Search (77 results, page 4 of 4)

  • × theme_ss:"Informetrie"
  • × year_i:[2000 TO 2010}
  1. Johnson, B.; Oppenheim, C.: How socially connected are citers to those that they cite? (2007) 0.01 
    0.007890998 = product of:
  0.015781997 = sum of:
    0.015781997 = product of:
      0.031563994 = sum of:
        0.031563994 = weight(_text_:b in 839) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031563994 = score(doc=839,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16126883 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045518078 = queryNorm
            0.19572285 = fieldWeight in 839, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=839)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
  2. Tsai, B.-s.: Information landscaping : information mapping, charting, querying and reporting techniques for total quality knowledge management (2003) 0.01 
    0.007890998 = product of:
  0.015781997 = sum of:
    0.015781997 = product of:
      0.031563994 = sum of:
        0.031563994 = weight(_text_:b in 1079) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031563994 = score(doc=1079,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16126883 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045518078 = queryNorm
            0.19572285 = fieldWeight in 1079, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1079)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
  3. Antonakis, J.; Lalive, R.: Quantifying scholarly impact : IQp versus the Hirsch h (2008) 0.01 
    0.007890998 = product of:
  0.015781997 = sum of:
    0.015781997 = product of:
      0.031563994 = sum of:
        0.031563994 = weight(_text_:b in 1722) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031563994 = score(doc=1722,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16126883 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045518078 = queryNorm
            0.19572285 = fieldWeight in 1722, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1722)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Hirsch's (2005) h index of scholarly output has generated substantial interest and wide acceptance because of its apparent ability to quantify scholarly impact simply and accurately. We show that the excitement surrounding h is premature for three reasons: h stagnates with increasing scientific age; it is highly dependent on publication quantity; and it is highly dependent on field-specific citation rates. Thus, it is not useful for comparing scholars across disciplines. We propose the scholarly index of quality and productivity (IQp) as an alternative to h. The new index takes into account a scholar's total impact and also corrects for field-specific citation rates, scholarly productivity, and scientific age. The IQp accurately predicts group membership on a common metric, as tested on a sample of 80 scholars from three populations: (a) Nobel winners in physics (n = 10), chemistry (n = 10), medicine (n = 10), and economics (n = 10), and towering psychologists (n = 10); and scholars who have made more modest contributions to science including randomly selected (b) fellows (n = 15) and (c) members (n = 15) of the Society of Industrial and Organizational Psychology. The IQp also correlates better with expert ratings of greatness than does the h index.
  4. Levitt, J.M.; Thelwall, M.: Is multidisciplinary research more highly cited? : a macrolevel study (2008) 0.01 
    0.007890998 = product of:
  0.015781997 = sum of:
    0.015781997 = product of:
      0.031563994 = sum of:
        0.031563994 = weight(_text_:b in 2375) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031563994 = score(doc=2375,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16126883 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045518078 = queryNorm
            0.19572285 = fieldWeight in 2375, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2375)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Interdisciplinary collaboration is a major goal in research policy. This study uses citation analysis to examine diverse subjects in the Web of Science and Scopus to ascertain whether, in general, research published in journals classified in more than one subject is more highly cited than research published in journals classified in a single subject. For each subject, the study divides the journals into two disjoint sets called Multi and Mono. Multi consists of all journals in the subject and at least one other subject whereas Mono consists of all journals in the subject and in no other subject. The main findings are: (a) For social science subject categories in both the Web of Science and Scopus, the average citation levels of articles in Mono and Multi are very similar; and (b) for Scopus subject categories within life sciences, health sciences, and physical sciences, the average citation level of Mono articles is roughly twice that of Multi articles. Hence, one cannot assume that in general, multidisciplinary research will be more highly cited, and the converse is probably true for many areas of science. A policy implication is that, at least in the sciences, multidisciplinary researchers should not be evaluated by citations on the same basis as monodisciplinary researchers.
  5. Couto, T.; Cristo, M.; Gonçalves, M.A.; Calado, P.; Ziviani, N.; Moura, E.; Ribeiro-Neto, B.: ¬A comparative study of citations and links in document classification (2006) 0.01 
    0.007890998 = product of:
  0.015781997 = sum of:
    0.015781997 = product of:
      0.031563994 = sum of:
        0.031563994 = weight(_text_:b in 2531) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031563994 = score(doc=2531,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16126883 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045518078 = queryNorm
            0.19572285 = fieldWeight in 2531, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2531)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
  6. Kousha, K.; Thelwall, M.: How is science cited on the Web? : a classification of google unique Web citations (2007) 0.01 
    0.0077088396 = product of:
  0.015417679 = sum of:
    0.015417679 = product of:
      0.030835358 = sum of:
        0.030835358 = weight(_text_:22 in 586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030835358 = score(doc=586,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15939656 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045518078 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 586, 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=586)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Although the analysis of citations in the scholarly literature is now an established and relatively well understood part of information science, not enough is known about citations that can be found on the Web. In particular, are there new Web types, and if so, are these trivial or potentially useful for studying or evaluating research communication? We sought evidence based upon a sample of 1,577 Web citations of the URLs or titles of research articles in 64 open-access journals from biology, physics, chemistry, and computing. Only 25% represented intellectual impact, from references of Web documents (23%) and other informal scholarly sources (2%). Many of the Web/URL citations were created for general or subject-specific navigation (45%) or for self-publicity (22%). Additional analyses revealed significant disciplinary differences in the types of Google unique Web/URL citations as well as some characteristics of scientific open-access publishing on the Web. We conclude that the Web provides access to a new and different type of citation information, one that may therefore enable us to measure different aspects of research, and the research process in particular; but to obtain good information, the different types should be separated.
  7. Ball, R.: Wissenschaftsindikatoren im Zeitalter digitaler Wissenschaft (2007) 0.01 
    0.0077088396 = product of:
  0.015417679 = sum of:
    0.015417679 = product of:
      0.030835358 = sum of:
        0.030835358 = weight(_text_:22 in 875) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030835358 = score(doc=875,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15939656 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045518078 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 875, 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=875)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    23.12.2007 19:22:21
  8. Hayer, L.: Lazarsfeld zitiert : eine bibliometrische Analyse (2008) 0.01 
    0.0077088396 = product of:
  0.015417679 = sum of:
    0.015417679 = product of:
      0.030835358 = sum of:
        0.030835358 = weight(_text_:22 in 1934) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030835358 = score(doc=1934,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15939656 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045518078 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1934, 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=1934)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    22. 6.2008 12:54:12
  9. Meho, L.I.; Rogers, Y.: Citation counting, citation ranking, and h-index of human-computer interaction researchers : a comparison of Scopus and Web of Science (2008) 0.01 
    0.0077088396 = product of:
  0.015417679 = sum of:
    0.015417679 = product of:
      0.030835358 = sum of:
        0.030835358 = weight(_text_:22 in 2352) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030835358 = score(doc=2352,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15939656 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045518078 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2352, 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=2352)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    This study examines the differences between Scopus and Web of Science in the citation counting, citation ranking, and h-index of 22 top human-computer interaction (HCI) researchers from EQUATOR - a large British Interdisciplinary Research Collaboration project. Results indicate that Scopus provides significantly more coverage of HCI literature than Web of Science, primarily due to coverage of relevant ACM and IEEE peer-reviewed conference proceedings. No significant differences exist between the two databases if citations in journals only are compared. Although broader coverage of the literature does not significantly alter the relative citation ranking of individual researchers, Scopus helps distinguish between the researchers in a more nuanced fashion than Web of Science in both citation counting and h-index. Scopus also generates significantly different maps of citation networks of individual scholars than those generated by Web of Science. The study also presents a comparison of h-index scores based on Google Scholar with those based on the union of Scopus and Web of Science. The study concludes that Scopus can be used as a sole data source for citation-based research and evaluation in HCI, especially when citations in conference proceedings are sought, and that researchers should manually calculate h scores instead of relying on system calculations.
  10. Shibata, N.; Kajikawa, Y.; Takeda, Y.; Matsushima, K.: Comparative study on methods of detecting research fronts using different types of citation (2009) 0.01 
    0.0077088396 = product of:
  0.015417679 = sum of:
    0.015417679 = product of:
      0.030835358 = sum of:
        0.030835358 = weight(_text_:22 in 2743) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030835358 = score(doc=2743,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15939656 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045518078 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2743, 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=2743)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    22. 3.2009 17:52:50
  11. Costas, R.; Bordons, M.; Leeuwen, T.N. van; Raan, A.F.J. van: Scaling rules in the science system : Influence of field-specific citation characteristics on the impact of individual researchers (2009) 0.01 
    0.0077088396 = product of:
  0.015417679 = sum of:
    0.015417679 = product of:
      0.030835358 = sum of:
        0.030835358 = weight(_text_:22 in 2759) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030835358 = score(doc=2759,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15939656 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045518078 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2759, 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=2759)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    22. 3.2009 19:02:48
  12. White, H.D.; Wellman, B.; Nazer, N.: Does Citation Reflect Social Structure? : Longitudinal Evidence From the "Globenet" Interdisciplinary Research Group (2004) 0.01 
    0.0063127987 = product of:
  0.012625597 = sum of:
    0.012625597 = product of:
      0.025251195 = sum of:
        0.025251195 = weight(_text_:b in 2095) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025251195 = score(doc=2095,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16126883 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045518078 = queryNorm
            0.15657827 = fieldWeight in 2095, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2095)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
  13. Kurtz, M.J.; Eichhorn, G.; Accomazzi, A.; Grant, C.; Demleitner, D.; Murray, S.S.; Martimbeau, N.; Elwell, B.: ¬The bibliometric properties of article readership information (2005) 0.01 
    0.0063127987 = product of:
  0.012625597 = sum of:
    0.012625597 = product of:
      0.025251195 = sum of:
        0.025251195 = weight(_text_:b in 3307) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025251195 = score(doc=3307,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16126883 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045518078 = queryNorm
            0.15657827 = fieldWeight in 3307, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3307)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
  14. Qin, J.: Semantic patterns in bibliographically coupled documents (2002) 0.01 
    0.0063127987 = product of:
  0.012625597 = sum of:
    0.012625597 = product of:
      0.025251195 = sum of:
        0.025251195 = weight(_text_:b in 4266) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025251195 = score(doc=4266,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16126883 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045518078 = queryNorm
            0.15657827 = fieldWeight in 4266, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4266)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Different research fields have different definitions for semantic patterns. For knowledge discovery and representation, semantic patterns represent the distribution of occurrences of words in documents and/or citations. In the broadest sense, the term semantic patterns may also refer to the distribution of occurrences of subjects or topics as reflected in documents. The semantic pattern in a set of documents or a group of topics therefore implies quantitative indicators that describe the subject characteristics of the documents being examined. These characteristics are often described by frequencies of keyword occurrences, number of co-occurred keywords, occurrences of coword, and number of cocitations. There are many ways to analyze and derive semantic patterns in documents and citations. A typical example is text mining in full-text documents, a research topic that studies how to extract useful associations and patterns through clustering, categorizing, and summarizing words in texts. One unique way in library and information science is to discover semantic patterns through bibliographically coupled citations. The history of bibliographical coupling goes back in the early 1960s when Kassler investigated associations among technical reports and technical information flow patterns. A number of definitions may facilitate our understanding of bibliographic coupling: (1) bibliographic coupling determines meaningful relations between papers by a study of each paper's bibliography; (2) a unit of coupling is the functional bond between papers when they share a single reference item; (3) coupling strength shows the order of combinations of units of coupling into a graded scale between groups of papers; and (4) a coupling criterion is the way by which the coupling units are combined between two or more papers. Kessler's classic paper an bibliographic coupling between scientific papers proposes the following two graded criteria: Criterion A: A number of papers constitute a related group GA if each member of the group has at least one coupling unit to a given test paper P0. The coupling strength between P0 and any member of GA is measured by the number of coupling units n between them. G(subA)(supn) is that portion of GA that is linked to P0 through n coupling units; Criterion B: A number of papers constitute a related group GB if each member of the group has at least one coupling unit to every other member of the group.
  15. Bornmann, L.; Daniel, H.-D.: Selecting manuscripts for a high-impact journal through peer review : a citation analysis of communications that were accepted by Angewandte Chemie International Edition, or rejected but published elsewhere (2008) 0.01 
    0.0063127987 = product of:
  0.012625597 = sum of:
    0.012625597 = product of:
      0.025251195 = sum of:
        0.025251195 = weight(_text_:b in 2381) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025251195 = score(doc=2381,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16126883 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045518078 = queryNorm
            0.15657827 = fieldWeight in 2381, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2381)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    All journals that use peer review have to deal with the following question: Does the peer review system fulfill its declared objective to select the best scientific work? We investigated the journal peer-review process at Angewandte Chemie International Edition (AC-IE), one of the prime chemistry journals worldwide, and conducted a citation analysis for Communications that were accepted by the journal (n = 878) or rejected but published elsewhere (n = 959). The results of negative binomial-regression models show that holding all other model variables constant, being accepted by AC-IE increases the expected number of citations by up to 50%. A comparison of average citation counts (with 95% confidence intervals) of accepted and rejected (but published elsewhere) Communications with international scientific reference standards was undertaken. As reference standards, (a) mean citation counts for the journal set provided by Thomson Reuters corresponding to the field chemistry and (b) specific reference standards that refer to the subject areas of Chemical Abstracts were used. When compared to reference standards, the mean impact on chemical research is for the most part far above average not only for accepted Communications but also for rejected (but published elsewhere) Communications. However, average and below-average scientific impact is to be expected significantly less frequently for accepted Communications than for rejected Communications. All in all, the results of this study confirm that peer review at AC-IE is able to select the best scientific work with the highest impact on chemical research.
  16. Wettlauf der Wissenschaft (2004) 0.01 
    0.0061670714 = product of:
  0.012334143 = sum of:
    0.012334143 = product of:
      0.024668286 = sum of:
        0.024668286 = weight(_text_:22 in 2495) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024668286 = score(doc=2495,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15939656 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045518078 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 2495, 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=2495)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Source
    Online Mitteilungen. 2004, Nr.79, S.22-23 [=Mitteilungen VÖB 57(2004) H.2]
  17. Hassler, M.: Web analytics : Metriken auswerten, Besucherverhalten verstehen, Website optimieren ; [Metriken analysieren und interpretieren ; Besucherverhalten verstehen und auswerten ; Website-Ziele definieren, Webauftritt optimieren und den Erfolg steigern] (2009) 0.01 
    0.005523699 = product of:
  0.011047398 = sum of:
    0.011047398 = product of:
      0.022094795 = sum of:
        0.022094795 = weight(_text_:b in 3586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.022094795 = score(doc=3586,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16126883 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045518078 = queryNorm
            0.13700598 = fieldWeight in 3586, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3586)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Web Analytics bezeichnet die Sammlung, Analyse und Auswertung von Daten der Website-Nutzung mit dem Ziel, diese Informationen zum besseren Verständnis des Besucherverhaltens sowie zur Optimierung der Website zu nutzen. Je nach Ziel der eigenen Website - z.B. die Vermittlung eines Markenwerts oder die Vermehrung von Kontaktanfragen, Bestellungen oder Newsletter-Abonnements - können Sie anhand von Web Analytics herausfinden, wo sich Schwachstellen Ihrer Website befinden und wie Sie Ihre eigenen Ziele durch entsprechende Optimierungen besser erreichen. Dabei ist Web Analytics nicht nur für Website-Betreiber und IT-Abteilungen interessant, sondern wird insbesondere auch mehr und mehr für Marketing und Management nutzbar. Mit diesem Buch lernen Sie, wie Sie die Nutzung Ihrer Website analysieren. Sie können z. B. untersuchen, welche Traffic-Quelle am meisten Umsatz bringt oder welche Bereiche der Website besonders häufig genutzt werden und vieles mehr. Auf diese Weise werden Sie Ihre Besucher, ihr Verhalten und ihre Motivation besser kennen lernen, Ihre Website darauf abstimmen und somit Ihren Erfolg steigern können. Um aus Web Analytics einen wirklichen Mehrwert ziehen zu können, benötigen Sie fundiertes Wissen. Marco Hassler gibt Ihnen in seinem Buch einen umfassenden Einblick in Web Analytics. Er zeigt Ihnen detailliert, wie das Verhalten der Besucher analysiert wird und welche Metriken Sie wann sinnvoll anwenden können. Im letzten Teil des Buches zeigt Ihnen der Autor, wie Sie Ihre Auswertungsergebnisse dafür nutzen, über Conversion-Messungen die Website auf ihre Ziele hin zu optimieren. Ziel dieses Buches ist es, konkrete Web-Analytics-Kenntnisse zu vermitteln und wertvolle praxisorientierte Tipps zu geben. Dazu schlägt das Buch die Brücke zu tangierenden Themenbereichen wie Usability, User-Centered-Design, Online Branding, Online-Marketing oder Suchmaschinenoptimierung. Marco Hassler gibt Ihnen klare Hinweise und Anleitungen, wie Sie Ihre Ziele erreichen.

Authors

Languages

  • e 70
  • d 7

Types

  • a 75
  • m 2
  • el 1
  • s 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Classifications