranged from 12% to 70%. Valuable management information on the utilization of the OPAC within each brach library and among all the branch libraries is provided through numerous charts and graphs.

0.0020790326 = product of:
  0.020790325 = sum of:
    0.0071366085 = weight(_text_:in in 1795) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0071366085 = score(doc=1795,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.039165888 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02879306 = queryNorm
        0.1822149 = fieldWeight in 1795, 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=1795)
    0.013653717 = product of:
      0.027307434 = sum of:
        0.027307434 = weight(_text_:22 in 1795) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027307434 = score(doc=1795,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10082839 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02879306 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 1795, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1795)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.1 = coord(2/20)

Abstract

Presents a recently composite view of several user studies in information retrieval. Contains personal conclusions and speculations based on these studies, rather than formal statistical results, which so often are not comparable from 1 experiment to another. Suggests a taxonomy of user characteristics for such studies, in order to make results comparable. Discusses methods and effects of user training, then manner of expression of a query or information need, conduct of a search, use of the system command language or its equivalent, analysis by the user of retrieved information, and user satisfaction with outcome. Concludes with suggestions for system design and experimental methodology

Source

Canadian journal of information and library science. 19(1994) no.4, S.1-22

0.0020790326 = product of:
  0.020790325 = sum of:
    0.0071366085 = weight(_text_:in in 3599) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0071366085 = score(doc=3599,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.039165888 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02879306 = queryNorm
        0.1822149 = fieldWeight in 3599, 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=3599)
    0.013653717 = product of:
      0.027307434 = sum of:
        0.027307434 = weight(_text_:22 in 3599) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027307434 = score(doc=3599,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10082839 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02879306 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 3599, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3599)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.1 = coord(2/20)

Abstract

Patron queries at a four-year comprehensive college's online public access catalog were examined via transaction logs from March 2007. Three representative days were isolated for a more detailed examination of search characteristics. The results show that library users employed an average of one to three terms in a search, did not use Boolean operators, and made use of limits one-tenth of the time. Failed queries remained problematic, as a full one-third of searches resulted in zero hits. Implications and recommendations for improvements in the online public access catalog are discussed.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.0020354062 = product of:
  0.020354062 = sum of:
    0.008650876 = weight(_text_:in in 177) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008650876 = score(doc=177,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.039165888 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02879306 = queryNorm
        0.22087781 = fieldWeight in 177, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=177)
    0.011703186 = product of:
      0.023406371 = sum of:
        0.023406371 = weight(_text_:22 in 177) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023406371 = score(doc=177,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10082839 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02879306 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 177, 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=177)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.1 = coord(2/20)

Abstract

This study investigated Simon's behavioral decisionmaking theories of bounded rationality and satisficing in relation to young people's decision making in the World Wide Web, and considered the role of personal preferences in Web-based decisions. It employed a qualitative research methodology involving group interviews with 22 adolescent females. Data analysis took the form of iterative pattern coding using QSR NUD*IST Vivo qualitative data analysis software. Data analysis revealed that the study participants did operate within the limits of bounded rationality. These limits took the form of time constraints, information overload, and physical constraints. Data analysis also uncovered two major satisficing behaviors-reduction and termination. Personal preference was found to play a major role in Web site evaluation in the areas of graphic/multimedia and subject content preferences. This study has related implications for Web site designers and for adult intermediaries who work with young people and the Web

0.0020354062 = product of:
  0.020354062 = sum of:
    0.008650876 = weight(_text_:in in 5228) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008650876 = score(doc=5228,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.039165888 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02879306 = queryNorm
        0.22087781 = fieldWeight in 5228, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5228)
    0.011703186 = product of:
      0.023406371 = sum of:
        0.023406371 = weight(_text_:22 in 5228) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023406371 = score(doc=5228,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10082839 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02879306 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 5228, 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=5228)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.1 = coord(2/20)

Abstract

Bilal, in this third part of her Yahooligans! study looks at children's performance with self-generated search tasks, as compared to previously assigned search tasks looking for differences in success, cognitive behavior, physical behavior, and task preference. Lotus ScreenCam was used to record interactions and post search interviews to record impressions. The subjects, the same 22 seventh grade children in the previous studies, generated topics of interest that were mediated with the researcher into more specific topics where necessary. Fifteen usable sessions form the basis of the study. Eleven children were successful in finding information, a rate of 73% compared to 69% in assigned research questions, and 50% in assigned fact-finding questions. Eighty-seven percent began using one or two keyword searches. Spelling was a problem. Successful children made fewer keyword searches and the number of search moves averaged 5.5 as compared to 2.4 on the research oriented task and 3.49 on the factual. Backtracking and looping were common. The self-generated task was preferred by 47% of the subjects.

0.0020313188 = product of:
  0.020313188 = sum of:
    0.00470894 = weight(_text_:in in 5299) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.00470894 = score(doc=5299,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.039165888 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02879306 = queryNorm
        0.120230645 = fieldWeight in 5299, 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=5299)
    0.015604248 = product of:
      0.031208497 = sum of:
        0.031208497 = weight(_text_:22 in 5299) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031208497 = score(doc=5299,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10082839 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02879306 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 5299, 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=5299)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.1 = coord(2/20)

Date

22. 7.2006 18:17:44

Footnote

Beitrag in einer Special Section "Perspectives on Search User Interfaces: Best Practices and Future Visions"

0.0019947812 = product of:
  0.019947812 = sum of:
    0.010195156 = weight(_text_:in in 6117) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010195156 = score(doc=6117,freq=24.0), product of:
        0.039165888 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02879306 = queryNorm
        0.260307 = fieldWeight in 6117, product of:
          4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
            24.0 = termFreq=24.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6117)
    0.009752655 = product of:
      0.01950531 = sum of:
        0.01950531 = weight(_text_:22 in 6117) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01950531 = score(doc=6117,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10082839 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02879306 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 6117, 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=6117)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.1 = coord(2/20)

Abstract

Several previous studies have measured differences in the information search success of novices and experts. However, the definitions of novices and experts have varied greatly between the studies, and so have the measures used for search success. Instead of dividing the searchers into different groups based on their expertise, we chose to model search success with task completion speed, TCS. Towards this goal, 22 participants performed three fact-finding tasks and two broader tasks in an observational user study. In our model, there were two variables related to the Web experience of the participants. Other variables included, for example, the speed of query iteration, the length of the queries, the proportion of precise queries, and the speed of evaluating result documents. Our results showed that the variables related to Web experience had expected effects on TCS. The increase in the years of Web use was related to improvement in TCS in the broader tasks, whereas the less frequent Web use was related to a decrease in TCS in the fact-finding tasks. Other variables having significant effects on TCS in either of the task types were the speed of composing queries, the average number of query terms per query, the proportion of precise queries, and the participants' own evaluation of their search skills. In addition to the statistical models, we present several qualitative findings of the participants' search strategies. These results give valuable insight into the successful strategies in Web search beyond the previous knowledge of the expert-novice differences.

0.0019059516 = product of:
  0.019059516 = sum of:
    0.009306861 = weight(_text_:in in 297) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009306861 = score(doc=297,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.039165888 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02879306 = queryNorm
        0.2376267 = fieldWeight in 297, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=297)
    0.009752655 = product of:
      0.01950531 = sum of:
        0.01950531 = weight(_text_:22 in 297) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01950531 = score(doc=297,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10082839 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02879306 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 297, 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=297)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.1 = coord(2/20)

Abstract

In information needs, seeking and use (INSU) research, individuals have most commonly been perceived as users (e.g., Kuhlthau, 1991; Dervin & Nilan, 1986; Dervin, 1989; Belkin, 1980). The concept user originates from the user of libraries and other information services and information systems. Over the years the scope of the concept has become wider and it is nowadays often understood in the sense of seekers of information (e.g., Wilson, 1981; Marchionini, 1995) and users of information (e.g., Streatfield, 1983). Nevertheless, the concept has remained ambiguous by being on the one hand universal and on the other hand extremely specific. The purpose of this paper is to map and evaluate views on people whose information behaviour has been in one way or another the core of our research area. The goal is to shed some light on various relationships between the different aspects of doers in INSU studies. The paper is inspired by Dervin's (1997) analysis of context where she identified among other themes the nature of subject by contrasting a `transcendental individual' with a `decentered subject', and Talja's (1997) presentation about constituting `information' and `user' from the discourse analytic viewpoint as opposed to the cognitive viewpoint. Instead of the metatheoretical approach applied by Dervin and Talja, a more concrete approach is valid in the present analysis where no direct arguments for or against the underlying metatheories are itemised. The focus is on doers in INSU studies leaving other, even closely-related concepts (i.e., information, information seeking, knowledge etc.), outside the scope of the paper.

Date

22. 3.2002 9:55:52

Source

Exploring the contexts of information behaviour: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Research in Information Needs, Seeking and Use in Different Contexts, Sheffield, UK, 1998. Ed. by D.K. Wilson u. D.K. Allen

0.0019059516 = product of:
  0.019059516 = sum of:
    0.009306861 = weight(_text_:in in 2637) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009306861 = score(doc=2637,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.039165888 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02879306 = queryNorm
        0.2376267 = fieldWeight in 2637, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2637)
    0.009752655 = product of:
      0.01950531 = sum of:
        0.01950531 = weight(_text_:22 in 2637) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01950531 = score(doc=2637,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10082839 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02879306 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2637, 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=2637)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.1 = coord(2/20)

Abstract

This article reports the findings of a qualitative research study that examined professional image users' knowledge of, and interest in using, content-based image retrieval (CBIR) systems in an attempt to clarify when and where CBIR methods might be applied. The research sought to determine the differences in the perceived usefulness of CBIR technologies among image user groups from several domains and explicate the reasons given regarding the utility of CBIR systems for their professional tasks. Twenty participants (archaeologists, architects, art historians, and artists), individuals who rely on images of cultural materials in the performance of their work, took part in the study. The findings of the study reveal that interest in CBIR methods varied among the different professional user communities. Individuals who showed an interest in these systems were primarily those concerned with the formal characteristics (i.e., color, shape, composition, and texture) of the images being sought. In contrast, those participants who expressed a strong interest in images of known items, images illustrating themes, and/or items from specific locations believe concept-based searches to be the most direct route. These image users did not see a practical application for CBIR systems in their current work routines.

Date

22. 1.2016 12:32:25

0.0018766596 = product of:
  0.018766595 = sum of:
    0.00706341 = weight(_text_:in in 1540) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.00706341 = score(doc=1540,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.039165888 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02879306 = queryNorm
        0.18034597 = fieldWeight in 1540, 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=1540)
    0.011703186 = product of:
      0.023406371 = sum of:
        0.023406371 = weight(_text_:22 in 1540) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023406371 = score(doc=1540,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10082839 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02879306 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1540, 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=1540)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.1 = coord(2/20)

Abstract

Hundreds of scholarly studies have investigated various aspects of Wikipedia. Although a number of literature reviews have provided overviews of this vast body of research, none has specifically focused on the readers of Wikipedia and issues concerning its readership. In this systematic literature review, we review 99 studies to synthesize current knowledge regarding the readership of Wikipedia and provide an analysis of research methods employed. The scholarly research has found that Wikipedia is popular not only for lighter topics such as entertainment but also for more serious topics such as health and legal information. Scholars, librarians, and students are common users, and Wikipedia provides a unique opportunity for educating students in digital literacy. We conclude with a summary of key findings, implications for researchers, and implications for the Wikipedia community.

Date

18.11.2014 13:22:03

Series

Advances in information science

0.0018247952 = product of:
  0.01824795 = sum of:
    0.011111342 = weight(_text_:der in 4438) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011111342 = score(doc=4438,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06431698 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02879306 = queryNorm
        0.17275909 = fieldWeight in 4438, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4438)
    0.0071366085 = weight(_text_:in in 4438) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0071366085 = score(doc=4438,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.039165888 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02879306 = queryNorm
        0.1822149 = fieldWeight in 4438, 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=4438)
  0.1 = coord(2/20)

Abstract

This paper presents findings from a study of how knowledge workers use the Web to seek external information as part of their daily work. 34 users from 7 companies took part in the study. Participants were mainly IT-specialists, managers, and research/marketing/consulting staff working in organizations that included a large utility company; a major bank, and a consulting firm. Participants answered a detailed questionnaire and were interviewed individually in order to understand their information needs and information seeking preferences. A custom-developed WebTracker software application was installed on each of their work place PCs, and participants' Web-use activities were then recorded continuously during two-week periods

Footnote

Die Artikel der Zeitschrift FirstMonday (http://www.firstmonday.dk) sind nur nach vorheriger Anmeldung einsehbar

0.0018076964 = product of:
  0.018076964 = sum of:
    0.008324308 = weight(_text_:in in 2117) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008324308 = score(doc=2117,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.039165888 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02879306 = queryNorm
        0.21253976 = fieldWeight in 2117, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2117)
    0.009752655 = product of:
      0.01950531 = sum of:
        0.01950531 = weight(_text_:22 in 2117) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01950531 = score(doc=2117,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10082839 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02879306 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2117, 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=2117)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.1 = coord(2/20)

Abstract

This paper presents an application of the model described in Part I to the evaluation of Web search engines by undergraduates. The study observed how 36 undergraduate used four major search engines to find information for their own individual problems and how they evaluated these engines based an actual interaction with the search engines. User evaluation was based an 16 performance measures representing five evaluation criteria: relevance, efficiency, utility, user satisfaction, and connectivity. Non-performance (user-related) measures were also applied. Each participant searched his/ her own topic an all four engines and provided satisfaction ratings for system features and interaction and reasons for satisfaction. Each also made relevance judgements of retrieved items in relation to his/her own information need and participated in post-search Interviews to provide reactions to the search results and overall performance. The study found significant differences in precision PR1 relative recall, user satisfaction with output display, time saving, value of search results, and overall performance among the four engines and also significant engine by discipline interactions an all these measures. In addition, the study found significant differences in user satisfaction with response time among four engines, and significant engine by discipline interaction in user satisfaction with search interface. None of the four search engines dominated in every aspect of the multidimensional evaluation. Content analysis of verbal data identified a number of user criteria and users evaluative comments based an these criteria. Results from both quantitative analysis and content analysis provide insight for system design and development, and useful feedback an strengths and weaknesses of search engines for system improvement

Date

24. 1.2004 18:27:22

0.0018076964 = product of:
  0.018076964 = sum of:
    0.008324308 = weight(_text_:in in 1177) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008324308 = score(doc=1177,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.039165888 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02879306 = queryNorm
        0.21253976 = fieldWeight in 1177, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1177)
    0.009752655 = product of:
      0.01950531 = sum of:
        0.01950531 = weight(_text_:22 in 1177) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01950531 = score(doc=1177,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10082839 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02879306 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1177, 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=1177)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.1 = coord(2/20)

Abstract

Search engine users typically engage in multiquery sessions in their quest to fulfill their information needs. Despite a plethora of research findings suggesting that a significant group of users look for information within a specific geographical scope, existing reformulation studies lack a focused analysis of how users reformulate geographic queries. This study comprehensively investigates the ways in which users reformulate such needs in an attempt to fill this gap in the literature. Reformulated sessions were sampled from a query log of a major search engine to extract 2,400 entries that were manually inspected to filter geo sessions. This filter identified 471 search sessions that included geographical intent, and these sessions were analyzed quantitatively and qualitatively. The results revealed that one in five of the users who reformulated their queries were looking for geographically related information. They reformulated their queries by changing the content of the query rather than the structure. Users were not following a unified sequence of modifications and instead performed a single reformulation action. However, in some cases it was possible to anticipate their next move. A number of tasks in geo modifications were identified, including standard, multi-needs, multi-places, and hybrid approaches. The research concludes that it is important to specialize query reformulation studies to focus on particular query types rather than generically analyzing them, as it is apparent that geographic queries have their special reformulation characteristics.

Date

26. 1.2014 18:48:22

0.0016938358 = product of:
  0.016938359 = sum of:
    0.011111342 = weight(_text_:der in 517) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011111342 = score(doc=517,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06431698 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02879306 = queryNorm
        0.17275909 = fieldWeight in 517, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=517)
    0.005827016 = weight(_text_:in in 517) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005827016 = score(doc=517,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.039165888 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02879306 = queryNorm
        0.14877784 = fieldWeight in 517, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=517)
  0.1 = coord(2/20)

Abstract

Current online catalogs have problems providing reasonable subject access, often resulting in searches with too few or too many hits. These problems can be improved by enhancing MARC records, building semantic networks through cross-references, and linking subject headings to classification numbers. This paper describes a pilot project to design a hypertext search engine using these principles

Content

Dieser Beitrag enthält beispielsweise die Zahlen, daß 30% der Recherchen bei 0 Treffern landen, daß bei den verbleibenden 70% die durchschnittliche Trefferzahl bei 170 liegt, daß Benutzer durchschnittlich aber nur 7 Treffer genauer ansehen

Footnote

s.a. Wiberley et al. in mehreren Beiträgen

0.0016697772 = product of:
  0.016697772 = sum of:
    0.0049945856 = weight(_text_:in in 197) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0049945856 = score(doc=197,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.039165888 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02879306 = queryNorm
        0.12752387 = fieldWeight in 197, 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=197)
    0.011703186 = product of:
      0.023406371 = sum of:
        0.023406371 = weight(_text_:22 in 197) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023406371 = score(doc=197,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10082839 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02879306 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 197, 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=197)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.1 = coord(2/20)

Abstract

Four focus groups were held with young Web users (10 to 13 years of age) to explore design criteria for Web portals. The focus group participants commented upon four existing portals designed with young users in mind: Ask Jeeves for Kids, KidsClick, Lycos Zone, and Yahooligans! This article reports their first impressions on using these portals, their likes and dislikes, and their suggestions for improvements. Design criteria for children's Web portals are elaborated based upon these comments under four headings: portal goals, visual design, information architecture, and personalization. An ideal portal should cater for both educational and entertainment needs, use attractive screen designs based especially on effective use of color, graphics, and animation, provide both keyword search facilities and browsable subject categories, and allow individual user personalization in areas such as color and graphics

Date

2. 6.2005 10:34:22

0.0016697772 = product of:
  0.016697772 = sum of:
    0.0049945856 = weight(_text_:in in 2747) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0049945856 = score(doc=2747,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.039165888 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02879306 = queryNorm
        0.12752387 = fieldWeight in 2747, 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=2747)
    0.011703186 = product of:
      0.023406371 = sum of:
        0.023406371 = weight(_text_:22 in 2747) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023406371 = score(doc=2747,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10082839 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02879306 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2747, 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=2747)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.1 = coord(2/20)

Abstract

This study focuses on the task as a fundamental factor in the context of information seeking. The purpose of the study is to characterize kinds of tasks and to examine how different kinds of task give rise to different kinds of information-seeking behavior on the Web. For this, a model for information-seeking behavior was used employing dimensions of information-seeking strategies (ISS), which are based on several behavioral dimensions. The analysis of strategies was based on data collected through an experiment designed to observe users' behaviors. Three tasks were assigned to 30 graduate students and data were collected using questionnaires, search logs, and interviews. The qualitative and quantitative analysis of the data identified 14 distinct information-seeking strategies. The analysis showed significant differences in the frequencies and patterns of ISS employed between three tasks. The results of the study are intended to facilitate the development of task-based information-seeking models and to further suggest Web information system designs that support the user's diverse tasks.

Date

22. 3.2009 18:54:15

0.0016333599 = product of:
  0.016333599 = sum of:
    0.006580944 = weight(_text_:in in 56) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006580944 = score(doc=56,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.039165888 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02879306 = queryNorm
        0.16802745 = fieldWeight in 56, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=56)
    0.009752655 = product of:
      0.01950531 = sum of:
        0.01950531 = weight(_text_:22 in 56) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01950531 = score(doc=56,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10082839 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02879306 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 56, 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=56)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.1 = coord(2/20)

Abstract

The study reported here investigated the query expansion behavior of end-users interacting with a thesaurus-enhanced search system on the Web. Two groups, namely academic staff and postgraduate students, were recruited into this study. Data were collected from 90 searches performed by 30 users using the OVID interface to the CAB abstracts database. Data-gathering techniques included questionnaires, screen capturing software, and interviews. The results presented here relate to issues of search-topic and search-term characteristics, number and types of expanded queries, usefulness of thesaurus terms, and behavioral differences between academic staff and postgraduate students in their interaction. The key conclusions drawn were that (a) academic staff chose more narrow and synonymous terms than did postgraduate students, who generally selected broader and related terms; (b) topic complexity affected users' interaction with the thesaurus in that complex topics required more query expansion and search term selection; (c) users' prior topic-search experience appeared to have a significant effect on their selection and evaluation of thesaurus terms; (d) in 50% of the searches where additional terms were suggested from the thesaurus, users stated that they had not been aware of the terms at the beginning of the search; this observation was particularly noticeable in the case of postgraduate students.

Date

22. 7.2006 16:32:43

Theme

Semantisches Umfeld in Indexierung u. Retrieval

0.0016333599 = product of:
  0.016333599 = sum of:
    0.006580944 = weight(_text_:in in 1003) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006580944 = score(doc=1003,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.039165888 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02879306 = queryNorm
        0.16802745 = fieldWeight in 1003, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1003)
    0.009752655 = product of:
      0.01950531 = sum of:
        0.01950531 = weight(_text_:22 in 1003) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01950531 = score(doc=1003,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10082839 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02879306 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1003, 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=1003)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.1 = coord(2/20)

Abstract

Young undergraduate college students are often described as "digital natives," presumed to prefer living and working in completely digital information environments. In reality, their world is part-paper/part-digital, in constant transition among successive forms of digital storage and communication devices. Studying for a degree is the daily work of these young people, and effective management of paper and digital academic materials and resources contributes crucially to their success in life. Students must also constantly manage their work against deadlines to meet their course and university requirements. This study, following the "Personal Information Management" (PIM) paradigm, examines student academic information management under these various constraints and pressures. A total of 41 18- to 22-year-old students were interviewed and observed regarding the content, structure, and uses of their immediate working environment within their dormitory rooms. Students exhibited remarkable creativity and variety in the mixture of automated and manual resources and devices used to support their academic work. The demands of a yearlong procession of assignments, papers, projects, and examinations increase the importance of time management activities and influence much of their behavior. Results provide insights on student use of various kinds of information technology and their overall planning and management of information associated with their studies.

0.001563883 = product of:
  0.01563883 = sum of:
    0.005886175 = weight(_text_:in in 1257) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005886175 = score(doc=1257,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.039165888 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02879306 = queryNorm
        0.15028831 = fieldWeight in 1257, 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=1257)
    0.009752655 = product of:
      0.01950531 = sum of:
        0.01950531 = weight(_text_:22 in 1257) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01950531 = score(doc=1257,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10082839 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02879306 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1257, 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=1257)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.1 = coord(2/20)

Abstract

In conjunction with the American Society for Information Science and Technology's (ASIST) annual meeting in fall 2001, the Special Interest Group an Information Needs, Seeking, and Use (SIG USE) sponsored a research symposium an "Effective Methods for Studying Information Seeking and Use." The symposium was intended to address the SIG's goal of promoting studies of human information behavior by focusing an the research methods that can most effectively be used to study information needs, information seeking, information use, and other human information behaviors. The symposium included the presentation of six refereed articles, which were revised based an the discussion at the symposium and are included here. The six articles describe the application of a variety of research methods, singly or in combination. Some of the methods are most appropriate for studying individuals and their interactions with information, while others can be applied to studying group behaviors. The studies were conducted in a variety of settings, from a Web-searching laboratory to an archive, from hospitals to the great outdoors (i.e., forest and river sites). Each method or set of methods was applied to a particular user group, including young children, teenagers, and adults. Each article makes a unique contribution to our repertoire of research methods, as briefly reviewed here.

Date

20. 1.2003 9:37:22

0.001563883 = product of:
  0.01563883 = sum of:
    0.005886175 = weight(_text_:in in 4193) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005886175 = score(doc=4193,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.039165888 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02879306 = queryNorm
        0.15028831 = fieldWeight in 4193, 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=4193)
    0.009752655 = product of:
      0.01950531 = sum of:
        0.01950531 = weight(_text_:22 in 4193) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01950531 = score(doc=4193,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10082839 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02879306 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4193, 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=4193)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.1 = coord(2/20)

Abstract

The development of visual retrieval methods requires information about user interaction with images, including their description and categorization. This article presents the development of a categorization model for magazine images based on two user studies. In Study 1, we elicited 10 main classes of magazine image categorization criteria through sorting tasks with nonexpert and expert users (N=30). Multivariate methods, namely, multidimensional scaling and hierarchical clustering, were used to analyze similarity data. Content analysis of category names gave rise to classes that were synthesized into a categorization framework. The framework was evaluated in Study 2 by experts (N=24) who categorized another set of images consistent with the framework and found it to be useful in the task. Based on the evaluation study the framework was solidified into a model for categorizing magazine imagery. Connections between classes were analyzed both from the original sorting data and from the evaluation study and included into the final model. The model is a practical categorization tool that may be used in workplaces, such as magazine editorial offices. It may also serve to guide the development of computational methods for image understanding, selection of concepts for automatic detection, and approaches to support browsing and exploratory image search.

Date

22. 1.2011 14:09:26