Search (116 results, page 6 of 6)

0.0077140685 = product of:
  0.015428137 = sum of:
    0.015428137 = product of:
      0.030856274 = sum of:
        0.030856274 = weight(_text_:22 in 5493) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030856274 = score(doc=5493,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15950468 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045548957 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5493, 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=5493)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.007484829 = product of:
  0.014969658 = sum of:
    0.014969658 = product of:
      0.029939316 = sum of:
        0.029939316 = weight(_text_:c in 5152) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029939316 = score(doc=5152,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15711682 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045548957 = queryNorm
            0.1905545 = fieldWeight in 5152, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5152)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.007484829 = product of:
  0.014969658 = sum of:
    0.014969658 = product of:
      0.029939316 = sum of:
        0.029939316 = weight(_text_:c in 62) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029939316 = score(doc=62,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15711682 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045548957 = queryNorm
            0.1905545 = fieldWeight in 62, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=62)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.007484829 = product of:
  0.014969658 = sum of:
    0.014969658 = product of:
      0.029939316 = sum of:
        0.029939316 = weight(_text_:c in 293) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029939316 = score(doc=293,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15711682 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045548957 = queryNorm
            0.1905545 = fieldWeight in 293, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=293)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.007484829 = product of:
  0.014969658 = sum of:
    0.014969658 = product of:
      0.029939316 = sum of:
        0.029939316 = weight(_text_:c in 2017) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029939316 = score(doc=2017,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15711682 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045548957 = queryNorm
            0.1905545 = fieldWeight in 2017, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2017)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.007484829 = product of:
  0.014969658 = sum of:
    0.014969658 = product of:
      0.029939316 = sum of:
        0.029939316 = weight(_text_:c in 2948) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029939316 = score(doc=2948,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15711682 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045548957 = queryNorm
            0.1905545 = fieldWeight in 2948, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2948)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In this research we investigate the effect of search engine brand on the evaluation of searching performance. Our research is motivated by the large amount of search traffic directed to a handful of Web search engines, even though many have similar interfaces and performance. We conducted a laboratory experiment with 32 participants using a 42 factorial design confounded in four blocks to measure the effect of four search engine brands (Google, MSN, Yahoo!, and a locally developed search engine) while controlling for the quality and presentation of search engine results. We found brand indeed played a role in the searching process. Brand effect varied in different domains. Users seemed to place a high degree of trust in major search engine brands; however, they were more engaged in the searching process when using lesser-known search engines. It appears that branding affects overall Web search at four stages: (a) search engine selection, (b) search engine results page evaluation, (c) individual link evaluation, and (d) evaluation of the landing page. We discuss the implications for search engine marketing and the design of empirical studies measuring search engine performance.

0.0064820526 = product of:
  0.012964105 = sum of:
    0.012964105 = product of:
      0.02592821 = sum of:
        0.02592821 = weight(_text_:c in 357) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02592821 = score(doc=357,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.15711682 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045548957 = queryNorm
            0.16502506 = fieldWeight in 357, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=357)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.

Editor

Jouis, C. u.a.

0.006171255 = product of:
  0.01234251 = sum of:
    0.01234251 = product of:
      0.02468502 = sum of:
        0.02468502 = weight(_text_:22 in 1188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02468502 = score(doc=1188,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15950468 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045548957 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 1188, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1188)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 9.1997 19:16:05

0.006171255 = product of:
  0.01234251 = sum of:
    0.01234251 = product of:
      0.02468502 = sum of:
        0.02468502 = weight(_text_:22 in 5285) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02468502 = score(doc=5285,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15950468 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045548957 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 5285, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5285)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 7.2006 16:59:33

0.0059878635 = product of:
  0.011975727 = sum of:
    0.011975727 = product of:
      0.023951454 = sum of:
        0.023951454 = weight(_text_:c in 4258) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023951454 = score(doc=4258,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15711682 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045548957 = queryNorm
            0.1524436 = fieldWeight in 4258, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4258)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.0059878635 = product of:
  0.011975727 = sum of:
    0.011975727 = product of:
      0.023951454 = sum of:
        0.023951454 = weight(_text_:c in 993) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023951454 = score(doc=993,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15711682 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045548957 = queryNorm
            0.1524436 = fieldWeight in 993, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=993)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.005399848 = product of:
  0.010799696 = sum of:
    0.010799696 = product of:
      0.021599391 = sum of:
        0.021599391 = weight(_text_:22 in 5937) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021599391 = score(doc=5937,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15950468 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045548957 = queryNorm
            0.1354154 = fieldWeight in 5937, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=5937)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

3. 5.1997 8:44:22

0.005399848 = product of:
  0.010799696 = sum of:
    0.010799696 = product of:
      0.021599391 = sum of:
        0.021599391 = weight(_text_:22 in 2752) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021599391 = score(doc=2752,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15950468 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045548957 = queryNorm
            0.1354154 = fieldWeight in 2752, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=2752)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

1. 2.2016 18:25:22

0.00523938 = product of:
  0.01047876 = sum of:
    0.01047876 = product of:
      0.02095752 = sum of:
        0.02095752 = weight(_text_:c in 9) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02095752 = score(doc=9,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15711682 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045548957 = queryNorm
            0.13338815 = fieldWeight in 9, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=9)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Footnote

Deutsche Übersetzung als: Googlenomics : Wie Google denkt, arbeitet und unser Leben verändert. Heidelberg, Neckar ; mitp/bhv ; 2011. Rez. in: JASIST 62(2011) no.12, S.2540-2543 (C. Leslie)

0.0044908975 = product of:
  0.008981795 = sum of:
    0.008981795 = product of:
      0.01796359 = sum of:
        0.01796359 = weight(_text_:c in 3099) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01796359 = score(doc=3099,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15711682 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045548957 = queryNorm
            0.114332706 = fieldWeight in 3099, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3099)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

"When Randall C. Jimerson, the president of the Society of American Archivists, heard of Google's plan to convert certain holdings at Oxford University and at some of the leading research libraries in the United States into digital files, searchable over the Web, he asked, "What are they thinking?" Mr. Jimerson had worries. Who would select the material? How would it be organized and identified to avoid mountains of excerpts taken out of context? Would Google users eventually forgo the experience of holding a book or looking at a historicaldocument? But in recent interviews, many scholars and librarians applauded the announcement by Google, the operator of the world's most popular Internet search service, to digitize some of the collections at Oxford, the University of Michigan, Stanford University, Harvard and the New York Public Library. The plan, in the words of Paul Duguid, information specialist at the University of California at Berkeley, will "blast wide open" the walls around the libraries of world-class institutions.

0.0042340592 = product of:
  0.0084681185 = sum of:
    0.0084681185 = product of:
      0.016936237 = sum of:
        0.016936237 = weight(_text_:c in 1973) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.016936237 = score(doc=1973,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15711682 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045548957 = queryNorm
            0.10779391 = fieldWeight in 1973, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=1973)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

Introduction: Libraries and Their Interrelationships with Google - William Miller Disruptive Beneficence: The Google Print Program and the Future of Libraries - Mark Sandler The Google Library Project at Oxford - Ronald Milne The (Uncertain) Future of Libraries in a Google World: Sounding an Alarm - Rick Anderson A Gaggle of Googles: Limitations and Defects of Electronic Access as Panacea - -Mark Y. Herring Using the Google Search Appliance for Federated Searching: A Case Study - Mary Taylor Google's Print and Scholar Initiatives: The Value of and Impact on Libraries and Information Services - Robert J. Lackie Google Scholar vs. Library Scholar: Testing the Performance of Schoogle - Burton Callicott; Debbie Vaughn Google, the Invisible Web, and Librarians: Slaying the Research Goliath - Francine Egger-Sider; Jane Devine Choices in the Paradigm Shift: Where Next for Libraries? - Shelley E. Phipps; Krisellen Maloney Calling the Scholars Home: Google Scholar as a Tool for Rediscovering the Academic Library - Maurice C. York Checking Under the Hood: Evaluating Google Scholar for Reference Use - Janice Adlington; Chris Benda Running with the Devil: Accessing Library-Licensed Full Text Holdings Through Google Scholar - Rebecca Donlan; Rachel Cooke Directing Students to New Information Types: A New Role for Google in Literature Searches? - Mike Thelwall Evaluating Google Scholar as a Tool for Information Literacy Rachael Cathcart - Amanda Roberts Optimising Publications for Google Users - Alan Dawson Google and Privacy - Paul S. Piper Image: Google's Most Important Product - Ron Force Keeping Up with Google: Resources and Strategies for Staying Ahead of the Pack - Michael J. Krasulski; Steven J. Bell

Footnote

Ebenfalls direkt aus der Praxis erhält der Leser Informationen zum Google-PrintProgramm. Robert Milne beschreibt die Zusammenarbeit von Google und der Universität Oxford. In diesem Aufsatz wird - was dem Autor natürlich nicht anzulasten ist - ein Problem des vorliegenden Werks deutlich: Viele Informationen sind doch von sehr beschränkter Haltbarkeit. Der Redaktionsschluss war im Frühsommer 2005, sodass sich in vielen Bereichen bereits neue Entwicklungen ergeben haben. Dies ist beim Print-Programm der Fall, vor allem wird es aber bei dem Hauptthema des Bandes, nämlich Google Scholar, deutlich. Dieser Dienst wurde im November 2004 gestartet und stieß auf unterschiedlichste Reaktionen, die (anhand von Beispielen amerikanischer Bibliotheken) im Beitrag von Maurice C. York beschrieben werden. Einige Bibliotheken nahmen den Dienst begeistert auf und verlinkten diesen mit Lob versehen auf ihren Websites. Andere reagierten gegenteilig und warnten vor dessen schlechter Qualität. Auch weil vorauszusehen war, dass Google Scholar bei den Nutzern gut ankommen würde, darf das folgende Statement von einer Bibliothekswebsite geradezu als ignorant gelten: Google Scholar »is wonderful for those who do not have access to the library's databases« (S.119). Wie nun die Scholar-Nutzer auf die Bibliotheksangebote gelenkt werden können, beschreibt der ironisch »Running with the Devil« betitelte Aufsatz von Rebecca Donlan und Rachel Cooke. Die Autorinnen beschreiben den Einsatz von Link-Resolvern und gehen auf die in Google Scholar bestehenden Probleme durch unklare Bezeichnungen in den Trefferlisten ein. Einige Beispiele zeigen, dass Google Scholar auch in Kombination mit der Verlinkung auf die Bibliotheksbestände keine befriedigende Recherchesituation herstellt, sondern vielmehr weitere Anstrengungen nötig sind, um »das Beste beider Welten« zusammenzuführen. Zwei weitere Aufsätze beschäftigen sich mit der Frage, wie gut Google Scholar eigentlich ist. Einmal geht es darum, wie gut Scholar den »ACRL Information Literacy Standards« genügt. Der zweite Beitrag vergleicht Google Scholar anhand von fünf Suchaufgaben einerseits mit einem lokalen Bibliothekskatalog, andererseits mit EBSCOs Academic Search Premier und jeweils einer fachspezifischen Datenbank. Die Ergebnisse zeigen keine durchgehende Überlegenheit einer Suchlösung, vielmehr wird deutlich, dass es auf die Auswahl des richtigen Suchwerkzeugs für die bestehende Suchanfrage ankommt bzw. dass erst eine Kombination dieser Werkzeuge zu optimalen Ergebnissen führt. Man könnte also auch hier wieder sagen: Google und Bibliotheken, nicht Google oder Bibliotheken.