Search (4 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × theme_ss:"Benutzerstudien"
  • × theme_ss:"Suchmaschinen"
  • × theme_ss:"Suchtaktik"
  1. Ford, N.; Miller, D.; Moss, N.: ¬The role of individual differences in Internet searching : an empirical study (2001) 0.02
    0.019828727 = product of:
      0.039657455 = sum of:
        0.039657455 = product of:
          0.07931491 = sum of:
            0.07931491 = weight(_text_:searching in 6978) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.07931491 = score(doc=6978,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.2091384 = queryWeight, product of:
                  4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.051699217 = queryNorm
                0.37924606 = fieldWeight in 6978, product of:
                  2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                    4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                  4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=6978)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    This article reports the results of a study of the role of individual differences in Internet searching. The dimensions of individual differences forming the focus of the research consisted of: cognitive styles; levels of prior experience; Internet perceptions; study approaches; age; and gender. Sixty-nine Masters students searched for information on a prescribed topic using the AItaVista search engine. Results were assessed using simple binary relevance judgements. Factor analysis and multiple regression revealed interesting differences, retrieval effectiveness being linked to: male gender; low cognitive complexity; an imager (as opposed to verbalizer) cognitive style; and a number of Internet perceptions and study approaches grouped here as indicating low self-efficacy. The implications of these findings for system development and for future research are discussed.
  2. White, R.W.; Jose, J.M.; Ruthven, I.: ¬A task-oriented study on the influencing effects of query-biased summarisation in web searching (2003) 0.02
    0.01652394 = product of:
      0.03304788 = sum of:
        0.03304788 = product of:
          0.06609576 = sum of:
            0.06609576 = weight(_text_:searching in 1081) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.06609576 = score(doc=1081,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.2091384 = queryWeight, product of:
                  4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.051699217 = queryNorm
                0.3160384 = fieldWeight in 1081, product of:
                  2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                    4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                  4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1081)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    The aim of the work described in this paper is to evaluate the influencing effects of query-biased summaries in web searching. For this purpose, a summarisation system has been developed, and a summary tailored to the user's query is generated automatically for each document retrieved. The system aims to provide both a better means of assessing document relevance than titles or abstracts typical of many web search result lists. Through visiting each result page at retrieval-time, the system provides the user with an idea of the current page content and thus deals with the dynamic nature of the web. To examine the effectiveness of this approach, a task-oriented, comparative evaluation between four different web retrieval systems was performed; two that use query-biased summarisation, and two that use the standard ranked titles/abstracts approach. The results from the evaluation indicate that query-biased summarisation techniques appear to be more useful and effective in helping users gauge document relevance than the traditional ranked titles/abstracts approach. The same methodology was used to compare the effectiveness of two of the web's major search engines; AltaVista and Google.
  3. Lucas, W.T.; Topi, H.: Training for Web search : will it get you in shape? (2004) 0.01
    0.014021028 = product of:
      0.028042056 = sum of:
        0.028042056 = product of:
          0.05608411 = sum of:
            0.05608411 = weight(_text_:searching in 5245) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.05608411 = score(doc=5245,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.2091384 = queryWeight, product of:
                  4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.051699217 = queryNorm
                0.26816747 = fieldWeight in 5245, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5245)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    Given that time is money, Web searching can be a very expensive proposition. Even with the best search technology, the usefulness of search results depends on the searcher's ability to use that technology effectively. In an effort to improve this ability, our research investigates the effects of logic training, interface training, and the type of search interface on the search process. In a study with 145 participants, we found that even limited training in basic Boolean logic improved performance with a simple search interface. Surprisingly, for users of an interface that assisted them in forming syntactically correct Boolean queries, performance was negatively affected by logic training and unaffected by interface training. Use of the assisted interface itself, however, resulted in strong improvements in performance over use of the simple interface. In addition to being useful for search engine providers, these findings are important for all companies that rely heavily on search for critical aspects of their operations, in that they demonstrate simple means by which the search experience can be improved for their employees and customers.
  4. Aloteibi, S.; Sanderson, M.: Analyzing geographic query reformulation : an exploratory study (2014) 0.01
    0.008755663 = product of:
      0.017511327 = sum of:
        0.017511327 = product of:
          0.035022654 = sum of:
            0.035022654 = weight(_text_:22 in 1177) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.035022654 = score(doc=1177,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.18104185 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.051699217 = queryNorm
                0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1177, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1177)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Date
    26. 1.2014 18:48:22