Search (50 results, page 1 of 3)

  • × language_ss:"e"
  • × theme_ss:"Suchmaschinen"
  • × type_ss:"el"
  1. Dunning, A.: Do we still need search engines? (1999) 0.05
    0.05037771 = product of:
      0.10075542 = sum of:
        0.10075542 = sum of:
          0.01339476 = weight(_text_:a in 6021) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.01339476 = score(doc=6021,freq=4.0), product of:
              0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
                1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046056706 = queryNorm
              0.25222903 = fieldWeight in 6021, product of:
                2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                  4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6021)
          0.087360665 = weight(_text_:22 in 6021) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.087360665 = score(doc=6021,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046056706 = queryNorm
              0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 6021, product of:
                1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                  2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6021)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Source
    Ariadne. 1999, no.22
    Type
    a
  2. Birmingham, J.: Internet search engines (1996) 0.04
    0.04149951 = product of:
      0.08299902 = sum of:
        0.08299902 = sum of:
          0.008118451 = weight(_text_:a in 5664) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.008118451 = score(doc=5664,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
                1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046056706 = queryNorm
              0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 5664, product of:
                1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                  2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=5664)
          0.07488057 = weight(_text_:22 in 5664) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.07488057 = score(doc=5664,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046056706 = queryNorm
              0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 5664, product of:
                1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                  2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=5664)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    Basically a good listing in table format of features from the major search engines
    Date
    10.11.1996 16:36:22
  3. Bensman, S.J.: Eugene Garfield, Francis Narin, and PageRank : the theoretical bases of the Google search engine (2013) 0.03
    0.028787265 = product of:
      0.05757453 = sum of:
        0.05757453 = sum of:
          0.007654148 = weight(_text_:a in 1149) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.007654148 = score(doc=1149,freq=4.0), product of:
              0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
                1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046056706 = queryNorm
              0.14413087 = fieldWeight in 1149, product of:
                2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                  4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1149)
          0.04992038 = weight(_text_:22 in 1149) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.04992038 = score(doc=1149,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046056706 = queryNorm
              0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 1149, 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=1149)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    This paper presents a test of the validity of using Google Scholar to evaluate the publications of researchers by comparing the premises on which its search engine, PageRank, is based, to those of Garfield's theory of citation indexing. It finds that the premises are identical and that PageRank and Garfield's theory of citation indexing validate each other.
    Date
    17.12.2013 11:02:22
    Type
    a
  4. Baeza-Yates, R.; Boldi, P.; Castillo, C.: Generalizing PageRank : damping functions for linkbased ranking algorithms (2006) 0.02
    0.02067415 = product of:
      0.0413483 = sum of:
        0.0413483 = sum of:
          0.010148063 = weight(_text_:a in 2565) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.010148063 = score(doc=2565,freq=18.0), product of:
              0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
                1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046056706 = queryNorm
              0.19109234 = fieldWeight in 2565, product of:
                4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
                  18.0 = termFreq=18.0
                1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2565)
          0.03120024 = weight(_text_:22 in 2565) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.03120024 = score(doc=2565,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046056706 = queryNorm
              0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2565, 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=2565)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    This paper introduces a family of link-based ranking algorithms that propagate page importance through links. In these algorithms there is a damping function that decreases with distance, so a direct link implies more endorsement than a link through a long path. PageRank is the most widely known ranking function of this family. The main objective of this paper is to determine whether this family of ranking techniques has some interest per se, and how different choices for the damping function impact on rank quality and on convergence speed. Even though our results suggest that PageRank can be approximated with other simpler forms of rankings that may be computed more efficiently, our focus is of more speculative nature, in that it aims at separating the kernel of PageRank, that is, link-based importance propagation, from the way propagation decays over paths. We focus on three damping functions, having linear, exponential, and hyperbolic decay on the lengths of the paths. The exponential decay corresponds to PageRank, and the other functions are new. Our presentation includes algorithms, analysis, comparisons and experiments that study their behavior under different parameters in real Web graph data. Among other results, we show how to calculate a linear approximation that induces a page ordering that is almost identical to PageRank's using a fixed small number of iterations; comparisons were performed using Kendall's tau on large domain datasets.
    Date
    16. 1.2016 10:22:28
    Type
    a
  5. Boldi, P.; Santini, M.; Vigna, S.: PageRank as a function of the damping factor (2005) 0.02
    0.020383961 = product of:
      0.040767923 = sum of:
        0.040767923 = sum of:
          0.009567685 = weight(_text_:a in 2564) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.009567685 = score(doc=2564,freq=16.0), product of:
              0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
                1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046056706 = queryNorm
              0.18016359 = fieldWeight in 2564, product of:
                4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                  16.0 = termFreq=16.0
                1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2564)
          0.03120024 = weight(_text_:22 in 2564) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.03120024 = score(doc=2564,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046056706 = queryNorm
              0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2564, 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=2564)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    PageRank is defined as the stationary state of a Markov chain. The chain is obtained by perturbing the transition matrix induced by a web graph with a damping factor alpha that spreads uniformly part of the rank. The choice of alpha is eminently empirical, and in most cases the original suggestion alpha=0.85 by Brin and Page is still used. Recently, however, the behaviour of PageRank with respect to changes in alpha was discovered to be useful in link-spam detection. Moreover, an analytical justification of the value chosen for alpha is still missing. In this paper, we give the first mathematical analysis of PageRank when alpha changes. In particular, we show that, contrarily to popular belief, for real-world graphs values of alpha close to 1 do not give a more meaningful ranking. Then, we give closed-form formulae for PageRank derivatives of any order, and an extension of the Power Method that approximates them with convergence O(t**k*alpha**t) for the k-th derivative. Finally, we show a tight connection between iterated computation and analytical behaviour by proving that the k-th iteration of the Power Method gives exactly the PageRank value obtained using a Maclaurin polynomial of degree k. The latter result paves the way towards the application of analytical methods to the study of PageRank.
    Date
    16. 1.2016 10:22:28
    Type
    a
  6. Page, A.: ¬The search is over : the search-engines secrets of the pros (1996) 0.00
    0.0037819599 = product of:
      0.0075639198 = sum of:
        0.0075639198 = product of:
          0.0151278395 = sum of:
            0.0151278395 = weight(_text_:a in 5670) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.0151278395 = score(doc=5670,freq=10.0), product of:
                0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046056706 = queryNorm
                0.28486365 = fieldWeight in 5670, product of:
                  3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                    10.0 = termFreq=10.0
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=5670)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    Covers 8 of the most popular search engines. Gives a summary of each and has a nice table of features that also briefly lists the pros and cons. Includes a short explanation of Boolean operators too
    Type
    a
  7. Powell, J.; Fox, E.A.: Multilingual federated searching across heterogeneous collections (1998) 0.00
    0.0030255679 = product of:
      0.0060511357 = sum of:
        0.0060511357 = product of:
          0.012102271 = sum of:
            0.012102271 = weight(_text_:a in 1250) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.012102271 = score(doc=1250,freq=10.0), product of:
                0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046056706 = queryNorm
                0.22789092 = fieldWeight in 1250, product of:
                  3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                    10.0 = termFreq=10.0
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1250)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    This article describes a scalable system for searching heterogeneous multilingual collections on the World Wide Web. It details a markup language for describing the characteristics of a search engine and its interface, and a protocol for requesting word translations between languages.
    Type
    a
  8. Ding, L.; Finin, T.; Joshi, A.; Peng, Y.; Cost, R.S.; Sachs, J.; Pan, R.; Reddivari, P.; Doshi, V.: Swoogle : a Semantic Web search and metadata engine (2004) 0.00
    0.0028703054 = product of:
      0.005740611 = sum of:
        0.005740611 = product of:
          0.011481222 = sum of:
            0.011481222 = weight(_text_:a in 4704) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.011481222 = score(doc=4704,freq=16.0), product of:
                0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046056706 = queryNorm
                0.2161963 = fieldWeight in 4704, product of:
                  4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                    16.0 = termFreq=16.0
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4704)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    Swoogle is a crawler-based indexing and retrieval system for the Semantic Web, i.e., for Web documents in RDF or OWL. It extracts metadata for each discovered document, and computes relations between documents. Discovered documents are also indexed by an information retrieval system which can use either character N-Gram or URIrefs as keywords to find relevant documents and to compute the similarity among a set of documents. One of the interesting properties we compute is rank, a measure of the importance of a Semantic Web document.
    Content
    Vgl. unter: http://www.dblab.ntua.gr/~bikakis/LD/5.pdf Vgl. auch: http://swoogle.umbc.edu/. Vgl. auch: http://ebiquity.umbc.edu/paper/html/id/183/. Vgl. auch: Radhakrishnan, A.: Swoogle : An Engine for the Semantic Web unter: http://www.searchenginejournal.com/swoogle-an-engine-for-the-semantic-web/5469/.
    Type
    a
  9. Spink, A.; Gunar, O.: E-Commerce Web queries : Excite and AskJeeves study (2001) 0.00
    0.00270615 = product of:
      0.0054123 = sum of:
        0.0054123 = product of:
          0.0108246 = sum of:
            0.0108246 = weight(_text_:a in 910) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.0108246 = score(doc=910,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046056706 = queryNorm
                0.20383182 = fieldWeight in 910, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=910)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
  10. Khopkar, Y.; Spink, A.; Giles, C.L.; Shah, P.; Debnath, S.: Search engine personalization : An exploratory study (2003) 0.00
    0.00270615 = product of:
      0.0054123 = sum of:
        0.0054123 = product of:
          0.0108246 = sum of:
            0.0108246 = weight(_text_:a in 384) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.0108246 = score(doc=384,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046056706 = queryNorm
                0.20383182 = fieldWeight in 384, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=384)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
  11. Broder, A.; Kumar, R.; Maghoul, F.; Raghavan, P.; Rajagopalan, S.; Stata, R.; Tomkins, A.; Wiener, J.: Graph structure in the Web (2000) 0.00
    0.00270615 = product of:
      0.0054123 = sum of:
        0.0054123 = product of:
          0.0108246 = sum of:
            0.0108246 = weight(_text_:a in 5595) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.0108246 = score(doc=5595,freq=8.0), product of:
                0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046056706 = queryNorm
                0.20383182 = fieldWeight in 5595, product of:
                  2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                    8.0 = termFreq=8.0
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5595)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    The study of the web as a graph is not only fascinating in its own right, but also yields valuable insight into web algorithms for crawling, searching and community discovery, and the sociological phenomena which characterize its evolution. We report on experiments on local and global properties of the web graph using two Altavista crawls each with over 200M pages and 1.5 billion links. Our study indicates that the macroscopic structure of the web is considerably more intricate than suggested by earlier experiments on a smaller scale
  12. Shneiderman, B.; Byrd, D.; Croft, W.B.: Clarifying search : a user-interface framework for text searches (1997) 0.00
    0.00270615 = product of:
      0.0054123 = sum of:
        0.0054123 = product of:
          0.0108246 = sum of:
            0.0108246 = weight(_text_:a in 1258) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.0108246 = score(doc=1258,freq=8.0), product of:
                0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046056706 = queryNorm
                0.20383182 = fieldWeight in 1258, product of:
                  2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                    8.0 = termFreq=8.0
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1258)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    Current user interfaces for textual database searching leave much to be desired: individually, they are often confusing, and as a group, they are seriously inconsistent. We propose a four- phase framework for user-interface design: the framework provides common structure and terminology for searching while preserving the distinct features of individual collections and search mechanisms. Users will benefit from faster learning, increased comprehension, and better control, leading to more effective searches and higher satisfaction.
    Type
    a
  13. Brin, S.; Page, L.: ¬The anatomy of a large-scale hypertextual Web search engine (1998) 0.00
    0.0026742492 = product of:
      0.0053484985 = sum of:
        0.0053484985 = product of:
          0.010696997 = sum of:
            0.010696997 = weight(_text_:a in 947) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.010696997 = score(doc=947,freq=20.0), product of:
                0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046056706 = queryNorm
                0.20142901 = fieldWeight in 947, product of:
                  4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
                    20.0 = termFreq=20.0
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=947)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    In this paper, we present Google, a prototype of a large-scale search engine which makes heavy use of the structure present in hypertext. Google is designed to crawl and index the Web efficiently and produce much more satisfying search results than existing systems. The prototype with a full text and hyperlink database of at least 24 million pages is available at http://google.stanford.edu/. To engineer a search engine is a challenging task. Search engines index tens to hundreds of millions of web pages involving a comparable number of distinct terms. They answer tens of millions of queries every day. Despite the importance of large-scale search engines on the web, very little academic research has been done on them. Furthermore, due to rapid advance in technology and web proliferation, creating a web search engine today is very different from three years ago. This paper provides an in-depth description of our large-scale web search engine -- the first such detailed public description we know of to date. Apart from the problems of scaling traditional search techniques to data of this magnitude, there are new technical challenges involved with using the additional information present in hypertext to produce better search results. This paper addresses this question of how to build a practical large-scale system which can exploit the additional information present in hypertext. Also we look at the problem of how to effectively deal with uncontrolled hypertext collections where anyone can publish anything they want
    Type
    a
  14. Bryan, K.; Leise, T.: ¬The $25.000.000.000 eigenvector : the linear algebra behind Google 0.00
    0.0026473717 = product of:
      0.0052947435 = sum of:
        0.0052947435 = product of:
          0.010589487 = sum of:
            0.010589487 = weight(_text_:a in 1353) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.010589487 = score(doc=1353,freq=10.0), product of:
                0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046056706 = queryNorm
                0.19940455 = fieldWeight in 1353, product of:
                  3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                    10.0 = termFreq=10.0
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1353)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    Google's success derives in large part from its PageRank algorithm, which ranks the importance of webpages according to an eigenvector of a weighted link matrix. Analysis of the PageRank formula provides a wonderful applied topic for a linear algebra course. Instructors may assign this article as a project to more advanced students, or spend one or two lectures presenting the material with assigned homework from the exercises. This material also complements the discussion of Markov chains in matrix algebra. Maple and Mathematica files supporting this material can be found at www.rose-hulman.edu/~bryan.
    Type
    a
  15. Kriewel, S.; Klas, C.P.; Schaefer, A.; Fuhr, N.: DAFFODIL : strategic support for user-oriented access to heterogeneous digital libraries (2004) 0.00
    0.0026473717 = product of:
      0.0052947435 = sum of:
        0.0052947435 = product of:
          0.010589487 = sum of:
            0.010589487 = weight(_text_:a in 4838) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.010589487 = score(doc=4838,freq=10.0), product of:
                0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046056706 = queryNorm
                0.19940455 = fieldWeight in 4838, product of:
                  3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                    10.0 = termFreq=10.0
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4838)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    DAFFODIL is a search system for digital libraries aiming at strategic support during the information search process. From a user point of view this strategic support is mainly implemented by high-level search functions, so-called stratagems, which provide functionality beyond today's digital libraries. Through the tight integration of stratagems and with the federation of heterogeneous digital libraries, DAFFODIL reaches high effects of synergy for information and services. These effects provide high-quality metadata for the searcher through an intuitively controllable user interface. The implementation of stratagems follows a tool-based model.
    Type
    a
  16. Warnick, W.L.; Leberman, A.; Scott, R.L.; Spence, K.J.; Johnsom, L.A.; Allen, V.S.: Searching the deep Web : directed query engine applications at the Department of Energy (2001) 0.00
    0.0024857575 = product of:
      0.004971515 = sum of:
        0.004971515 = product of:
          0.00994303 = sum of:
            0.00994303 = weight(_text_:a in 1215) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.00994303 = score(doc=1215,freq=12.0), product of:
                0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046056706 = queryNorm
                0.18723148 = fieldWeight in 1215, product of:
                  3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                    12.0 = termFreq=12.0
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1215)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    Directed Query Engines, an emerging class of search engine specifically designed to access distributed resources on the deep web, offer the opportunity to create inexpensive digital libraries. Already, one such engine, Distributed Explorer, has been used to select and assemble high quality information resources and incorporate them into publicly available systems for the physical sciences. By nesting Directed Query Engines so that one query launches several other engines in a cascading fashion, enormous virtual collections may soon be assembled to form a comprehensive information infrastructure for the physical sciences. Once a Directed Query Engine has been configured for a set of information resources, distributed alerts tools can provide patrons with personalized, profile-based notices of recent additions to any of the selected resources. Due to the potentially enormous size and scope of Directed Query Engine applications, consideration must be given to issues surrounding the representation of large quantities of information from multiple, heterogeneous sources.
    Type
    a
  17. Haynes, M.: Your Google algorithm cheat sheet : Panda, Penguin, and Hummingbird (2013) 0.00
    0.0024857575 = product of:
      0.004971515 = sum of:
        0.004971515 = product of:
          0.00994303 = sum of:
            0.00994303 = weight(_text_:a in 2542) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.00994303 = score(doc=2542,freq=12.0), product of:
                0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046056706 = queryNorm
                0.18723148 = fieldWeight in 2542, product of:
                  3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                    12.0 = termFreq=12.0
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2542)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    If you're reading the Moz blog, then you probably have a decent understanding of Google and its algorithm changes. However, there is probably a good percentage of the Moz audience that is still confused about the effects that Panda, Penguin, and Hummingbird can have on your site. I did write a post last year about the main differences between Penguin and a Manual Unnautral Links Penalty, and if you haven't read that, it'll give you a good primer. The point of this article is to explain very simply what each of these algorithms are meant to do. It is hopefully a good reference that you can point your clients to if you want to explain an algorithm change and not overwhelm them with technical details about 301s, canonicals, crawl errors, and other confusing SEO terminologies.
  18. Austin, D.: How Google finds your needle in the Web's haystack : as we'll see, the trick is to ask the web itself to rank the importance of pages... (2006) 0.00
    0.002440756 = product of:
      0.004881512 = sum of:
        0.004881512 = product of:
          0.009763024 = sum of:
            0.009763024 = weight(_text_:a in 93) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.009763024 = score(doc=93,freq=34.0), product of:
                0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046056706 = queryNorm
                0.1838419 = fieldWeight in 93, product of:
                  5.8309517 = tf(freq=34.0), with freq of:
                    34.0 = termFreq=34.0
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=93)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    Imagine a library containing 25 billion documents but with no centralized organization and no librarians. In addition, anyone may add a document at any time without telling anyone. You may feel sure that one of the documents contained in the collection has a piece of information that is vitally important to you, and, being impatient like most of us, you'd like to find it in a matter of seconds. How would you go about doing it? Posed in this way, the problem seems impossible. Yet this description is not too different from the World Wide Web, a huge, highly-disorganized collection of documents in many different formats. Of course, we're all familiar with search engines (perhaps you found this article using one) so we know that there is a solution. This article will describe Google's PageRank algorithm and how it returns pages from the web's collection of 25 billion documents that match search criteria so well that "google" has become a widely used verb. Most search engines, including Google, continually run an army of computer programs that retrieve pages from the web, index the words in each document, and store this information in an efficient format. Each time a user asks for a web search using a search phrase, such as "search engine," the search engine determines all the pages on the web that contains the words in the search phrase. (Perhaps additional information such as the distance between the words "search" and "engine" will be noted as well.) Here is the problem: Google now claims to index 25 billion pages. Roughly 95% of the text in web pages is composed from a mere 10,000 words. This means that, for most searches, there will be a huge number of pages containing the words in the search phrase. What is needed is a means of ranking the importance of the pages that fit the search criteria so that the pages can be sorted with the most important pages at the top of the list. One way to determine the importance of pages is to use a human-generated ranking. For instance, you may have seen pages that consist mainly of a large number of links to other resources in a particular area of interest. Assuming the person maintaining this page is reliable, the pages referenced are likely to be useful. Of course, the list may quickly fall out of date, and the person maintaining the list may miss some important pages, either unintentionally or as a result of an unstated bias. Google's PageRank algorithm assesses the importance of web pages without human evaluation of the content. In fact, Google feels that the value of its service is largely in its ability to provide unbiased results to search queries; Google claims, "the heart of our software is PageRank." As we'll see, the trick is to ask the web itself to rank the importance of pages.
  19. Tomaiuolo, N.G.; Packer, J.G.: Quantitative analysis of five WWW 'search engines' (1996) 0.00
    0.0023919214 = product of:
      0.0047838427 = sum of:
        0.0047838427 = product of:
          0.009567685 = sum of:
            0.009567685 = weight(_text_:a in 5675) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.009567685 = score(doc=5675,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046056706 = queryNorm
                0.18016359 = fieldWeight in 5675, product of:
                  2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                    4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=5675)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    Provides a table of the results from over 100 questions actually asked at a library reference desk: The summary notes the average number of relevant 'hits' for all investigated search engines are: AltaVista: 9.3; InfoSeek: 8.3; Lycos: 8.1; Magellan: 7.8; Point: 2.1
  20. Bradley, P.: ¬The relevance of underpants to searching the Web (2000) 0.00
    0.0023678814 = product of:
      0.0047357627 = sum of:
        0.0047357627 = product of:
          0.009471525 = sum of:
            0.009471525 = weight(_text_:a in 3961) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.009471525 = score(doc=3961,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046056706 = queryNorm
                0.17835285 = fieldWeight in 3961, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=3961)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Type
    a

Years