Search (7 results, page 1 of 1)

Furner, J.: ¬A unifying model of document relatedness for hybrid search engines (2003) 0.02

0.024813656 = product of:
  0.062034138 = sum of:
    0.052696597 = weight(_text_:2003 in 2717) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.052696597 = score(doc=2717,freq=3.0), product of:
        0.14955263 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.339969 = idf(docFreq=1566, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034459375 = queryNorm
        0.35236156 = fieldWeight in 2717, product of:
          1.7320508 = tf(freq=3.0), with freq of:
            3.0 = termFreq=3.0
          4.339969 = idf(docFreq=1566, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2717)
    0.009337539 = product of:
      0.028012617 = sum of:
        0.028012617 = weight(_text_:22 in 2717) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028012617 = score(doc=2717,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12067086 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.034459375 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2717, 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=2717)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Date: 11. 9.2004 17:32:22
Year: 2003

Thelwall, M.: Can Google's PageRank be used to find the most important academic Web pages? (2003) 0.01

0.013606205 = product of:
  0.06803102 = sum of:
    0.06803102 = weight(_text_:2003 in 4457) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06803102 = score(doc=4457,freq=5.0), product of:
        0.14955263 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.339969 = idf(docFreq=1566, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034459375 = queryNorm
        0.45489684 = fieldWeight in 4457, product of:
          2.236068 = tf(freq=5.0), with freq of:
            5.0 = termFreq=5.0
          4.339969 = idf(docFreq=1566, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4457)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Source: Journal of documentation. 59(2003) no.2, S.205-217
Year: 2003

Watters, C.; Amoudi, A.: Geosearcher : location-based ranking of search engine results (2003) 0.01

0.011338504 = product of:
  0.05669252 = sum of:
    0.05669252 = weight(_text_:2003 in 5152) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05669252 = score(doc=5152,freq=5.0), product of:
        0.14955263 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.339969 = idf(docFreq=1566, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034459375 = queryNorm
        0.3790807 = fieldWeight in 5152, product of:
          2.236068 = tf(freq=5.0), with freq of:
            5.0 = termFreq=5.0
          4.339969 = idf(docFreq=1566, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5152)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Source: Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 54(2003) no.2, S.140-151
Year: 2003

Bar-Ilan, J.; Levene, M.; Mat-Hassan, M.: Methods for evaluating dynamic changes in search engine rankings : a case study (2006) 0.01
```
0.0057368795 = product of:
  0.028684396 = sum of:
    0.028684396 = weight(_text_:2003 in 616) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028684396 = score(doc=616,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14955263 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.339969 = idf(docFreq=1566, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034459375 = queryNorm
        0.19180135 = fieldWeight in 616, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.339969 = idf(docFreq=1566, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=616)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
```
Abstract

Purpose - The objective of this paper is to characterize the changes in the rankings of the top ten results of major search engines over time and to compare the rankings between these engines. Design/methodology/approach - The papers compare rankings of the top-ten results of the search engines Google and AlltheWeb on ten identical queries over a period of three weeks. Only the top-ten results were considered, since users do not normally inspect more than the first results page returned by a search engine. The experiment was repeated twice, in October 2003 and in January 2004, in order to assess changes to the top-ten results of some of the queries during the three months interval. In order to assess the changes in the rankings, three measures were computed for each data collection point and each search engine. Findings - The findings in this paper show that the rankings of AlltheWeb were highly stable over each period, while the rankings of Google underwent constant yet minor changes, with occasional major ones. Changes over time can be explained by the dynamic nature of the web or by fluctuations in the search engines' indexes. The top-ten results of the two search engines had surprisingly low overlap. With such small overlap, the task of comparing the rankings of the two engines becomes extremely challenging. Originality/value - The paper shows that because of the abundance of information on the web, ranking search results is of extreme importance. The paper compares several measures for computing the similarity between rankings of search tools, and shows that none of the measures is fully satisfactory as a standalone measure. It also demonstrates the apparent differences in the ranking algorithms of two widely used search engines.

Back, J.: ¬An evaluation of relevancy ranking techniques used by Internet search engines (2000) 0.00

0.004357518 = product of:
  0.021787591 = sum of:
    0.021787591 = product of:
      0.065362774 = sum of:
        0.065362774 = weight(_text_:22 in 3445) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.065362774 = score(doc=3445,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12067086 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.034459375 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 3445, 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=3445)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date: 25. 8.2005 17:42:22

Kanaeva, Z.: Ranking: Google und CiteSeer (2005) 0.00

0.002178759 = product of:
  0.010893796 = sum of:
    0.010893796 = product of:
      0.032681387 = sum of:
        0.032681387 = weight(_text_:22 in 3276) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.032681387 = score(doc=3276,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12067086 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.034459375 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 3276, 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=3276)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date: 20. 3.2005 16:23:22

Agosti, M.; Pretto, L.: ¬A theoretical study of a generalized version of kleinberg's HITS algorithm (2005) 0.00

0.0015703833 = product of:
  0.007851916 = sum of:
    0.007851916 = product of:
      0.023555748 = sum of:
        0.023555748 = weight(_text_:29 in 4) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023555748 = score(doc=4,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1212173 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.034459375 = queryNorm
            0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 4, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date: 31.12.1996 19:29:41

Search (7 results, page 1 of 1)

Authors

Languages