Search (6 results, page 1 of 1)

0.0028043431 = product of:
  0.0196304 = sum of:
    0.0196304 = product of:
      0.0392608 = sum of:
        0.0392608 = weight(_text_:22 in 261) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0392608 = score(doc=261,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12684377 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 261, 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=261)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Die deutschen Suchmaschinen, Abacho, Acoon, Fireball und Lycos sowie die Web-Kataloge Web.de und Yahoo! werden einem Qualitätstest nach relativem Recall, Precision und Availability unterzogen. Die Methoden der Retrievaltests werden vorgestellt. Im Durchschnitt werden bei einem Cut-Off-Wert von 25 ein Recall von rund 22%, eine Precision von knapp 19% und eine Verfügbarkeit von 24% erreicht

0.0010873 = product of:
  0.0076110996 = sum of:
    0.0076110996 = product of:
      0.0380555 = sum of:
        0.0380555 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 716) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0380555 = score(doc=716,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.109568894 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.34732026 = fieldWeight in 716, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=716)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

The objective of this paper is to highlight the importance of a scientifically sounded approach to search engine evaluation. Nowadays there is a flourishing literature which describes various attempts at conducting such evaluation by following all sort of approaches, but very often only the final results are published with little, if any, information about the methodology and the procedures adopted. These various experiments have been critically investigated and catalogued according to their scientific foundation by Bell [1] in the attempt to provide a valuable framework for future studies in this area. This paper reconsiders some of Bell's ideas in the light of the crisis of classic evaluation techniques for information retrieval and tries to envisage some form of collaboration between the IR and web communities in order to design a better and more consistent platform for the evaluation of tools for interactive information retrieval.

9.624433E-4 = product of:
  0.0067371028 = sum of:
    0.0067371028 = product of:
      0.033685513 = sum of:
        0.033685513 = weight(_text_:system in 2726) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033685513 = score(doc=2726,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.11408355 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.29527056 = fieldWeight in 2726, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2726)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

A real case study is shown, explaining in a timeline the whole process of design, development and evaluation of a search engine used as a navigational help tool for end users and clients an a content website, e-commerce driven. The nature of the website is a community website, which will determine the core design of the information service. This study will involve several steps, such as information recovery system analysis, comparative analysis of other commercial search engines, service design, functionalities and scope; software selection, design of the project, project management, future service administration and conclusions.

6.2775286E-4 = product of:
  0.00439427 = sum of:
    0.00439427 = product of:
      0.02197135 = sum of:
        0.02197135 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2482) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02197135 = score(doc=2482,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.109568894 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.20052543 = fieldWeight in 2482, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2482)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Der Ausgangspunkt dieser Arbeit ist die Suchproblematik im World Wide Web. Suchmaschinen sind einerseits unverzichtbar für erfolgreiches Information Retrieval, andererseits wird ihnen eine mäßige Leistungsfähigkeit vorgeworfen. Das Thema dieser Arbeit ist die Untersuchung der Retrievaleffektivität deutschsprachiger Suchmaschinen. Es soll festgestellt werden, welche Retrievaleffektivität Nutzer derzeit erwarten können. Ein Ansatz, um die Retrievaleffektivität von Suchmaschinen zu erhöhen besteht darin, redaktionell von Menschen erstellte und automatisch generierte Suchergebnisse in einer Trefferliste zu vermengen. Ziel dieser Arbeit ist es, die Retrievaleffektivität solcher hybrider Systeme im Vergleich zu rein roboterbasierten Suchmaschinen zu evaluieren. Zunächst werden hierzu die grundlegenden Problembereiche bei der Evaluation von Retrievalsystemen analysiert. In Anlehnung an die von Tague-Sutcliff vorgeschlagene Methodik wird unter Beachtung der webspezifischen Besonderheiten eine mögliche Vorgehensweise erschlossen. Darauf aufbauend wird das konkrete Setting für die Durchführung der Evaluation erarbeitet und ein Retrievaleffektivitätstest bei den Suchmaschinen Lycos.de, AItaVista.de und QualiGo durchgeführt.

5.6712516E-4 = product of:
  0.003969876 = sum of:
    0.003969876 = product of:
      0.01984938 = sum of:
        0.01984938 = weight(_text_:system in 5204) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01984938 = score(doc=5204,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11408355 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.17398985 = fieldWeight in 5204, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5204)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Seven hundred natural language questions from TREC-8 and TREC-9 were sent by Radev, Libner, and Fan to each of nine web search engines. The top 40 sites returned by each system were stored for evaluation of their productivity of correct answers. Each question per engine was scored as the sum of the reciprocal ranks of identified correct answers. The large number of zero scores gave a positive skew violating the normality assumption for ANOVA, so values were transformed to zero for no hit and one for one or more hits. The non-zero values were then square-root transformed to remove the remaining positive skew. Interactions were observed between search engine and answer type (name, place, date, et cetera), search engine and number of proper nouns in the query, search engine and the need for time limitation, and search engine and total query words. All effects were significant. Shortest queries had the highest mean scores. One or more proper nouns present provides a significant advantage. Non-time dependent queries have an advantage. Place, name, person, and text description had mean scores between .85 and .9 with date at .81 and number at .59. There were significant differences in score by search engine. Search engines found at least one correct answer in between 87.7 and 75.45 of the cases. Google and Northern Light were just short of a 90% hit rate. No evidence indicated that a particular engine was better at answering any particular sort of question.

5.2312744E-4 = product of:
  0.003661892 = sum of:
    0.003661892 = product of:
      0.01830946 = sum of:
        0.01830946 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4481) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01830946 = score(doc=4481,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.109568894 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 4481, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4481)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

An empirical investigation of the consistency of retrieval through Internet search engines is reported. Thirteen engines are evaluated: AltaVista, EuroFerret, Excite, HotBot, InfoSeek, Lycos, MSN, NorthernLight, Snap, WebCrawler and three national Dutch engines: Ilse, Search.nl and Vindex. The focus is on a characteristics related to size: the degree of consistency to which an engine retrieves documents. Does an engine always present the same relevant documents that are, or were, available in its databases? We observed and identified three types of fluctuations in the result sets of several kinds of searches, many of them significant. These should be taken into account by users who apply an Internet search engine, for instance to retrieve as many relevant documents as possible, or to retrieve a document that was already found in a previous search, or to perform scientometric/bibliometric measurements. The fluctuations should also be considered as a complication of other research on the behaviour and performance of Internet search engines. In conclusion: in view of the increasing importance of the Internet as a publication/communication medium, the fluctuations in the result sets of Internet search engines can no longer be neglected.