Search (4 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × theme_ss:"Suchmaschinen"
  • × theme_ss:"Suchtaktik"
  1. Drabenstott, K.M.: Web search strategies (2000) 0.06
    0.05820952 = product of:
      0.11641904 = sum of:
        0.08216923 = weight(_text_:lists in 1188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08216923 = score(doc=1188,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.3427865 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.4240103 = idf(docFreq=529, maxDocs=44218)
              0.06319798 = queryNorm
            0.23970965 = fieldWeight in 1188, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.4240103 = idf(docFreq=529, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1188)
        0.034249812 = weight(_text_:22 in 1188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034249812 = score(doc=1188,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.22130854 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.06319798 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(2/4)
    
    Abstract
    Surfing the World Wide Web used to be cool, dude, real cool. But things have gotten hot - so hot that finding something useful an the Web is no longer cool. It is suffocating Web searchers in the smoke and debris of mountain-sized lists of hits, decisions about which search engines they should use, whether they will get lost in the dizzying maze of a subject directory, use the right syntax for the search engine at hand, enter keywords that are likely to retrieve hits an the topics they have in mind, or enlist a browser that has sufficient functionality to display the most promising hits. When it comes to Web searching, in a few short years we have gone from the cool image of surfing the Web into the frying pan of searching the Web. We can turn down the heat by rethinking what Web searchers are doing and introduce some order into the chaos. Web search strategies that are tool-based-oriented to specific Web searching tools such as search en gines, subject directories, and meta search engines-have been widely promoted, and these strategies are just not working. It is time to dissect what Web searching tools expect from searchers and adjust our search strategies to these new tools. This discussion offers Web searchers help in the form of search strategies that are based an strategies that librarians have been using for a long time to search commercial information retrieval systems like Dialog, NEXIS, Wilsonline, FirstSearch, and Data-Star.
    Date
    22. 9.1997 19:16:05
  2. White, R.W.; Jose, J.M.; Ruthven, I.: ¬A task-oriented study on the influencing effects of query-biased summarisation in web searching (2003) 0.03
    0.025677884 = product of:
      0.102711536 = sum of:
        0.102711536 = weight(_text_:lists in 1081) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.102711536 = score(doc=1081,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.3427865 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.4240103 = idf(docFreq=529, maxDocs=44218)
              0.06319798 = queryNorm
            0.29963705 = fieldWeight in 1081, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.4240103 = idf(docFreq=529, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1081)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Abstract
    The aim of the work described in this paper is to evaluate the influencing effects of query-biased summaries in web searching. For this purpose, a summarisation system has been developed, and a summary tailored to the user's query is generated automatically for each document retrieved. The system aims to provide both a better means of assessing document relevance than titles or abstracts typical of many web search result lists. Through visiting each result page at retrieval-time, the system provides the user with an idea of the current page content and thus deals with the dynamic nature of the web. To examine the effectiveness of this approach, a task-oriented, comparative evaluation between four different web retrieval systems was performed; two that use query-biased summarisation, and two that use the standard ranked titles/abstracts approach. The results from the evaluation indicate that query-biased summarisation techniques appear to be more useful and effective in helping users gauge document relevance than the traditional ranked titles/abstracts approach. The same methodology was used to compare the effectiveness of two of the web's major search engines; AltaVista and Google.
  3. Aloteibi, S.; Sanderson, M.: Analyzing geographic query reformulation : an exploratory study (2014) 0.01
    0.010703067 = product of:
      0.04281227 = sum of:
        0.04281227 = weight(_text_:22 in 1177) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04281227 = score(doc=1177,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.22130854 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.06319798 = 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
  4. Sachse, J.: ¬The influence of snippet length on user behavior in mobile web search (2019) 0.01
    0.010703067 = product of:
      0.04281227 = sum of:
        0.04281227 = weight(_text_:22 in 5493) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04281227 = score(doc=5493,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.22130854 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.06319798 = 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