Search (1627 results, page 1 of 82)

0.15498653 = product of:
  0.23247978 = sum of:
    0.123434246 = weight(_text_:book in 208) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.123434246 = score(doc=208,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.2237077 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050679956 = queryNorm
        0.55176574 = fieldWeight in 208, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=208)
    0.109045535 = sum of:
      0.054114055 = weight(_text_:search in 208) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.054114055 = score(doc=208,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17614716 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050679956 = queryNorm
          0.30720934 = fieldWeight in 208, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=208)
      0.054931477 = weight(_text_:22 in 208) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.054931477 = score(doc=208,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17747258 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050679956 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 208, 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=208)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Libraries must learn to accommodate themselves to Google, and complement its mass digitization efforts with niche digitization of our own. We need to plan for what our activities and services will look like when our primary activity is no longer the storage and circulation of widely-available print materials, and once the printed book is no longer the only major vehicle for scholarly communication.

Object

Google book search

Pages

S.5-22

0.1346759 = product of:
  0.20201385 = sum of:
    0.10910148 = weight(_text_:book in 731) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10910148 = score(doc=731,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.2237077 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050679956 = queryNorm
        0.4876966 = fieldWeight in 731, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=731)
    0.09291236 = sum of:
      0.058580182 = weight(_text_:search in 731) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.058580182 = score(doc=731,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.17614716 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050679956 = queryNorm
          0.33256388 = fieldWeight in 731, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=731)
      0.034332175 = weight(_text_:22 in 731) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.034332175 = score(doc=731,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17747258 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050679956 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 731, 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=731)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

One finding of the 2006 OCLC study of College Students' Perceptions of Libraries and Information Resources was that students expressed equal levels of trust in libraries and search engines when it came to meeting their information needs in a way that they felt was authoritative. Seeking to incorporate this insight into our own instructional methodology, Schaffer Library at Union College has attempted to engineer a shift from Google to Google Scholar among our student users by representing Scholar as a viable adjunct to the catalog and to snore traditional electronic resources. By attempting to engage student researchers on their own terms, we have discovered that most of them react enthusiastically to the revelation that the Google they think they know so well is, it turns out, a multifaceted resource that is capable of delivering the sort of scholarly information that will meet with their professors' approval. Specifically, this article focuses on the fact that many Google Scholar searches link hack to our own Web catalog where they identify useful book titles that direct OPAC keyword searches have missed.

Date

2.12.2007 19:39:22

Object

Google Book Search

0.13387142 = product of:
  0.20080712 = sum of:
    0.15274209 = weight(_text_:book in 486) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.15274209 = score(doc=486,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2237077 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050679956 = queryNorm
        0.68277526 = fieldWeight in 486, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=486)
    0.04806504 = product of:
      0.09613008 = sum of:
        0.09613008 = weight(_text_:22 in 486) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09613008 = score(doc=486,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17747258 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050679956 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 486, 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=486)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Source

Indexer. 22(2000) no.1, S.2-13

0.11071327 = product of:
  0.16606991 = sum of:
    0.1309218 = weight(_text_:book in 3790) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1309218 = score(doc=3790,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.2237077 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050679956 = queryNorm
        0.58523595 = fieldWeight in 3790, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3790)
    0.03514811 = product of:
      0.07029622 = sum of:
        0.07029622 = weight(_text_:search in 3790) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07029622 = score(doc=3790,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.17614716 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050679956 = queryNorm
            0.39907667 = fieldWeight in 3790, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3790)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Google Book Search, initially released as Google Print, allows the full-text searching of millions of books supplied by both publishers and libraries. More than 10,000 publishers and dozens of research libraries contribute. The Library Project is significant because it is a partnership with a commercial entity, because Google is funding the digitization, because the project exists on such a massive scale, and because of the speed with which so many works have been and are being scanned. The aspect that has created the most controversy, and legal action, is that some libraries are contributing works that are protected by copyright. A fascinating and critical debate has arisen around copyright protection, the fair use privilege, and what these mean in the digital age.

Footnote

Vgl.: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/book/10.1081/E-ELIS3.

Object

Google Book Search

0.10890546 = product of:
  0.16335818 = sum of:
    0.12246612 = weight(_text_:book in 1184) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12246612 = score(doc=1184,freq=28.0), product of:
        0.2237077 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050679956 = queryNorm
        0.5474381 = fieldWeight in 1184, product of:
          5.2915025 = tf(freq=28.0), with freq of:
            28.0 = termFreq=28.0
          4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1184)
    0.040892072 = sum of:
      0.02029277 = weight(_text_:search in 1184) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.02029277 = score(doc=1184,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17614716 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050679956 = queryNorm
          0.1152035 = fieldWeight in 1184, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1184)
      0.020599304 = weight(_text_:22 in 1184) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.020599304 = score(doc=1184,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17747258 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050679956 = queryNorm
          0.116070345 = fieldWeight in 1184, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1184)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Google's December 2004 announcement of its intention to collaborate with five major research libraries - Harvard University, the University of Michigan, Stanford University, the University of Oxford, and the New York Public Library - to digitize and surface their print book collections in the Google searching universe has, predictably, stirred conflicting opinion, with some viewing the project as a welcome opportunity to enhance the visibility of library collections in new environments, and others wary of Google's prospective role as gateway to these collections. The project has been vigorously debated on discussion lists and blogs, with the participating libraries commonly referred to as "the Google 5". One point most observers seem to concede is that the questions raised by this initiative are both timely and significant. The Google Print Library Project (GPLP) has galvanized a long overdue, multi-faceted discussion about library print book collections. The print book is core to library identity and practice, but in an era of zero-sum budgeting, it is almost inevitable that print book budgets will decline as budgets for serials, digital resources, and other materials expand. As libraries re-allocate resources to accommodate changing patterns of user needs, print book budgets may be adversely impacted. Of course, the degree of impact will depend on a library's perceived mission. A public library may expect books to justify their shelf-space, with de-accession the consequence of minimal use. A national library, on the other hand, has a responsibility to the scholarly and cultural record and may seek to collect comprehensively within particular areas, with the attendant obligation to secure the long-term retention of its print book collections. The combination of limited budgets, changing user needs, and differences in library collection strategies underscores the need to think about a collective, or system-wide, print book collection - in particular, how can an inter-institutional system be organized to achieve goals that would be difficult, and/or prohibitively expensive, for any one library to undertake individually [4]? Mass digitization programs like GPLP cast new light on these and other issues surrounding the future of library print book collections, but at this early stage, it is light that illuminates only dimly. It will be some time before GPLP's implications for libraries and library print book collections can be fully appreciated and evaluated. But the strong interest and lively debate generated by this initiative suggest that some preliminary analysis - premature though it may be - would be useful, if only to undertake a rough mapping of the terrain over which GPLP potentially will extend. At the least, some early perspective helps shape interesting questions for the future, when the boundaries of GPLP become settled, workflows for producing and managing the digitized materials become systematized, and usage patterns within the GPLP framework begin to emerge.
This article offers some perspectives on GPLP in light of what is known about library print book collections in general, and those of the Google 5 in particular, from information in OCLC's WorldCat bibliographic database and holdings file. Questions addressed include: * Coverage: What proportion of the system-wide print book collection will GPLP potentially cover? What is the degree of holdings overlap across the print book collections of the five participating libraries? * Language: What is the distribution of languages associated with the print books held by the GPLP libraries? Which languages are predominant? * Copyright: What proportion of the GPLP libraries' print book holdings are out of copyright? * Works: How many distinct works are represented in the holdings of the GPLP libraries? How does a focus on works impact coverage and holdings overlap? * Convergence: What are the effects on coverage of using a different set of five libraries? What are the effects of adding the holdings of additional libraries to those of the GPLP libraries, and how do these effects vary by library type? These questions certainly do not exhaust the analytical possibilities presented by GPLP. More in-depth analysis might look at Google 5 coverage in particular subject areas; it also would be interesting to see how many books covered by the GPLP have already been digitized in other contexts. However, these questions are left to future studies. The purpose here is to explore a few basic questions raised by GPLP, and in doing so, provide an empirical context for the debate that is sure to continue for some time to come. A secondary objective is to lay some groundwork for a general set of questions that could be used to explore the implications of any mass digitization initiative. A suggested list of questions is provided in the conclusion of the article.

Date

26.12.2011 14:08:22

Object

Google book search

0.10620606 = product of:
  0.15930909 = sum of:
    0.0771464 = weight(_text_:book in 1185) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0771464 = score(doc=1185,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.2237077 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050679956 = queryNorm
        0.34485358 = fieldWeight in 1185, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1185)
    0.08216269 = sum of:
      0.047830522 = weight(_text_:search in 1185) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.047830522 = score(doc=1185,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.17614716 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050679956 = queryNorm
          0.27153727 = fieldWeight in 1185, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1185)
      0.034332175 = weight(_text_:22 in 1185) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.034332175 = score(doc=1185,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17747258 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050679956 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1185, 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=1185)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

In a series of lectures presented in 1970, Pauline Cochrane offered an American view of Ranganathan's five laws of library science (Atherton, 1973). According to Cochrane, Ranganathan first con ceived of the five laws in 1924. They include: (1) books are for use; (2) every reader his book; (3) every book its reader; (4) save the time of the reader; and (5) a library is a growing organism. With respect to law 4, Cochrane cited the need for more research to understand the match between a user's information needs and the descriptions of information resources. In constructing the catalog and other search tools, do we save the time of the reader? Success in this effort requires knowing more about the reader's information needs and search behavior. Cochrane (1992) revisited the laws two decades later, recommending that they serve as guidelines and criteria for assessing the value of information technology in library and information services. In particular she suggested the need to determine whether information technology improves the timeliness, precision, and comprehensiveness of information provision to users. This article focuses an how information technology may enable us better to meet the needs of a particular category of information users - those undertaking interdisciplinary research. In a study completed twenty-five years ago, this author investigated the feasibility of developing a mapping of portions of controlled vocabularies as a tool for assisting in cross-database searching (Smith, 1974).

Date

22. 9.1997 19:16:05

0.1050245 = product of:
  0.15753675 = sum of:
    0.13362148 = weight(_text_:book in 2946) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13362148 = score(doc=2946,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.2237077 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050679956 = queryNorm
        0.5973039 = fieldWeight in 2946, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2946)
    0.023915261 = product of:
      0.047830522 = sum of:
        0.047830522 = weight(_text_:search in 2946) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047830522 = score(doc=2946,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17614716 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050679956 = queryNorm
            0.27153727 = fieldWeight in 2946, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2946)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

In both the social sciences and the humanities, books and monographs play significant roles in research communication. The absence of citations from most books and monographs from the Thomson Reuters/Institute for Scientific Information databases (ISI) has been criticized, but attempts to include citations from or to books in the research evaluation of the social sciences and humanities have not led to widespread adoption. This article assesses whether Google Book Search (GBS) can partially fill this gap by comparing citations from books with citations from journal articles to journal articles in 10 science, social science, and humanities disciplines. Book citations were 31% to 212% of ISI citations and, hence, numerous enough to supplement ISI citations in the social sciences and humanities covered, but not in the sciences (3%-5%), except for computing (46%), due to numerous published conference proceedings. A case study was also made of all 1,923 articles in the 51 information science and library science ISI-indexed journals published in 2003. Within this set, highly book-cited articles tended to receive many ISI citations, indicating a significant relationship between the two types of citation data, but with important exceptions that point to the additional information provided by book citations. In summary, GBS is clearly a valuable new source of citation data for the social sciences and humanities. One practical implication is that book-oriented scholars should consult it for additional citations to their work when applying for promotion and tenure.

0.09528184 = product of:
  0.14292276 = sum of:
    0.10910148 = weight(_text_:book in 7134) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10910148 = score(doc=7134,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2237077 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050679956 = queryNorm
        0.4876966 = fieldWeight in 7134, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=7134)
    0.033821285 = product of:
      0.06764257 = sum of:
        0.06764257 = weight(_text_:search in 7134) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06764257 = score(doc=7134,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17614716 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050679956 = queryNorm
            0.3840117 = fieldWeight in 7134, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=7134)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Object

Google book search

0.09432422 = product of:
  0.14148633 = sum of:
    0.108004965 = weight(_text_:book in 586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.108004965 = score(doc=586,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.2237077 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050679956 = queryNorm
        0.48279503 = fieldWeight in 586, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=586)
    0.033481363 = product of:
      0.06696273 = sum of:
        0.06696273 = weight(_text_:search in 586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06696273 = score(doc=586,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17614716 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050679956 = queryNorm
            0.38015217 = fieldWeight in 586, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=586)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Die Bayerische Staatsbibliothek hat eine Kooperation mit Google vereinbart. Der Internet-Gigant soll sämtliche Buchbestände digitalisieren, die nicht dem Urheberschutz unterliegen und in »Google Book Search« integrieren.

Object

Google book search

0.09267263 = product of:
  0.13900894 = sum of:
    0.076371044 = weight(_text_:book in 3876) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.076371044 = score(doc=3876,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2237077 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050679956 = queryNorm
        0.34138763 = fieldWeight in 3876, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3876)
    0.0626379 = product of:
      0.1252758 = sum of:
        0.1252758 = weight(_text_:search in 3876) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1252758 = score(doc=3876,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.17614716 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050679956 = queryNorm
            0.71119964 = fieldWeight in 3876, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3876)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

This entry provides an overview of Web search engines, looking at the definition, components, leading engines, searching capabilities, and types of engines. It examines the components that make up a search engine and briefly discusses the process involved in identifying content for the engines' databases and the indexing of that content. Typical search options are reviewed and the major Web search engines are identified and described. Also identified and described are various specialty search engines, such as those for special content such as video and images, and engines that take significantly different approaches to the search problem, such as visualization engines and metasearch engines.

Footnote

Vgl.: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/book/10.1081/E-ELIS3.

0.08957498 = product of:
  0.13436246 = sum of:
    0.076371044 = weight(_text_:book in 3824) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.076371044 = score(doc=3824,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2237077 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050679956 = queryNorm
        0.34138763 = fieldWeight in 3824, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3824)
    0.05799142 = product of:
      0.11598284 = sum of:
        0.11598284 = weight(_text_:search in 3824) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11598284 = score(doc=3824,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.17614716 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050679956 = queryNorm
            0.65844285 = fieldWeight in 3824, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3824)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

The early history of Internet search systems was quite diverse, and went through several stages before settling into the more mature recent environment of a few major search engines. The authors note: "From the early beginnings of Telnet, File Transfer Protocol (FTP), Archie, Veronica, and Gopher to the current iterations of Web search engines and search directories that use graphical interfaces, spiders, worms, robots, complex algorithms, proprietary information, competing interfaces, and advertising, access to the vast store of materials that is the Internet has depended upon search tools."

Footnote

Vgl.: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/book/10.1081/E-ELIS3.

0.08943023 = product of:
  0.13414533 = sum of:
    0.08728119 = weight(_text_:book in 3874) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08728119 = score(doc=3874,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2237077 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050679956 = queryNorm
        0.39015728 = fieldWeight in 3874, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3874)
    0.04686415 = product of:
      0.0937283 = sum of:
        0.0937283 = weight(_text_:search in 3874) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0937283 = score(doc=3874,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.17614716 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050679956 = queryNorm
            0.5321022 = fieldWeight in 3874, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3874)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Search engine optimization (SEO) is the craft of elevating Web sites or individual Web site pages to higher rankings on search engines through programming, marketing, or content acumen. This section covers the origins of SEO, strategies and tactics, history and trends, and the evolution of user behavior in online searching.

Footnote

Vgl.: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/book/10.1081/E-ELIS3.

0.089320615 = product of:
  0.13398091 = sum of:
    0.11338161 = weight(_text_:book in 770) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11338161 = score(doc=770,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.2237077 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050679956 = queryNorm
        0.50682926 = fieldWeight in 770, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=770)
    0.020599304 = product of:
      0.041198608 = sum of:
        0.041198608 = weight(_text_:22 in 770) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041198608 = score(doc=770,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17747258 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050679956 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 770, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=770)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

In response to the Association of Research Libraries' Special Collections Task Force's interest in "hidden" special collection materials, the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign's Conservation Unit undertook a conservation needs survey of the Rare Book and Special Collections Library's backlog of uncataloged rare book materials. The survey evaluated the binding structure; physical, biological, and chemical damage; and unique features of more than 4,000 randomly sampled pieces from the collection. The information gathered would aid in planning for the integration of immediate preservation actions with future cataloging projects and to better direct future conservation efforts. This paper details the development of the survey, interprets the results, and suggests methodologies for assessing other rare collections as well as approaches to integrating the identified immediate preservation needs with cataloging and processing projects.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.088024996 = product of:
  0.13203749 = sum of:
    0.108004965 = weight(_text_:book in 127) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.108004965 = score(doc=127,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.2237077 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050679956 = queryNorm
        0.48279503 = fieldWeight in 127, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=127)
    0.02403252 = product of:
      0.04806504 = sum of:
        0.04806504 = weight(_text_:22 in 127) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04806504 = score(doc=127,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17747258 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050679956 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 127, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=127)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Scholars have long noted the significance of Allegheny College's special collections to American cultural and educational history. Special collections have value to colleges and universities as publicity devices to draw scholars, students, and funding to the institution. Catalogers have an important role to play in marketing the library and the college through improved bibliographic access to these collections. Rare book and manuscript cataloging presents many challenges to catalogers, especially at smaller institutions. This report traces the evolution of Allegheny College's catalog, from book format in 1823, through card format, and finally to online. It also explores the bibliographic challenges created as the library moved from one format to another.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.08369707 = product of:
  0.1255456 = sum of:
    0.08728119 = weight(_text_:book in 3757) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08728119 = score(doc=3757,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2237077 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050679956 = queryNorm
        0.39015728 = fieldWeight in 3757, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3757)
    0.038264416 = product of:
      0.07652883 = sum of:
        0.07652883 = weight(_text_:search in 3757) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07652883 = score(doc=3757,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17614716 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050679956 = queryNorm
            0.43445963 = fieldWeight in 3757, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3757)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Boolean algebra, named after the 19th century mathematician and logician, George Boole, has contributed to many aspects of computer science and information science. In information science, Boolean logic forms the basis of most end-user search systems, from searches in online databases and catalogs, to uses of search engines in information seeking on the World Wide Web.

Footnote

Vgl.: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/book/10.1081/E-ELIS3.

0.081905015 = product of:
  0.12285752 = sum of:
    0.0654609 = weight(_text_:book in 3821) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0654609 = score(doc=3821,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2237077 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050679956 = queryNorm
        0.29261798 = fieldWeight in 3821, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3821)
    0.05739662 = product of:
      0.11479324 = sum of:
        0.11479324 = weight(_text_:search in 3821) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11479324 = score(doc=3821,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.17614716 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050679956 = queryNorm
            0.6516894 = fieldWeight in 3821, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3821)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Key terms related to information searching and search models are defined. A historic context is provided to illustrate the evolution of the four main digital environments that users interact with in their search process to offer readers background information regarding the transition from manual information systems to computer-based information retrieval (IR) systems, as well as the transition from intermediary searching to end-user searching. Emphasis is placed on the review of different levels of information searching from search tactics/moves, search strategies, and usage patterns, to search models and associated factors in relation to task, user knowledge structure, IR system design, and social-organization context. Search models are further classified into two types, with one type illustrating information search process (ISP) and the other type emphasizing the factors that influence the process. In addition, unsolved problems and future research are discussed and suggested.

Footnote

Vgl.: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/book/10.1081/E-ELIS3.

0.07697478 = product of:
  0.23092434 = sum of:
    0.23092434 = weight(_text_:book in 3749) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.23092434 = score(doc=3749,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.2237077 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050679956 = queryNorm
        1.0322592 = fieldWeight in 3749, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3749)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The book index occupies a special niche in the information retrieval world. Each index is a unique, authored work. Each book is a closed system. The text presented in a book does not change; the material is stable and fixed. Book indexers provide readers with a nonlinear way to access information in a text. Even though closed-system indexing predates the development of the printing press, a book index can be thought of as hypertext.

Footnote

Vgl.: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/book/10.1081/E-ELIS3.

0.07649796 = product of:
  0.11474693 = sum of:
    0.08728119 = weight(_text_:book in 3843) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08728119 = score(doc=3843,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2237077 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050679956 = queryNorm
        0.39015728 = fieldWeight in 3843, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3843)
    0.027465738 = product of:
      0.054931477 = sum of:
        0.054931477 = weight(_text_:22 in 3843) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.054931477 = score(doc=3843,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17747258 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050679956 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 3843, 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=3843)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Date

27. 8.2011 14:22:48

Footnote

Vgl.: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/book/10.1081/E-ELIS3.

0.07649796 = product of:
  0.11474693 = sum of:
    0.08728119 = weight(_text_:book in 3902) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08728119 = score(doc=3902,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2237077 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050679956 = queryNorm
        0.39015728 = fieldWeight in 3902, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3902)
    0.027465738 = product of:
      0.054931477 = sum of:
        0.054931477 = weight(_text_:22 in 3902) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.054931477 = score(doc=3902,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17747258 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050679956 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 3902, 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=3902)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Date

27. 8.2011 14:32:22

Footnote

Vgl.: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/book/10.1081/E-ELIS3.

0.07622548 = product of:
  0.11433822 = sum of:
    0.08728119 = weight(_text_:book in 3891) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08728119 = score(doc=3891,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2237077 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050679956 = queryNorm
        0.39015728 = fieldWeight in 3891, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3891)
    0.027057027 = product of:
      0.054114055 = sum of:
        0.054114055 = weight(_text_:search in 3891) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.054114055 = score(doc=3891,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17614716 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050679956 = queryNorm
            0.30720934 = fieldWeight in 3891, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3891)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Research and development of search engines and other information retrieval (IR) systems proceeds by a cycle of design, implementation, and experimentation, with the results of each experiment influencing design decisions in the next iteration of the cycle. Batch experiments on test collections help ensure that this process goes as smoothly and as quickly as possible. A test collection comprises a collection of documents, a set of information needs, and judgments of the relevance of documents to those needs.

Footnote

Vgl.: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/book/10.1081/E-ELIS3.