Search (7 results, page 1 of 1)

0.030010901 = product of:
  0.120043606 = sum of:
    0.120043606 = weight(_text_:assess in 2044) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.120043606 = score(doc=2044,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.36863554 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.8947687 = idf(docFreq=330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.062536046 = queryNorm
        0.32564306 = fieldWeight in 2044, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.8947687 = idf(docFreq=330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2044)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Categorized overviews of web search results are a promising way to support user exploration, understanding, and discovery. These search interfaces combine a metadata-based overview with the list of search results to enable a rich form of interaction. A study of 24 sophisticated users carrying out complex tasks suggests how searchers may adapt their search tactics when using categorized overviews. This mixed methods study evaluated categorized overviews of web search results organized into thematic, geographic, and government categories. Participants conducted four exploratory searches during a 2-hour session to generate ideas for newspaper articles about specified topics such as "human smuggling." Results showed that subjects explored deeper while feeling more organized, and that the categorized overview helped subjects better assess their results, although no significant differences were detected in the quality of the article ideas. A qualitative analysis of searcher comments identified seven tactics that participants reported adopting when using categorized overviews. This paper concludes by proposing a set of guidelines for the design of exploratory search interfaces. An understanding of the impact of categorized overviews on search tactics will be useful to web search researchers, search interface designers, information architects and web developers.

0.030010901 = product of:
  0.120043606 = sum of:
    0.120043606 = weight(_text_:assess in 2726) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.120043606 = score(doc=2726,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.36863554 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.8947687 = idf(docFreq=330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.062536046 = queryNorm
        0.32564306 = fieldWeight in 2726, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.8947687 = idf(docFreq=330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2726)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This research investigates how people's perceptions of information retrieval (IR) systems, their perceptions of search tasks, and their perceptions of self-efficacy influence the amount of invested mental effort (AIME) they put into using two different IR systems: a Web search engine and a library system. It also explores the impact of mental effort on an end user's search experience. To assess AIME in online searching, two experiments were conducted using these methods: Experiment 1 relied on self-reports and Experiment 2 employed the dual-task technique. In both experiments, data were collected through search transaction logs, a pre-search background questionnaire, a post-search questionnaire and an interview. Important findings are these: (1) subjects invested greater mental effort searching a library system than searching the Web; (2) subjects put little effort into Web searching because of their high sense of self-efficacy in their searching ability and their perception of the easiness of the Web; (3) subjects did not recognize that putting mental effort into searching was something needed to improve the search results; and (4) data collected from multiple sources proved to be effective for assessing mental effort in online searching.

0.02400872 = product of:
  0.09603488 = sum of:
    0.09603488 = weight(_text_:assess in 4497) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09603488 = score(doc=4497,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.36863554 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.8947687 = idf(docFreq=330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.062536046 = queryNorm
        0.26051444 = fieldWeight in 4497, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.8947687 = idf(docFreq=330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4497)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Content

Key Features - Importantly, the book enables readers to develop strategies which will continue to be useful despite the rapidly-evolving state of the Internet and Internet technologies - it is not about technological `tricks'. - Enables readers to be aware of and compensate for bias and errors which are ubiquitous an the Internet. - Provides contemporary information an the deficiencies in web skills of novice users as well as practical techniques for teaching such users. The Authors Dr Alison Stacey works at the Learning Resource Centre, Cambridge Regional College. Dr Adrian Stacey, formerly based at Cambridge University, is a software programmer. Readership The book is aimed at a wide range of librarians and other information professionals who need to retrieve information from the Internet efficiently, to evaluate their confidence in the information they retrieve and/or to train others to use the Internet. It is primarily aimed at intermediate to advanced users of the Internet. Contents Fundamentals of information retrieval from the Internet - why learn web searching technique; types of information requests; patterns for information retrieval; leveraging the technology: Search term choice: pinpointing information an the web - why choose queries carefully; making search terms work together; how to pick search terms; finding the 'unfindable': Blas an the Internet - importance of bias; sources of bias; usergenerated bias: selecting information with which you already agree; assessing and compensating for bias; case studies: Query reformulation and longer term strategies - how to interact with your search engine; foraging for information; long term information retrieval: using the Internet to find trends; automating searches: how to make your machine do your work: Assessing the quality of results- how to assess and ensure quality: The novice user and teaching internet skills - novice users and their problems with the web; case study: research in a college library; interpreting 'second hand' web information.

0.02400872 = product of:
  0.09603488 = sum of:
    0.09603488 = weight(_text_:assess in 5167) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09603488 = score(doc=5167,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.36863554 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.8947687 = idf(docFreq=330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.062536046 = queryNorm
        0.26051444 = fieldWeight in 5167, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.8947687 = idf(docFreq=330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5167)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

In this issue Ford, Miller and Moss utilize 68 volunteers from a population of 250 Master's students to complete on the web three search tasks with clear fact based goals and three or less facets. One task required broadening the search concepts from those given, a second provided a specific terminology for one facet but required a second facet that would require translation, and the third required general to specific transformation. The students were measured as to their performance on Entewistle's Revised Inventory of Approaches to Studying providing values for ten study variables and asked to assess their experience on the Internet, with Alta Vista, and with Boolean search. Searches were conducted on Alta Vista using Netscape Navigator 4 with participants free to choose and switch Boolean, best match or combined search modes at will while a front end script recorded all submitted searches and help access. Search related variables extracted were from Boolean only queries, best match only queries, and combined queries. Factor analyses were conducted on all variables for each search mode for each search. In task one Boolean is differentiated from best match search by sharing high loads on active interest, intention to reproduce, fear of failure, and relating ideas. The combined searcher is linked with the best match searcher with low active interest, low intention to reproduce and low fear of failure. In task 2 Boolean is differentiated from best match search by sharing high loads on intention to reproduce and low on intention to understand. Best match loads positively with intention to understand and negatively with intention to reproduce. Combined searching linked with both good and with poor time management. In task 3 the loads mimic task 1. It seems Boolean is consistently linked to a reproductive rather than a meaning seeking approach, but also with high levels of interest and fear of failure. Best match associates with the converse of these measures.

0.010590964 = product of:
  0.042363856 = sum of:
    0.042363856 = weight(_text_:22 in 1177) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042363856 = score(doc=1177,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21899058 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.062536046 = queryNorm
        0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1177, 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=1177)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

26. 1.2014 18:48:22

0.010590964 = product of:
  0.042363856 = sum of:
    0.042363856 = weight(_text_:22 in 5493) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042363856 = score(doc=5493,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21899058 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.062536046 = queryNorm
        0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5493, 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=5493)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.008472771 = product of:
  0.033891086 = sum of:
    0.033891086 = weight(_text_:22 in 1188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033891086 = score(doc=1188,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21899058 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.062536046 = queryNorm
        0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 1188, 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=1188)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 9.1997 19:16:05