-
Kanaeva, Z.: Ranking: Google und CiteSeer (2005)
0.03
0.027929602 = product of:
0.09309867 = sum of:
0.02000671 = weight(_text_:23 in 3276) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02000671 = score(doc=3276,freq=2.0), product of:
0.07217676 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
0.02013827 = queryNorm
0.27719048 = fieldWeight in 3276, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3276)
0.02000671 = weight(_text_:23 in 3276) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02000671 = score(doc=3276,freq=2.0), product of:
0.07217676 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
0.02013827 = queryNorm
0.27719048 = fieldWeight in 3276, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3276)
0.013251626 = weight(_text_:und in 3276) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.013251626 = score(doc=3276,freq=6.0), product of:
0.044633795 = queryWeight, product of:
2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
0.02013827 = queryNorm
0.2968967 = fieldWeight in 3276, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3276)
0.02000671 = weight(_text_:23 in 3276) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02000671 = score(doc=3276,freq=2.0), product of:
0.07217676 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
0.02013827 = queryNorm
0.27719048 = fieldWeight in 3276, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3276)
0.0134605095 = weight(_text_:der in 3276) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0134605095 = score(doc=3276,freq=6.0), product of:
0.044984195 = queryWeight, product of:
2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
0.02013827 = queryNorm
0.29922754 = fieldWeight in 3276, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3276)
0.006366401 = product of:
0.019099202 = sum of:
0.019099202 = weight(_text_:22 in 3276) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.019099202 = score(doc=3276,freq=2.0), product of:
0.07052079 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.02013827 = 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)
0.3 = coord(6/20)
- Abstract
- Im Rahmen des klassischen Information Retrieval wurden verschiedene Verfahren für das Ranking sowie die Suche in einer homogenen strukturlosen Dokumentenmenge entwickelt. Die Erfolge der Suchmaschine Google haben gezeigt dass die Suche in einer zwar inhomogenen aber zusammenhängenden Dokumentenmenge wie dem Internet unter Berücksichtigung der Dokumentenverbindungen (Links) sehr effektiv sein kann. Unter den von der Suchmaschine Google realisierten Konzepten ist ein Verfahren zum Ranking von Suchergebnissen (PageRank), das in diesem Artikel kurz erklärt wird. Darüber hinaus wird auf die Konzepte eines Systems namens CiteSeer eingegangen, welches automatisch bibliographische Angaben indexiert (engl. Autonomous Citation Indexing, ACI). Letzteres erzeugt aus einer Menge von nicht vernetzten wissenschaftlichen Dokumenten eine zusammenhängende Dokumentenmenge und ermöglicht den Einsatz von Banking-Verfahren, die auf den von Google genutzten Verfahren basieren.
- Date
- 20. 3.2005 16:23:22
- Source
- Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis. 56(2005) H.2, S.87-92
-
Courtois, M.P.; Berry, M.W.: Results ranking in Web search engines (1999)
0.01
0.012861458 = product of:
0.08574305 = sum of:
0.028581016 = weight(_text_:23 in 3726) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.028581016 = score(doc=3726,freq=2.0), product of:
0.07217676 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
0.02013827 = queryNorm
0.3959864 = fieldWeight in 3726, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3726)
0.028581016 = weight(_text_:23 in 3726) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.028581016 = score(doc=3726,freq=2.0), product of:
0.07217676 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
0.02013827 = queryNorm
0.3959864 = fieldWeight in 3726, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3726)
0.028581016 = weight(_text_:23 in 3726) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.028581016 = score(doc=3726,freq=2.0), product of:
0.07217676 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
0.02013827 = queryNorm
0.3959864 = fieldWeight in 3726, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3726)
0.15 = coord(3/20)
- Source
- Online. 23(1999) no.3, S.39-46
-
Weinstein, A.: Hochprozentig : Tipps and tricks für ein Top-Ranking (2002)
0.01
0.012861458 = product of:
0.08574305 = sum of:
0.028581016 = weight(_text_:23 in 1083) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.028581016 = score(doc=1083,freq=2.0), product of:
0.07217676 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
0.02013827 = queryNorm
0.3959864 = fieldWeight in 1083, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1083)
0.028581016 = weight(_text_:23 in 1083) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.028581016 = score(doc=1083,freq=2.0), product of:
0.07217676 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
0.02013827 = queryNorm
0.3959864 = fieldWeight in 1083, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1083)
0.028581016 = weight(_text_:23 in 1083) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.028581016 = score(doc=1083,freq=2.0), product of:
0.07217676 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
0.02013827 = queryNorm
0.3959864 = fieldWeight in 1083, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1083)
0.15 = coord(3/20)
- Date
- 23. 8.2002 9:48:37
-
Berry, M.W.; Browne, M.: Understanding search engines : mathematical modeling and text retrieval (2005)
0.01
0.010917367 = product of:
0.07278245 = sum of:
0.024260817 = weight(_text_:software in 7) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.024260817 = score(doc=7,freq=6.0), product of:
0.07989157 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
0.02013827 = queryNorm
0.3036718 = fieldWeight in 7, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=7)
0.024260817 = weight(_text_:software in 7) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.024260817 = score(doc=7,freq=6.0), product of:
0.07989157 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
0.02013827 = queryNorm
0.3036718 = fieldWeight in 7, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=7)
0.024260817 = weight(_text_:software in 7) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.024260817 = score(doc=7,freq=6.0), product of:
0.07989157 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
0.02013827 = queryNorm
0.3036718 = fieldWeight in 7, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=7)
0.15 = coord(3/20)
- 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.
- Content
- Inhalt: Introduction Document File Preparation - Manual Indexing - Information Extraction - Vector Space Modeling - Matrix Decompositions - Query Representations - Ranking and Relevance Feedback - Searching by Link Structure - User Interface - Book Format Document File Preparation Document Purification and Analysis - Text Formatting - Validation - Manual Indexing - Automatic Indexing - Item Normalization - Inverted File Structures - Document File - Dictionary List - Inversion List - Other File Structures Vector Space Models Construction - Term-by-Document Matrices - Simple Query Matching - Design Issues - Term Weighting - Sparse Matrix Storage - Low-Rank Approximations Matrix Decompositions QR Factorization - Singular Value Decomposition - Low-Rank Approximations - Query Matching - Software - Semidiscrete Decomposition - Updating Techniques Query Management Query Binding - Types of Queries - Boolean Queries - Natural Language Queries - Thesaurus Queries - Fuzzy Queries - Term Searches - Probabilistic Queries Ranking and Relevance Feedback Performance Evaluation - Precision - Recall - Average Precision - Genetic Algorithms - Relevance Feedback Searching by Link Structure HITS Method - HITS Implementation - HITS Summary - PageRank Method - PageRank Adjustments - PageRank Implementation - PageRank Summary User Interface Considerations General Guidelines - Search Engine Interfaces - Form Fill-in - Display Considerations - Progress Indication - No Penalties for Error - Results - Test and Retest - Final Considerations Further Reading
- Series
- Software, environments, tools; 17
-
Tober, M.; Hennig, L.; Furch, D.: SEO Ranking-Faktoren und Rang-Korrelationen 2014 : Google Deutschland (2014)
0.01
0.005908224 = product of:
0.039388157 = sum of:
0.019551745 = weight(_text_:und in 1484) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.019551745 = score(doc=1484,freq=10.0), product of:
0.044633795 = queryWeight, product of:
2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
0.02013827 = queryNorm
0.438048 = fieldWeight in 1484, product of:
3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
10.0 = termFreq=10.0
2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1484)
0.012560525 = weight(_text_:der in 1484) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.012560525 = score(doc=1484,freq=4.0), product of:
0.044984195 = queryWeight, product of:
2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
0.02013827 = queryNorm
0.27922085 = fieldWeight in 1484, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1484)
0.007275887 = product of:
0.02182766 = sum of:
0.02182766 = weight(_text_:22 in 1484) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02182766 = score(doc=1484,freq=2.0), product of:
0.07052079 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.02013827 = queryNorm
0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 1484, 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=1484)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.15 = coord(3/20)
- Abstract
- Dieses Whitepaper beschäftigt sich mit der Definition und Bewertung von Faktoren, die eine hohe Rangkorrelation-Koeffizienz mit organischen Suchergebnissen aufweisen und dient dem Zweck der tieferen Analyse von Suchmaschinen-Algorithmen. Die Datenerhebung samt Auswertung bezieht sich auf Ranking-Faktoren für Google-Deutschland im Jahr 2014. Zusätzlich wurden die Korrelationen und Faktoren unter anderem anhand von Durchschnitts- und Medianwerten sowie Entwicklungstendenzen zu den Vorjahren hinsichtlich ihrer Relevanz für vordere Suchergebnis-Positionen interpretiert.
- Date
- 13. 9.2014 14:45:22
-
Austin, D.: How Google finds your needle in the Web's haystack : as we'll see, the trick is to ask the web itself to rank the importance of pages... (2006)
0.01
0.005515252 = product of:
0.036768343 = sum of:
0.012256115 = weight(_text_:software in 93) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.012256115 = score(doc=93,freq=2.0), product of:
0.07989157 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
0.02013827 = queryNorm
0.15340936 = fieldWeight in 93, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=93)
0.012256115 = weight(_text_:software in 93) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.012256115 = score(doc=93,freq=2.0), product of:
0.07989157 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
0.02013827 = queryNorm
0.15340936 = fieldWeight in 93, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=93)
0.012256115 = weight(_text_:software in 93) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.012256115 = score(doc=93,freq=2.0), product of:
0.07989157 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
0.02013827 = queryNorm
0.15340936 = fieldWeight in 93, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=93)
0.15 = coord(3/20)
- Abstract
- Imagine a library containing 25 billion documents but with no centralized organization and no librarians. In addition, anyone may add a document at any time without telling anyone. You may feel sure that one of the documents contained in the collection has a piece of information that is vitally important to you, and, being impatient like most of us, you'd like to find it in a matter of seconds. How would you go about doing it? Posed in this way, the problem seems impossible. Yet this description is not too different from the World Wide Web, a huge, highly-disorganized collection of documents in many different formats. Of course, we're all familiar with search engines (perhaps you found this article using one) so we know that there is a solution. This article will describe Google's PageRank algorithm and how it returns pages from the web's collection of 25 billion documents that match search criteria so well that "google" has become a widely used verb. Most search engines, including Google, continually run an army of computer programs that retrieve pages from the web, index the words in each document, and store this information in an efficient format. Each time a user asks for a web search using a search phrase, such as "search engine," the search engine determines all the pages on the web that contains the words in the search phrase. (Perhaps additional information such as the distance between the words "search" and "engine" will be noted as well.) Here is the problem: Google now claims to index 25 billion pages. Roughly 95% of the text in web pages is composed from a mere 10,000 words. This means that, for most searches, there will be a huge number of pages containing the words in the search phrase. What is needed is a means of ranking the importance of the pages that fit the search criteria so that the pages can be sorted with the most important pages at the top of the list. One way to determine the importance of pages is to use a human-generated ranking. For instance, you may have seen pages that consist mainly of a large number of links to other resources in a particular area of interest. Assuming the person maintaining this page is reliable, the pages referenced are likely to be useful. Of course, the list may quickly fall out of date, and the person maintaining the list may miss some important pages, either unintentionally or as a result of an unstated bias. Google's PageRank algorithm assesses the importance of web pages without human evaluation of the content. In fact, Google feels that the value of its service is largely in its ability to provide unbiased results to search queries; Google claims, "the heart of our software is PageRank." As we'll see, the trick is to ask the web itself to rank the importance of pages.
-
Chakrabarti, S.; Dom, B.; Kumar, S.R.; Raghavan, P.; Rajagopalan, S.; Tomkins, A.; Kleinberg, J.M.; Gibson, D.: Neue Pfade durch den Internet-Dschungel : Die zweite Generation von Web-Suchmaschinen (1999)
0.00
0.0048475843 = product of:
0.03231723 = sum of:
0.008743806 = weight(_text_:und in 3) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.008743806 = score(doc=3,freq=2.0), product of:
0.044633795 = queryWeight, product of:
2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
0.02013827 = queryNorm
0.19590102 = fieldWeight in 3, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3)
0.012560525 = weight(_text_:der in 3) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.012560525 = score(doc=3,freq=4.0), product of:
0.044984195 = queryWeight, product of:
2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
0.02013827 = queryNorm
0.27922085 = fieldWeight in 3, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3)
0.011012898 = product of:
0.022025796 = sum of:
0.022025796 = weight(_text_:29 in 3) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.022025796 = score(doc=3,freq=2.0), product of:
0.070840135 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.02013827 = queryNorm
0.31092256 = fieldWeight in 3, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.15 = coord(3/20)
- Content
- Ausnutzen der Hyperlinks für verbesserte Such- und Findeverfahren; Darstellung des HITS-Algorithmus
- Date
- 31.12.1996 19:29:41
- Source
- Spektrum der Wissenschaft. 1999, H.8, S.44-49
-
Weiß, B.: Verwandte Seiten finden : "Ähnliche Seiten" oder "What's Related" (2005)
0.00
0.0030159366 = product of:
0.030159365 = sum of:
0.014458709 = weight(_text_:und in 868) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.014458709 = score(doc=868,freq=14.0), product of:
0.044633795 = queryWeight, product of:
2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
0.02013827 = queryNorm
0.32394084 = fieldWeight in 868, product of:
3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
14.0 = termFreq=14.0
2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=868)
0.015700657 = weight(_text_:der in 868) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.015700657 = score(doc=868,freq=16.0), product of:
0.044984195 = queryWeight, product of:
2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
0.02013827 = queryNorm
0.34902605 = fieldWeight in 868, product of:
4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
16.0 = termFreq=16.0
2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=868)
0.1 = coord(2/20)
- Abstract
- Die Link-Struktur-Analyse (LSA) ist nicht nur beim Crawling, dem Webseitenranking, der Abgrenzung geographischer Bereiche, der Vorhersage von Linkverwendungen, dem Auffinden von "Mirror"-Seiten, dem Kategorisieren von Webseiten und beim Generieren von Webseitenstatistiken eines der wichtigsten Analyseverfahren, sondern auch bei der Suche nach verwandten Seiten. Um qualitativ hochwertige verwandte Seiten zu finden, bildet sie nach herrschender Meinung den Hauptbestandteil bei der Identifizierung von ähnlichen Seiten innerhalb themenspezifischer Graphen vernetzter Dokumente. Dabei wird stets von zwei Annahmen ausgegangen: Links zwischen zwei Dokumenten implizieren einen verwandten Inhalt beider Dokumente und wenn die Dokumente aus unterschiedlichen Quellen (von unterschiedlichen Autoren, Hosts, Domänen, .) stammen, so bedeutet dies das eine Quelle die andere über einen Link empfiehlt. Aufbauend auf dieser Idee entwickelte Kleinberg 1998 den HITS Algorithmus um verwandte Seiten über die Link-Struktur-Analyse zu bestimmen. Dieser Ansatz wurde von Bharat und Henzinger weiterentwickelt und später auch in Algorithmen wie dem Companion und Cocitation Algorithmus zur Suche von verwandten Seiten basierend auf nur einer Anfrage-URL weiter verfolgt. In der vorliegenden Seminararbeit sollen dabei die Algorithmen, die hinter diesen Überlegungen stehen, näher erläutert werden und im Anschluss jeweils neuere Forschungsansätze auf diesem Themengebiet aufgezeigt werden.
- Content
- Ausarbeitung im Rahmen des Seminars Suchmaschinen und Suchalgorithmen, Institut für Wirtschaftsinformatik Praktische Informatik in der Wirtschaft, Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster. - Vgl.: http://www-wi.uni-muenster.de/pi/lehre/ss05/seminarSuchen/Ausarbeitungen/BurkhardWei%DF.pdf
- Imprint
- Münster : Institut für Wirtschaftsinformatik der Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster
-
Stock, M.; Stock, W.G.: Internet-Suchwerkzeuge im Vergleich (IV) : Relevance Ranking nach "Popularität" von Webseiten: Google (2001)
0.00
0.0028982484 = product of:
0.028982483 = sum of:
0.011358538 = weight(_text_:und in 5771) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.011358538 = score(doc=5771,freq=6.0), product of:
0.044633795 = queryWeight, product of:
2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
0.02013827 = queryNorm
0.2544829 = fieldWeight in 5771, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5771)
0.017623944 = weight(_text_:der in 5771) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.017623944 = score(doc=5771,freq=14.0), product of:
0.044984195 = queryWeight, product of:
2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
0.02013827 = queryNorm
0.3917808 = fieldWeight in 5771, product of:
3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
14.0 = termFreq=14.0
2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5771)
0.1 = coord(2/20)
- Abstract
- In unserem Retrievaltest von Suchwerkzeugen im World Wide Web (Password 11/2000) schnitt die Suchmaschine Google am besten ab. Im Vergleich zu anderen Search Engines setzt Google kaum auf Informationslinguistik, sondern auf Algorithmen, die sich aus den Besonderheiten der Web-Dokumente ableiten lassen. Kernstück der informationsstatistischen Technik ist das "PageRank"- Verfahren (benannt nach dem Entwickler Larry Page), das aus der Hypertextstruktur des Web die "Popularität" von Seiten anhand ihrer ein- und ausgehenden Links berechnet. Google besticht durch das Angebot intuitiv verstehbarer Suchbildschirme sowie durch einige sehr nützliche "Kleinigkeiten" wie die Angabe des Rangs einer Seite, Highlighting, Suchen in der Seite, Suchen innerhalb eines Suchergebnisses usw., alles verstaut in einer eigenen Befehlsleiste innerhalb des Browsers. Ähnlich wie RealNames bietet Google mit dem Produkt "AdWords" den Aufkauf von Suchtermen an. Nach einer Reihe von nunmehr vier Password-Artikeln über InternetSuchwerkzeugen im Vergleich wollen wir abschließend zu einer Bewertung kommen. Wie ist der Stand der Technik bei Directories und Search Engines aus informationswissenschaftlicher Sicht einzuschätzen? Werden die "typischen" Internetnutzer, die ja in der Regel keine Information Professionals sind, adäquat bedient? Und können auch Informationsfachleute von den Suchwerkzeugen profitieren?
-
Lanvent, A.: Licht im Daten Chaos (2004)
0.00
0.0025159311 = product of:
0.02515931 = sum of:
0.009775872 = weight(_text_:und in 2806) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.009775872 = score(doc=2806,freq=10.0), product of:
0.044633795 = queryWeight, product of:
2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
0.02013827 = queryNorm
0.219024 = fieldWeight in 2806, product of:
3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
10.0 = termFreq=10.0
2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2806)
0.015383439 = weight(_text_:der in 2806) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.015383439 = score(doc=2806,freq=24.0), product of:
0.044984195 = queryWeight, product of:
2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
0.02013827 = queryNorm
0.34197432 = fieldWeight in 2806, product of:
4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
24.0 = termFreq=24.0
2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2806)
0.1 = coord(2/20)
- Abstract
- Spätestens bei der Suche nach E-Mails, PDF-Dokumenten oder Bildern mit Texten kapituliert die Windows-Suche. Vier von neun Desktop-Suchtools finden dagegen beinahe jede verborgene Datei.
- Content
- "Bitte suchen Sie alle Unterlagen, die im PC zum Ibelshäuser-Vertrag in Sprockhövel gespeichert sind. Finden Sie alles, was wir haben - Dokumente, Tabellen, Präsentationen, Scans, E-Mails. Und erledigen Sie das gleich! « Wer diese Aufgabe an das Windows-eigene Suchmodul vergibt, wird zwangsläufig enttäuscht. Denn das Betriebssystem beherrscht weder die formatübergreifende Recherche noch die Kontextsuche, die für solche komplexen Aufträge nötig sind. Professionelle Desktop-Suchmaschinen erledigen Aufgaben dieser Art jedoch im Handumdrehen - genauer gesagt in einer einzigen Sekunde. Spitzenprogramme wie Global Brain benötigen dafür nicht einmal umfangreiche Abfrageformulare. Es genügt, einen Satz im Eingabefeld zu formulieren, der das Thema der gewünschten Dokumente eingrenzt. Dabei suchen die Programme über alle Laufwerke, die sich auf dem System einbinden lassen - also auch im Netzwerk-Ordner (Shared Folder), sofern dieser freigegeben wurde. Allen Testkandidaten - mit Ausnahme von Search 32 - gemeinsam ist, dass sie weitaus bessere Rechercheergebnisse abliefern als Windows, deutlich schneller arbeiten und meist auch in den Online-Postfächern stöbern. Wer schon öfter vergeblich über die Windows-Suche nach wichtigen Dokumenten gefahndet hat, kommt angesichts der Qualität der Search-Engines kaum mehr um die Anschaffung eines Desktop-Suchtools herum. Aber Microsoft will nachbessern. Für den Windows-XP-Nachfolger Longhorn wirbt der Hersteller vor allem mit dem Hinweis auf das neue Dateisystem WinFS, das sämtliche Files auf der Festplatte über Meta-Tags indiziert und dem Anwender damit lange Suchläufe erspart. So sollen sich anders als bei Windows XP alle Dateien zu bestimmten Themen in wenigen Sekunden auflisten lassen - unabhängig vom Format und vom physikalischen Speicherort der Files. Für die Recherche selbst ist dann weder der Dateiname noch das Erstelldatum ausschlaggebend. Anhand der kontextsensitiven Suche von WinFS kann der Anwender einfach einen Suchbefehl wie »Vertragsabschluss mit Firma XYZ, Neunkirchen/Saar« eingeben, der dann ohne Umwege zum Ziel führt."
- Footnote
- Darin auch 2 Teilbeiträge: (1) Know-how - Suchverfahren; (2) Praxis - Windows-Suche und Indexdienst
-
Notess, G.R.: Search engine relevance : the never-ending quest (2000)
0.00
7.771429E-4 = product of:
0.015542857 = sum of:
0.015542857 = weight(_text_:der in 4797) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.015542857 = score(doc=4797,freq=2.0), product of:
0.044984195 = queryWeight, product of:
2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
0.02013827 = queryNorm
0.34551817 = fieldWeight in 4797, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4797)
0.05 = coord(1/20)
- Abstract
- Bericht über verschiedene Relevanzverfahren der Suchdienste des Internet
-
Back, J.: ¬An evaluation of relevancy ranking techniques used by Internet search engines (2000)
0.00
6.366401E-4 = product of:
0.012732802 = sum of:
0.012732802 = product of:
0.038198404 = sum of:
0.038198404 = weight(_text_:22 in 3445) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.038198404 = score(doc=3445,freq=2.0), product of:
0.07052079 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.02013827 = 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)
0.05 = coord(1/20)
- Date
- 25. 8.2005 17:42:22
-
Agosti, M.; Pretto, L.: ¬A theoretical study of a generalized version of kleinberg's HITS algorithm (2005)
0.00
3.441531E-4 = product of:
0.0068830615 = sum of:
0.0068830615 = product of:
0.013766123 = sum of:
0.013766123 = weight(_text_:29 in 4) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.013766123 = score(doc=4,freq=2.0), product of:
0.070840135 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.02013827 = 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)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.05 = coord(1/20)
- Date
- 31.12.1996 19:29:41
-
Furner, J.: ¬A unifying model of document relatedness for hybrid search engines (2003)
0.00
2.7284576E-4 = product of:
0.005456915 = sum of:
0.005456915 = product of:
0.016370745 = sum of:
0.016370745 = weight(_text_:22 in 2717) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.016370745 = score(doc=2717,freq=2.0), product of:
0.07052079 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.02013827 = 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)
0.05 = coord(1/20)
- Date
- 11. 9.2004 17:32:22
