Search (34 results, page 2 of 2)

7.126148E-4 = product of:
  0.0014252296 = sum of:
    0.0014252296 = product of:
      0.007126148 = sum of:
        0.007126148 = weight(_text_:a in 3881) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007126148 = score(doc=3881,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.05003199 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043391112 = queryNorm
            0.14243183 = fieldWeight in 3881, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3881)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Web searchers typically fall to view search results beyond the first page nor fully examine those results presented to them. In this article we describe an approach that encourages a deeper examination of the contents of the document set retrieved in response to a searcher's query. The approach shifts the focus of perusal and interaction away from potentially uninformative document surrogates (such as titles, sentence fragments, and URLs) to actual document content, and uses this content to drive the information seeking process. Current search interfaces assume searchers examine results document-by-document. In contrast our approach extracts, ranks, and presents the contents of the top-ranked document set. We use query-relevant topranking sentences extracted from the top documents at retrieval time as fine-grained representations of topranked document content and, when combined in a ranked list, an overview of these documents. The interaction of the searcher provides implicit evidence that is used to reorder the sentences where appropriate. We evaluate our approach in three separate user studies, each applying these sentences in a different way. The findings of these studies show that top-ranking sentences can facilitate effective information access.

Type

a

6.7454175E-4 = product of:
  0.0013490835 = sum of:
    0.0013490835 = product of:
      0.006745417 = sum of:
        0.006745417 = weight(_text_:a in 5954) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.006745417 = score(doc=5954,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.05003199 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043391112 = queryNorm
            0.13482209 = fieldWeight in 5954, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5954)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Approximately 91 million American adults use the Internet on a typical day The number-one Internet activity is reading and writing e-mail. Search engine use is next in line and continues to increase in popularity. In fact, survey findings indicate that nearly 60 million American adults use search engines on a given day. Even though there are many Internet search engines, Google, Yahoo!, and MSN receive over 81% of all search requests. Despite claims that the quality of search provided by Yahoo! and MSN now equals that of Google, Google continues to thrive as the search engine of choice, receiving over 46% of all search requests, nearly double the volume of Yahoo! and over four times that of MSN. I use Google's search engine on a daily basis and rarely request information from other search engines. One day, I decided to visit the homepages of Google. Yahoo!, and MSN to compare the quality of search results. Coffee was on my mind that day, so I entered the simple query "coffee" in the search box at each homepage. Table 1 shows the top ten (unsponsored) results returned by each search engine. Although ordered differently, two webpages, www.peets.com and www.coffeegeek.com, appear in all three top ten lists. In addition, each pairing of top ten lists has two additional results in common. Depending on the information I hoped to obtain about coffee by using the search engines, I could argue that any one of the three returned better results: however, I was not looking for a particular webpage, so all three listings of search results seemed of equal quality. Thus, I plan to continue using Google. My decision is indicative of the problem Yahoo!, MSN, and other search engine companies face in the quest to obtain a larger percentage of Internet search volume. Search engine users are loyal to one or a few search engines and are generally happy with search results. Thus, as long as Google continues to provide results deemed high in quality, Google likely will remain the top search engine. But what set Google apart from its competitors in the first place? The answer is PageRank. In this article I explain this simple mathematical algorithm that revolutionized Web search.

Type

a

6.37382E-4 = product of:
  0.001274764 = sum of:
    0.001274764 = product of:
      0.0063738194 = sum of:
        0.0063738194 = weight(_text_:a in 3726) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0063738194 = score(doc=3726,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.05003199 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043391112 = queryNorm
            0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 3726, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3726)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

5.700918E-4 = product of:
  0.0011401837 = sum of:
    0.0011401837 = product of:
      0.0057009184 = sum of:
        0.0057009184 = weight(_text_:a in 616) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0057009184 = score(doc=616,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.05003199 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043391112 = queryNorm
            0.11394546 = fieldWeight in 616, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=616)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.

Type

a

5.51989E-4 = product of:
  0.001103978 = sum of:
    0.001103978 = product of:
      0.00551989 = sum of:
        0.00551989 = weight(_text_:a in 2696) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.00551989 = score(doc=2696,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.05003199 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043391112 = queryNorm
            0.11032722 = fieldWeight in 2696, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2696)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Search Engines have become an integral part of our day to day life. Our reliance on search engines increases with every passing day. With the amount of data available on Internet increasing exponentially, it becomes important to develop new methods and tools that help to return results relevant to the queries and reduce the time spent on searching. The results should be diverse but at the same time should return results focused on the queries asked. Relation Based Page Rank [4] algorithms are considered to be the next frontier in improvement of Semantic Web Search. The probability of finding relevance in the search results as posited by the user while entering the query is used to measure the relevance. However, its application is limited by the complexity of determining relation between the terms and assigning explicit meaning to each term. Trust Rank is one of the most widely used ranking algorithms for semantic web search. Few other ranking algorithms like HITS algorithm, PageRank algorithm are also used for Semantic Web Searching. In this paper, we will provide a comparison of few ranking approaches.

Type

a

5.4083654E-4 = product of:
  0.0010816731 = sum of:
    0.0010816731 = product of:
      0.0054083653 = sum of:
        0.0054083653 = weight(_text_:a in 3161) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0054083653 = score(doc=3161,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.05003199 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043391112 = queryNorm
            0.10809815 = fieldWeight in 3161, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3161)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

5.4083654E-4 = product of:
  0.0010816731 = sum of:
    0.0010816731 = product of:
      0.0054083653 = sum of:
        0.0054083653 = weight(_text_:a in 2799) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0054083653 = score(doc=2799,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.05003199 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043391112 = queryNorm
            0.10809815 = fieldWeight in 2799, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2799)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

4.461674E-4 = product of:
  8.923348E-4 = sum of:
    8.923348E-4 = product of:
      0.004461674 = sum of:
        0.004461674 = weight(_text_:a in 5023) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.004461674 = score(doc=5023,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.05003199 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043391112 = queryNorm
            0.089176424 = fieldWeight in 5023, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5023)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

4.4159123E-4 = product of:
  8.8318245E-4 = sum of:
    8.8318245E-4 = product of:
      0.004415912 = sum of:
        0.004415912 = weight(_text_:a in 393) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.004415912 = score(doc=393,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.05003199 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043391112 = queryNorm
            0.088261776 = fieldWeight in 393, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=393)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This study employed benchmarking and intellectual relevance judgment in evaluating Google, Yahoo!, Bing, Yahoo! Kids, and Ask Kids on 30 queries that children formulated to find information for specific tasks. Retrieved hits on given queries were benchmarked to Google's and Yahoo! Kids' top-five ranked hits retrieved. Relevancy of hits was judged on a graded scale; precision was calculated using the precision-at-ten metric (P@10). Yahoo! and Bing produced a similar percentage in hit overlap with Google (nearly 30%), but differed in the ranking of hits. Ask Kids retrieved 11% in hit overlap with Google versus 3% by Yahoo! Kids. The engines retrieved 26 hits across query clusters that overlapped with Yahoo! Kids' top-five ranked hits. Precision (P) that the engines produced across the queries was P = 0.48 for relevant hits, and P = 0.28 for partially relevant hits. Precision by Ask Kids was P = 0.44 for relevant hits versus P = 0.21 by Yahoo! Kids. Bing produced the highest total precision (TP) of relevant hits (TP = 0.86) across the queries, and Yahoo! Kids yielded the lowest (TP = 0.47). Average precision (AP) of relevant hits was AP = 0.56 by leading engines versus AP = 0.29 by small engines. In contrast, average precision of partially relevant hits was AP = 0.83 by small engines versus AP = 0.33 by leading engines. Average precision of relevant hits across the engines was highest on two-word queries and lowest on one-word queries. Google performed best on natural language queries; Bing did the same (P = 0.69) on two-word queries. The findings have implications for search engine ranking algorithms, relevance theory, search engine design, research design, and information literacy.

Type

a

3.824292E-4 = product of:
  7.648584E-4 = sum of:
    7.648584E-4 = product of:
      0.003824292 = sum of:
        0.003824292 = weight(_text_:a in 5771) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.003824292 = score(doc=5771,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.05003199 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043391112 = queryNorm
            0.07643694 = fieldWeight in 5771, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5771)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

3.824292E-4 = product of:
  7.648584E-4 = sum of:
    7.648584E-4 = product of:
      0.003824292 = sum of:
        0.003824292 = weight(_text_:a in 674) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.003824292 = score(doc=674,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.05003199 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043391112 = queryNorm
            0.07643694 = fieldWeight in 674, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=674)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

3.824292E-4 = product of:
  7.648584E-4 = sum of:
    7.648584E-4 = product of:
      0.003824292 = sum of:
        0.003824292 = weight(_text_:a in 6) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.003824292 = score(doc=6,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.05003199 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043391112 = queryNorm
            0.07643694 = fieldWeight in 6, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=6)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

Inhalt: Chapter 1. Introduction to Web Search Engines: 1.1 A Short History of Information Retrieval - 1.2 An Overview of Traditional Information Retrieval - 1.3 Web Information Retrieval Chapter 2. Crawling, Indexing, and Query Processing: 2.1 Crawling - 2.2 The Content Index - 2.3 Query Processing Chapter 3. Ranking Webpages by Popularity: 3.1 The Scene in 1998 - 3.2 Two Theses - 3.3 Query-Independence Chapter 4. The Mathematics of Google's PageRank: 4.1 The Original Summation Formula for PageRank - 4.2 Matrix Representation of the Summation Equations - 4.3 Problems with the Iterative Process - 4.4 A Little Markov Chain Theory - 4.5 Early Adjustments to the Basic Model - 4.6 Computation of the PageRank Vector - 4.7 Theorem and Proof for Spectrum of the Google Matrix Chapter 5. Parameters in the PageRank Model: 5.1 The a Factor - 5.2 The Hyperlink Matrix H - 5.3 The Teleportation Matrix E Chapter 6. The Sensitivity of PageRank; 6.1 Sensitivity with respect to alpha - 6.2 Sensitivity with respect to H - 6.3 Sensitivity with respect to vT - 6.4 Other Analyses of Sensitivity - 6.5 Sensitivity Theorems and Proofs Chapter 7. The PageRank Problem as a Linear System: 7.1 Properties of (I - alphaS) - 7.2 Properties of (I - alphaH) - 7.3 Proof of the PageRank Sparse Linear System Chapter 8. Issues in Large-Scale Implementation of PageRank: 8.1 Storage Issues - 8.2 Convergence Criterion - 8.3 Accuracy - 8.4 Dangling Nodes - 8.5 Back Button Modeling

3.6055772E-4 = product of:
  7.2111544E-4 = sum of:
    7.2111544E-4 = product of:
      0.0036055772 = sum of:
        0.0036055772 = weight(_text_:a in 2806) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0036055772 = score(doc=2806,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.05003199 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043391112 = queryNorm
            0.072065435 = fieldWeight in 2806, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2806)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

2.5495279E-4 = product of:
  5.0990557E-4 = sum of:
    5.0990557E-4 = product of:
      0.002549528 = sum of:
        0.002549528 = weight(_text_:a in 7) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.002549528 = score(doc=7,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.05003199 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043391112 = queryNorm
            0.050957955 = fieldWeight in 7, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=7)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The second edition of Understanding Search Engines: Mathematical Modeling and Text Retrieval follows the basic premise of the first edition by discussing many of the key design issues for building search engines and emphasizing the important role that applied mathematics can play in improving information retrieval. The authors discuss important data structures, algorithms, and software as well as user-centered issues such as interfaces, manual indexing, and document preparation. Significant changes bring the text up to date on current information retrieval methods: for example the addition of a new chapter on link-structure algorithms used in search engines such as Google. The chapter on user interface has been rewritten to specifically focus on search engine usability. In addition the authors have added new recommendations for further reading and expanded the bibliography, and have updated and streamlined the index to make it more reader friendly.