Search (72 results, page 2 of 4)

0.0077931583 = product of:
  0.019482896 = sum of:
    0.0100103095 = weight(_text_:a in 4373) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0100103095 = score(doc=4373,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.18723148 = fieldWeight in 4373, 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=4373)
    0.009472587 = product of:
      0.018945174 = sum of:
        0.018945174 = weight(_text_:information in 4373) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018945174 = score(doc=4373,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 4373, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4373)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

This paper reports on a transaction log analysis of the type and topic of search queries entered into the search engine Google (Australia). Two aspects, in particular, set this apart from previous studies: the sampling and analysis take account of the distribution of search queries, and lifestyle information of the searcher was matched with each search query. A surprising finding was that there was no observed statistically significant difference in search type or topics for different segments of the online population. It was found that queries about popular culture and Ecommerce accounted for almost half of all search engine queries and that half of the queries were entered with a particular Website in mind. The findings of this study also suggest that the Internet search engine is not only an interface to information or a shortcut to Websites, it is equally a site of leisure. This study has implications for the design and evaluation of search engines as well as our understanding of search engine use.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.4, S.761-775

Type

a

0.0072925375 = product of:
  0.018231343 = sum of:
    0.0074222814 = weight(_text_:a in 357) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0074222814 = score(doc=357,freq=38.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.13882536 = fieldWeight in 357, product of:
          6.164414 = tf(freq=38.0), with freq of:
            38.0 = termFreq=38.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=357)
    0.010809061 = product of:
      0.021618122 = sum of:
        0.021618122 = weight(_text_:information in 357) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021618122 = score(doc=357,freq=60.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.26558346 = fieldWeight in 357, product of:
              7.745967 = tf(freq=60.0), with freq of:
                60.0 = termFreq=60.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=357)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

The main goal of this book is to transfer new research results from the fields of advanced computer sciences and information science to the design of new search engines. The readers will have a better idea of the new trends in applied research. The achievement of relevant, organized, sorted, and workable answers- to name but a few - from a search is becoming a daily need for enterprises and organizations, and, to a greater extent, for anyone. It does not consist of getting access to structural information as in standard databases; nor does it consist of searching information strictly by way of a combination of key words. It goes far beyond that. Whatever its modality, the information sought should be identified by the topics it contains, that is to say by its textual, audio, video or graphical contents. This is not a new issue. However, recent technological advances have completely changed the techniques being used. New Web technologies, the emergence of Intranet systems and the abundance of information on the Internet have created the need for efficient search and information access tools.
Recent technological progress in computer science, Web technologies, and constantly evolving information available on the Internet has drastically changed the landscape of search and access to information. Web search has significantly evolved in recent years. In the beginning, web search engines such as Google and Yahoo! were only providing search service over text documents. Aggregated search was one of the first steps to go beyond text search, and was the beginning of a new era for information seeking and retrieval. These days, new web search engines support aggregated search over a number of vertices, and blend different types of documents (e.g., images, videos) in their search results. New search engines employ advanced techniques involving machine learning, computational linguistics and psychology, user interaction and modeling, information visualization, Web engineering, artificial intelligence, distributed systems, social networks, statistical analysis, semantic analysis, and technologies over query sessions. Documents no longer exist on their own; they are connected to other documents, they are associated with users and their position in a social network, and they can be mapped onto a variety of ontologies. Similarly, retrieval tasks have become more interactive and are solidly embedded in a user's geospatial, social, and historical context. It is conjectured that new breakthroughs in information retrieval will not come from smarter algorithms that better exploit existing information sources, but from new retrieval algorithms that can intelligently use and combine new sources of contextual metadata.
With the rapid growth of web-based applications, such as search engines, Facebook, and Twitter, the development of effective and personalized information retrieval techniques and of user interfaces is essential. The amount of shared information and of social networks has also considerably grown, requiring metadata for new sources of information, like Wikipedia and ODP. These metadata have to provide classification information for a wide range of topics, as well as for social networking sites like Twitter, and Facebook, each of which provides additional preferences, tagging information and social contexts. Due to the explosion of social networks and other metadata sources, it is an opportune time to identify ways to exploit such metadata in IR tasks such as user modeling, query understanding, and personalization, to name a few. Although the use of traditional metadata such as html text, web page titles, and anchor text is fairly well-understood, the use of category information, user behavior data, and geographical information is just beginning to be studied. This book is intended for scientists and decision-makers who wish to gain working knowledge about search engines in order to evaluate available solutions and to dialogue with software and data providers.

Content

Enthält die Beiträge: Das, A., A. Jain: Indexing the World Wide Web: the journey so far. Ke, W.: Decentralized search and the clustering paradox in large scale information networks. Roux, M.: Metadata for search engines: what can be learned from e-Sciences? Fluhr, C.: Crosslingual access to photo databases. Djioua, B., J.-P. Desclés u. M. Alrahabi: Searching and mining with semantic categories. Ghorbel, H., A. Bahri u. R. Bouaziz: Fuzzy ontologies building platform for Semantic Web: FOB platform. Lassalle, E., E. Lassalle: Semantic models in information retrieval. Berry, M.W., R. Esau u. B. Kiefer: The use of text mining techniques in electronic discovery for legal matters. Sleem-Amer, M., I. Bigorgne u. S. Brizard u.a.: Intelligent semantic search engines for opinion and sentiment mining. Hoeber, O.: Human-centred Web search.
Vert, S.: Extensions of Web browsers useful to knowledge workers. Chen, L.-C.: Next generation search engine for the result clustering technology. Biskri, I., L. Rompré: Using association rules for query reformulation. Habernal, I., M. Konopík u. O. Rohlík: Question answering. Grau, B.: Finding answers to questions, in text collections or Web, in open domain or specialty domains. Berri, J., R. Benlamri: Context-aware mobile search engine. Bouidghaghen, O., L. Tamine: Spatio-temporal based personalization for mobile search. Chaudiron, S., M. Ihadjadene: Studying Web search engines from a user perspective: key concepts and main approaches. Karaman, F.: Artificial intelligence enabled search engines (AIESE) and the implications. Lewandowski, D.: A framework for evaluating the retrieval effectiveness of search engines.

LCSH

Information retrieval
Information retrieval / Research
Information storage and retrieval systems / Research
Information behavior

Subject

Information retrieval
Information retrieval / Research
Information storage and retrieval systems / Research
Information behavior

0.007285525 = product of:
  0.018213812 = sum of:
    0.0100103095 = weight(_text_:a in 1284) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0100103095 = score(doc=1284,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.18723148 = fieldWeight in 1284, 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=1284)
    0.008203502 = product of:
      0.016407004 = sum of:
        0.016407004 = weight(_text_:information in 1284) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.016407004 = score(doc=1284,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.20156369 = fieldWeight in 1284, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1284)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

This article offers a comparative analysis of the personal profiling capabilities of the two most important free citation-based academic search engines, namely, Microsoft Academic Search (MAS) and Google Scholar Citations (GSC). Author profiles can be useful for evaluation purposes once the advantages and the shortcomings of these services are described and taken into consideration. In total, 771 personal profiles appearing in both the MAS and the GSC databases were analyzed. Results show that the GSC profiles include more documents and citations than those in MAS but with a strong bias toward the information and computing sciences, whereas the MAS profiles are disciplinarily better balanced. MAS shows technical problems such as a higher number of duplicated profiles and a lower updating rate than GSC. It is concluded that both services could be used for evaluation proposes only if they are applied along with other citation indices as a way to supplement that information.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 65(2014) no.6, S.1149-1156

Type

a

0.0067985477 = product of:
  0.016996369 = sum of:
    0.012260076 = weight(_text_:a in 5100) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012260076 = score(doc=5100,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.22931081 = fieldWeight in 5100, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5100)
    0.0047362936 = product of:
      0.009472587 = sum of:
        0.009472587 = weight(_text_:information in 5100) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009472587 = score(doc=5100,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 5100, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5100)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

A commonly used technique for improving search engine performance is result caching. In result caching, precomputed results (e.g., URLs and snippets of best matching pages) of certain queries are stored in a fast-access storage. The future occurrences of a query whose results are already stored in the cache can be directly served by the result cache, eliminating the need to process the query using costly computing resources. Although other performance metrics are possible, the main performance metric for evaluating the success of a result cache is hit rate. In this work, we present a machine learning approach to improve the hit rate of a result cache by facilitating a large number of features extracted from search engine query logs. We then apply the proposed machine learning approach to static, dynamic, and static-dynamic caching. Compared to the previous methods in the literature, the proposed approach improves the hit rate of the result cache up to 0.66%, which corresponds to 9.60% of the potential room for improvement.

Source

Information processing and management. 53(2017) no.4, S.834-850

Type

a

0.0066833766 = product of:
  0.016708441 = sum of:
    0.0100103095 = weight(_text_:a in 10) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0100103095 = score(doc=10,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.18723148 = fieldWeight in 10, 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=10)
    0.0066981306 = product of:
      0.013396261 = sum of:
        0.013396261 = weight(_text_:information in 10) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013396261 = score(doc=10,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 10, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=10)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Information Retrieval (IR) research typically evaluates search systems in terms of the standard precision, recall and F-measures to weight the relative importance of precision and recall (e.g. van Rijsbergen, 1979). All of these assess the extent to which the system returns good matches for a query. In contrast, webometric measures are designed specifically for web search engines and are designed to monitor changes in results over time and various aspects of the internal logic of the way in which search engine select the results to be returned. This chapter introduces a range of webometric measurements and illustrates them with case studies of Google, Bing and Yahoo! This is a very fertile area for simple and complex new investigations into search engine results.

Source

Innovations in information retrieval: perspectives for theory and practice. Eds.: A. Foster, u. P. Rafferty

Type

a

0.006550755 = product of:
  0.016376887 = sum of:
    0.008173384 = weight(_text_:a in 96) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008173384 = score(doc=96,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 96, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=96)
    0.008203502 = product of:
      0.016407004 = sum of:
        0.016407004 = weight(_text_:information in 96) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.016407004 = score(doc=96,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.20156369 = fieldWeight in 96, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=96)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

E-sciences are data-intensive sciences that make a large use of the Web to share, collect, and process data. In this context, primary scientific data is becoming a new challenging issue as data must be extensively described (1) to account for empiric conditions and results that allow interpretation and/or analyses and (2) to be understandable by computers used for data storage and information retrieval. With this respect, metadata is a focal point whatever it is considered from the point of view of the user to visualize and exploit data as well as this of the search tools to find and retrieve information. Numerous disciplines are concerned with the issues of describing complex observations and addressing pertinent knowledge. In this paper, similarities and differences in data description and exploration strategies among disciplines in e-sciences are examined.

Source

Next generation search engines: advanced models for information retrieval. Eds.: C. Jouis, u.a

Type

a

0.006548052 = product of:
  0.01637013 = sum of:
    0.005779455 = weight(_text_:a in 2799) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005779455 = score(doc=2799,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.10809815 = fieldWeight in 2799, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2799)
    0.010590675 = product of:
      0.02118135 = sum of:
        0.02118135 = weight(_text_:information in 2799) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02118135 = score(doc=2799,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.2602176 = fieldWeight in 2799, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2799)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

With ever increasing information being available to the end users, search engines have become the most powerful tools for obtaining useful information scattered on the Web. However, it is very common that even most renowned search engines return result sets with not so useful pages to the user. Research on semantic search aims to improve traditional information search and retrieval methods where the basic relevance criteria rely primarily on the presence of query keywords within the returned pages. This work is an attempt to explore different relevancy ranking approaches based on semantics which are considered appropriate for the retrieval of relevant information. In this paper, various pilot projects and their corresponding outcomes have been investigated based on methodologies adopted and their most distinctive characteristics towards ranking. An overview of selected approaches and their comparison by means of the classification criteria has been presented. With the help of this comparison, some common concepts and outstanding features have been identified.

Source

Information processing and management. 50(2014) no.2, S.416-425

Type

a

0.0065180818 = product of:
  0.016295204 = sum of:
    0.01155891 = weight(_text_:a in 3185) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01155891 = score(doc=3185,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.2161963 = fieldWeight in 3185, 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=3185)
    0.0047362936 = product of:
      0.009472587 = sum of:
        0.009472587 = weight(_text_:information in 3185) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009472587 = score(doc=3185,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 3185, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3185)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Query suggestion is generally an integrated part of web search engines. In this study, we first redefine and reduce the query suggestion problem as "comparison of queries". We then propose a general modular framework for query suggestion algorithm development. We also develop new query suggestion algorithms which are used in our proposed framework, exploiting query, session and user features. As a case study, we use query logs of a real educational search engine that targets K-12 students in Turkey. We also exploit educational features (course, grade) in our query suggestion algorithms. We test our framework and algorithms over a set of queries by an experiment and demonstrate a 66-90% statistically significant increase in relevance of query suggestions compared to a baseline method.

Source

Information processing and management. 52(2016) no.5, S.733-752

Type

a

0.006334501 = product of:
  0.015836252 = sum of:
    0.009138121 = weight(_text_:a in 106) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009138121 = score(doc=106,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.1709182 = fieldWeight in 106, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=106)
    0.0066981306 = product of:
      0.013396261 = sum of:
        0.013396261 = weight(_text_:information in 106) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013396261 = score(doc=106,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 106, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=106)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

This chapter presents a theoretical framework for evaluating next generation search engines. The author focuses on search engines whose results presentation is enriched with additional information and does not merely present the usual list of "10 blue links," that is, of ten links to results, accompanied by a short description. While Web search is used as an example here, the framework can easily be applied to search engines in any other area. The framework not only addresses the results presentation, but also takes into account an extension of the general design of retrieval effectiveness tests. The chapter examines the ways in which this design might influence the results of such studies and how a reliable test is best designed.

Source

Next generation search engines: advanced models for information retrieval. Eds.: C. Jouis, u.a

Type

a

0.0063011474 = product of:
  0.015752869 = sum of:
    0.009437811 = weight(_text_:a in 1700) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009437811 = score(doc=1700,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.17652355 = fieldWeight in 1700, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1700)
    0.006315058 = product of:
      0.012630116 = sum of:
        0.012630116 = weight(_text_:information in 1700) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.012630116 = score(doc=1700,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 1700, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1700)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

The search giant is automatically building Knowledge Vault, a massive database that could give us unprecedented access to the world's facts GOOGLE is building the largest store of knowledge in human history - and it's doing so without any human help. Instead, Knowledge Vault autonomously gathers and merges information from across the web into a single base of facts about the world, and the people and objects in it.

Type

a

0.0062546856 = product of:
  0.015636714 = sum of:
    0.0068111527 = weight(_text_:a in 3612) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0068111527 = score(doc=3612,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 3612, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3612)
    0.008825562 = product of:
      0.017651124 = sum of:
        0.017651124 = weight(_text_:information in 3612) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017651124 = score(doc=3612,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.21684799 = fieldWeight in 3612, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3612)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Information seeking is a fundamental human activity. In the modern world, it is frequently conducted through interactions with search systems. The retrieval and comprehension of information returned by these systems is a key part of decision making and action in a broad range of settings. Advances in data availability coupled with new interaction paradigms, and mobile and cloud computing capabilities, have created a broad range of new opportunities for information access and use. In this comprehensive book for professionals, researchers, and students involved in search system design and evaluation, search expert Ryen White discusses how search systems can capitalize on new capabilities and how next-generation systems must support higher order search activities such as task completion, learning, and decision making. He outlines the implications of these changes for the evolution of search evaluation, as well as challenges that extend beyond search systems in areas such as privacy and societal benefit.

RSWK

Information Retrieval

Subject

Information Retrieval

0.006219466 = product of:
  0.015548665 = sum of:
    0.010812371 = weight(_text_:a in 279) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010812371 = score(doc=279,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.20223314 = fieldWeight in 279, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=279)
    0.0047362936 = product of:
      0.009472587 = sum of:
        0.009472587 = weight(_text_:information in 279) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009472587 = score(doc=279,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 279, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=279)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Traffic from search engines is important for most online businesses, with the majority of visitors to many websites being referred by search engines. Therefore, an understanding of this search engine traffic is critical to the success of these websites. Understanding search engine traffic means understanding the underlying intent of the query terms and the corresponding user behaviors of searchers submitting keywords. In this research, using 712,643 query keywords from a popular Spanish music website relying on contextual advertising as its business model, we use a k-means clustering algorithm to categorize the referral keywords with similar characteristics of onsite customer behavior, including attributes such as clickthrough rate and revenue. We identified 6 clusters of consumer keywords. Clusters range from a large number of users who are low impact to a small number of high impact users. We demonstrate how online businesses can leverage this segmentation clustering approach to provide a more tailored consumer experience. Implications are that businesses can effectively segment customers to develop better business models to increase advertising conversion rates.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 63(2012) no.7, S.1426-1441

Type

a

0.006112744 = product of:
  0.01528186 = sum of:
    0.007078358 = weight(_text_:a in 110) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007078358 = score(doc=110,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.13239266 = fieldWeight in 110, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=110)
    0.008203502 = product of:
      0.016407004 = sum of:
        0.016407004 = weight(_text_:information in 110) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.016407004 = score(doc=110,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.20156369 = fieldWeight in 110, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=110)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Search engines are the major means of information retrieval over the Internet. People's dependence on them increases over time as SEs introduce new and sophisticated technologies. The developments in the Artificial Intelligence (AI) will transform the current search engines Artificial Intelligence Enabled Search Engines (AIESE). Search engines already play a critical role in classifying, sorting and delivering the information over the Internet. However, as Internet's mainstream role becomes more apparent and AI technology increases the sophistication of the tools of the SEs, their roles will become much more critical. Since, the future of search engines are examined, the technological singularity concept is analyzed in detail. Second and third order indirect side effects are analyzed. A four-stage evolution-model is suggested.

Source

Next generation search engines: advanced models for information retrieval. Eds.: C. Jouis, u.a

Type

a

0.006112744 = product of:
  0.01528186 = sum of:
    0.007078358 = weight(_text_:a in 478) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007078358 = score(doc=478,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.13239266 = fieldWeight in 478, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=478)
    0.008203502 = product of:
      0.016407004 = sum of:
        0.016407004 = weight(_text_:information in 478) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.016407004 = score(doc=478,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.20156369 = fieldWeight in 478, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=478)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

"Web Search Engine Research", edited by Dirk Lewandowski, provides an understanding of Web search engines from the unique perspective of Library and Information Science. The book explores a range of topics including retrieval effectiveness, user satisfaction, the evaluation of search interfaces, the impact of search on society, reliability of search results, query log analysis, user guidance in the search process, and the influence of search engine optimization (SEO) on results quality. While research in computer science has mainly focused on technical aspects of search engines, LIS research is centred on users' behaviour when using search engines and how this interaction can be evaluated. LIS research provides a unique perspective in intermediating between the technical aspects, user aspects and their impact on their role in knowledge acquisition. This book is directly relevant to researchers and practitioners in library and information science, computer science, including Web researchers.

Footnote

Weitere Rez. in: Journal of Documentation, 69(2013) no.4, S.594-596 (A. MacFarlane)

Series

Library and information science; vol. 4

0.006112744 = product of:
  0.01528186 = sum of:
    0.007078358 = weight(_text_:a in 3112) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007078358 = score(doc=3112,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.13239266 = fieldWeight in 3112, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3112)
    0.008203502 = product of:
      0.016407004 = sum of:
        0.016407004 = weight(_text_:information in 3112) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.016407004 = score(doc=3112,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.20156369 = fieldWeight in 3112, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3112)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Dyslexic users often do not exhibit spelling and reading skills at a level required to perform effective search. To explore whether autocomplete functions reduce the impact of dyslexia on information searching, 20 participants with dyslexia and 20 controls solved 10 predefined tasks in the search engine Google. Eye-tracking and screen-capture documented the searches. There were no significant differences between the dyslexic students and the controls in time usage, number of queries, query lengths, or the use of the autocomplete function. However, participants with dyslexia made more misspellings and looked less at the screen and the autocomplete suggestions lists while entering the queries. The results indicate that although the autocomplete function supported the participants in the search process, a more extensive use of the autocomplete function would have reduced misspellings. Further, the high tolerance for spelling errors considerably reduced the effect of dyslexia, and may be as important as the autocomplete function.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.10, S.2320-2328

Type

a

0.0060245167 = product of:
  0.015061291 = sum of:
    0.009535614 = weight(_text_:a in 4478) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009535614 = score(doc=4478,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.17835285 = fieldWeight in 4478, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4478)
    0.005525676 = product of:
      0.011051352 = sum of:
        0.011051352 = weight(_text_:information in 4478) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011051352 = score(doc=4478,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 4478, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4478)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Previous work has established that search engine queries can be classified according to the intent of the searcher (i.e., why is the user searching, what specifically do they intend to do). In this article, we describe an experiment in which four sets of queries, each set representing a different user intent, are repeatedly submitted to three search engines over a period of 60 days. Using a variety of measurements, we describe the overall stability of the search engine results recorded for each group. Our findings suggest that search engine results for informational queries are significantly more stable than the results obtained using transactional, navigational, or commercial queries.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.7, S.1276-1287

Type

a

0.005948606 = product of:
  0.014871514 = sum of:
    0.008173384 = weight(_text_:a in 4437) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008173384 = score(doc=4437,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 4437, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4437)
    0.0066981306 = product of:
      0.013396261 = sum of:
        0.013396261 = weight(_text_:information in 4437) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013396261 = score(doc=4437,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 4437, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4437)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

This site provides a collection of schemas, i.e., html tags, that webmasters can use to markup their pages in ways recognized by major search providers. Search engines including Bing, Google and Yahoo! rely on this markup to improve the display of search results, making it easier for people to find the right web pages. Many sites are generated from structured data, which is often stored in databases. When this data is formatted into HTML, it becomes very difficult to recover the original structured data. Many applications, especially search engines, can benefit greatly from direct access to this structured data. On-page markup enables search engines to understand the information on web pages and provide richer search results in order to make it easier for users to find relevant information on the web. Markup can also enable new tools and applications that make use of the structure. A shared markup vocabulary makes easier for webmasters to decide on a markup schema and get the maximum benefit for their efforts. So, in the spirit of sitemaps.org, Bing, Google and Yahoo! have come together to provide a shared collection of schemas that webmasters can use.

0.005948606 = product of:
  0.014871514 = sum of:
    0.008173384 = weight(_text_:a in 95) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008173384 = score(doc=95,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 95, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=95)
    0.0066981306 = product of:
      0.013396261 = sum of:
        0.013396261 = weight(_text_:information in 95) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013396261 = score(doc=95,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 95, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=95)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

In this chapter, the authors describe the key indexing components of today's web search engines. As the World Wide Web has grown, the systems and methods for indexing have changed significantly. The authors present the data structures used, the features extracted, the infrastructure needed, and the options available for designing a brand new search engine. Techniques are highlighted that improve relevance of results, discuss trade-offs to best utilize machine resources, and cover distributed processing concepts in this context. In particular, the authors delve into the topics of indexing phrases instead of terms, storage in memory vs. on disk, and data partitioning. Some thoughts on information organization for the newly emerging data-forms conclude the chapter.

Source

Next generation search engines: advanced models for information retrieval. Eds.: C. Jouis, u.a

Type

a

0.005886516 = product of:
  0.01471629 = sum of:
    0.010769378 = weight(_text_:a in 1085) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010769378 = score(doc=1085,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.20142901 = fieldWeight in 1085, 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=1085)
    0.003946911 = product of:
      0.007893822 = sum of:
        0.007893822 = weight(_text_:information in 1085) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007893822 = score(doc=1085,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 1085, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1085)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Modern search engines have been moving away from simplistic interfaces that aimed at satisfying a user's need with a single-shot query. Interactive features are now integral parts of web search engines. However, generating good query modification suggestions remains a challenging issue. Query log analysis is one of the major strands of work in this direction. Although much research has been performed on query logs collected on the web as a whole, query log analysis to enhance search on smaller and more focused collections has attracted less attention, despite its increasing practical importance. In this article, we report on a systematic study of different query modification methods applied to a substantial query log collected on a local website that already uses an interactive search engine. We conducted experiments in which we asked users to assess the relevance of potential query modification suggestions that have been constructed using a range of log analysis methods and different baseline approaches. The experimental results demonstrate the usefulness of log analysis to extract query modification suggestions. Furthermore, our experiments demonstrate that a more fine-grained approach than grouping search requests into sessions allows for extraction of better refinement terms from query log files.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 64(2013) no.10, S.1975-1994

Type

a

0.0057805413 = product of:
  0.014451353 = sum of:
    0.0076151006 = weight(_text_:a in 4140) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0076151006 = score(doc=4140,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.14243183 = fieldWeight in 4140, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4140)
    0.006836252 = product of:
      0.013672504 = sum of:
        0.013672504 = weight(_text_:information in 4140) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013672504 = score(doc=4140,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.16796975 = fieldWeight in 4140, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4140)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Despite improvements in their capabilities, search engines still fail to provide users with only relevant results. One reason is that most search engines implement a "one size fits all" approach that ignores personal preferences when retrieving the results of a user's query. Recent studies (Smyth, 2010) have elaborated the importance of personalizing search results and have proposed integrating recommender system methods for enhancing results using contextual and extrinsic information that might indicate the user's actual needs. In this article, we review recommender system methods used for personalizing and improving search results and examine the effect of two such methods that are merged for this purpose. One method is based on collaborative users' knowledge; the second integrates information from the user's social network. We propose new methods for collaborative-and social-based search and demonstrate that each of these methods, when separately applied, produce more accurate search results than does a purely keyword-based search engine (referred to as "standard search engine"), where the social search engine is more accurate than is the collaborative one. However, separately applied, these methods do not produce a sufficient number of results (low coverage). Nevertheless, merging these methods with those implemented by standard search engines overcomes the low-coverage problem and produces personalized results for users that display significantly more accurate results while also providing sufficient coverage than do standard search engines. The improvement, however, is significant only for topics for which the diversity of terms used for queries among users is low.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.1, S.146-160

Type

a