Search (204 results, page 1 of 11)

  • × theme_ss:"Suchmaschinen"
  • × type_ss:"a"
  • × year_i:[2000 TO 2010}
  1. Back, J.: ¬An evaluation of relevancy ranking techniques used by Internet search engines (2000) 0.11 
    0.11066668 = product of:
  0.22133335 = sum of:
    0.17885299 = weight(_text_:engines in 3445) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.17885299 = score(doc=3445,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22757743 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04479146 = queryNorm
        0.7858995 = fieldWeight in 3445, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=3445)
    0.042480372 = product of:
      0.084960744 = sum of:
        0.084960744 = weight(_text_:22 in 3445) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.084960744 = score(doc=3445,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15685207 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04479146 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Date
    25. 8.2005 17:42:22
  2. Su, L.T.: ¬A comprehensive and systematic model of user evaluation of Web search engines : Il. An evaluation by undergraduates (2003) 0.11 
    0.10858273 = product of:
  0.21716546 = sum of:
    0.2019939 = weight(_text_:engines in 2117) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.2019939 = score(doc=2117,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.22757743 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04479146 = queryNorm
        0.88758314 = fieldWeight in 2117, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2117)
    0.015171562 = product of:
      0.030343125 = sum of:
        0.030343125 = weight(_text_:22 in 2117) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030343125 = score(doc=2117,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15685207 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04479146 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2117, 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=2117)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    This paper presents an application of the model described in Part I to the evaluation of Web search engines by undergraduates. The study observed how 36 undergraduate used four major search engines to find information for their own individual problems and how they evaluated these engines based an actual interaction with the search engines. User evaluation was based an 16 performance measures representing five evaluation criteria: relevance, efficiency, utility, user satisfaction, and connectivity. Non-performance (user-related) measures were also applied. Each participant searched his/ her own topic an all four engines and provided satisfaction ratings for system features and interaction and reasons for satisfaction. Each also made relevance judgements of retrieved items in relation to his/her own information need and participated in post-search Interviews to provide reactions to the search results and overall performance. The study found significant differences in precision PR1 relative recall, user satisfaction with output display, time saving, value of search results, and overall performance among the four engines and also significant engine by discipline interactions an all these measures. In addition, the study found significant differences in user satisfaction with response time among four engines, and significant engine by discipline interaction in user satisfaction with search interface. None of the four search engines dominated in every aspect of the multidimensional evaluation. Content analysis of verbal data identified a number of user criteria and users evaluative comments based an these criteria. Results from both quantitative analysis and content analysis provide insight for system design and development, and useful feedback an strengths and weaknesses of search engines for system improvement
    Date
    24. 1.2004 18:27:22
  3. Carroll, N.: Search engine optimization (2009) 0.09 
    0.09363182 = product of:
  0.18726364 = sum of:
    0.102201715 = weight(_text_:engines in 3874) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.102201715 = score(doc=3874,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22757743 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04479146 = queryNorm
        0.44908544 = fieldWeight in 3874, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3874)
    0.08506193 = product of:
      0.17012386 = sum of:
        0.17012386 = weight(_text_:programming in 3874) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.17012386 = score(doc=3874,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.29361802 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.5552235 = idf(docFreq=170, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04479146 = queryNorm
            0.57940537 = fieldWeight in 3874, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.5552235 = idf(docFreq=170, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3874)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Search engine optimization (SEO) is the craft of elevating Web sites or individual Web site pages to higher rankings on search engines through programming, marketing, or content acumen. This section covers the origins of SEO, strategies and tactics, history and trends, and the evolution of user behavior in online searching.
  4. Thelwall, M.: Quantitative comparisons of search engine results (2008) 0.09 
    0.09045792 = product of:
  0.18091585 = sum of:
    0.12775214 = weight(_text_:engines in 2350) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12775214 = score(doc=2350,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.22757743 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04479146 = queryNorm
        0.5613568 = fieldWeight in 2350, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2350)
    0.053163704 = product of:
      0.10632741 = sum of:
        0.10632741 = weight(_text_:programming in 2350) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10632741 = score(doc=2350,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.29361802 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.5552235 = idf(docFreq=170, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04479146 = queryNorm
            0.36212835 = fieldWeight in 2350, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.5552235 = idf(docFreq=170, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2350)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Search engines are normally used to find information or Web sites, but Webometric investigations use them for quantitative data such as the number of pages matching a query and the international spread of those pages. For this type of application, the accuracy of the hit count estimates and range of URLs in the full results are important. Here, we compare the applications programming interfaces of Google, Yahoo!, and Live Search for 1,587 single word searches. The hit count estimates were broadly consistent but with Yahoo! and Google, reporting 5-6 times more hits than Live Search. Yahoo! tended to return slightly more matching URLs than Google, with Live Search returning significantly fewer. Yahoo!'s result URLs included a significantly wider range of domains and sites than the other two, and there was little consistency between the three engines in the number of different domains. In contrast, the three engines were reasonably consistent in the number of different top-level domains represented in the result URLs, although Yahoo! tended to return the most. In conclusion, quantitative results from the three search engines are mostly consistent but with unexpected types of inconsistency that users should be aware of. Google is recommended for hit count estimates but Yahoo! is recommended for all other Webometric purposes.
  5. Hock, R.: Search engines (2009) 0.07 
    0.07069787 = product of:
  0.28279147 = sum of:
    0.28279147 = weight(_text_:engines in 3876) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.28279147 = score(doc=3876,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.22757743 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04479146 = queryNorm
        1.2426164 = fieldWeight in 3876, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3876)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    This entry provides an overview of Web search engines, looking at the definition, components, leading engines, searching capabilities, and types of engines. It examines the components that make up a search engine and briefly discusses the process involved in identifying content for the engines' databases and the indexing of that content. Typical search options are reviewed and the major Web search engines are identified and described. Also identified and described are various specialty search engines, such as those for special content such as video and images, and engines that take significantly different approaches to the search problem, such as visualization engines and metasearch engines.
  6. Rose, D.E.: Reconciling information-seeking behavior with search user interfaces for the Web (2006) 0.06 
    0.05533334 = product of:
  0.11066668 = sum of:
    0.089426495 = weight(_text_:engines in 5296) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.089426495 = score(doc=5296,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22757743 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04479146 = queryNorm
        0.39294976 = fieldWeight in 5296, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5296)
    0.021240186 = product of:
      0.042480372 = sum of:
        0.042480372 = weight(_text_:22 in 5296) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042480372 = score(doc=5296,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15685207 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04479146 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 5296, 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=5296)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    User interfaces of Web search engines reflect attributes of the underlying tools used to create them, rather than what we know about how people look for information. In this article, the author examines several characteristics of user search behavior: the variety of information-seeking goals, the cultural and situational context of search, and the iterative nature of the search task. An analysis of these characteristics suggests ways that interfaces can be redesigned to make searching more effective for users.
    Date
    22. 7.2006 17:58:06
  7. Tjondronegoro, D.; Spink, A.: Web search engine multimedia functionality (2008) 0.05 
    0.050700065 = product of:
  0.20280026 = sum of:
    0.20280026 = weight(_text_:engines in 2038) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.20280026 = score(doc=2038,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.22757743 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04479146 = queryNorm
        0.8911264 = fieldWeight in 2038, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2038)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Web search engines are beginning to offer access to multimedia searching, including audio, video and image searching. In this paper we report findings from a study examining the state of multimedia search functionality on major general and specialized Web search engines. We investigated 102 Web search engines to examine: (1) how many Web search engines offer multimedia searching, (2) the type of multimedia search functionality and methods offered, such as "query by example", and (3) the supports for personalization or customization which are accessible as advanced search. Findings include: (1) few major Web search engines offer multimedia searching and (2) multimedia Web search functionality is generally limited. Our findings show that despite the increasing level of interest in multimedia Web search, those few Web search engines offering multimedia Web search, provide limited multimedia search functionality. Keywords are still the only means of multimedia retrieval, while other methods such as "query by example" are offered by less than 1% of Web search engines examined.
  8. Drabenstott, K.M.: Web search strategies (2000) 0.05 
    0.05032327 = product of:
  0.10064654 = sum of:
    0.08850929 = weight(_text_:engines in 1188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08850929 = score(doc=1188,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.22757743 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04479146 = queryNorm
        0.38891944 = fieldWeight in 1188, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1188)
    0.012137249 = product of:
      0.024274498 = sum of:
        0.024274498 = weight(_text_:22 in 1188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024274498 = score(doc=1188,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15685207 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04479146 = 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(1/2)
  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.
    Content
    "Web searching is different from searching commercial IR systems. We can learn from search strategies recommended for searching IR systems, but most won't be effective for Web searching. Web searchers need strate gies that let search engines do the job they were designed to do. This article presents six new Web searching strategies that do just that."
    Date
    22. 9.1997 19:16:05
  9. Spink, A.; Jansen, B.J.; Blakely, C.; Koshman, S.: ¬A study of results overlap and uniqueness among major Web search engines (2006) 0.05 
    0.049478196 = product of:
  0.19791278 = sum of:
    0.19791278 = weight(_text_:engines in 993) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.19791278 = score(doc=993,freq=30.0), product of:
        0.22757743 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04479146 = queryNorm
        0.8696503 = fieldWeight in 993, product of:
          5.477226 = tf(freq=30.0), with freq of:
            30.0 = termFreq=30.0
          5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=993)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    The performance and capabilities of Web search engines is an important and significant area of research. Millions of people world wide use Web search engines very day. This paper reports the results of a major study examining the overlap among results retrieved by multiple Web search engines for a large set of more than 10,000 queries. Previous smaller studies have discussed a lack of overlap in results returned by Web search engines for the same queries. The goal of the current study was to conduct a large-scale study to measure the overlap of search results on the first result page (both non-sponsored and sponsored) across the four most popular Web search engines, at specific points in time using a large number of queries. The Web search engines included in the study were MSN Search, Google, Yahoo! and Ask Jeeves. Our study then compares these results with the first page results retrieved for the same queries by the metasearch engine Dogpile.com. Two sets of randomly selected user-entered queries, one set was 10,316 queries and the other 12,570 queries, from Infospace's Dogpile.com search engine (the first set was from Dogpile, the second was from across the Infospace Network of search properties were submitted to the four single Web search engines). Findings show that the percent of total results unique to only one of the four Web search engines was 84.9%, shared by two of the three Web search engines was 11.4%, shared by three of the Web search engines was 2.6%, and shared by all four Web search engines was 1.1%. This small degree of overlap shows the significant difference in the way major Web search engines retrieve and rank results in response to given queries. Results point to the value of metasearch engines in Web retrieval to overcome the biases of individual search engines.
  10. Furner, J.: ¬A unifying model of document relatedness for hybrid search engines (2003) 0.05 
    0.04742858 = product of:
  0.09485716 = sum of:
    0.07665128 = weight(_text_:engines in 2717) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07665128 = score(doc=2717,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22757743 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04479146 = queryNorm
        0.33681408 = fieldWeight in 2717, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2717)
    0.018205874 = product of:
      0.036411747 = sum of:
        0.036411747 = weight(_text_:22 in 2717) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.036411747 = score(doc=2717,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15685207 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04479146 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Date
    11. 9.2004 17:32:22
  11. Vaughan, L.; Thelwall, M.: Search engine coverage bias : evidence and possible causes (2004) 0.05 
    0.046939135 = product of:
  0.18775654 = sum of:
    0.18775654 = weight(_text_:engines in 2536) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.18775654 = score(doc=2536,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.22757743 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04479146 = queryNorm
        0.82502264 = fieldWeight in 2536, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2536)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Commercial search engines are now playing an increasingly important role in Web information dissemination and access. Of particular interest to business and national governments is whether the big engines have coverage biased towards the US or other countries. In our study we tested for national biases in three major search engines and found significant differences in their coverage of commercial Web sites. The US sites were much better covered than the others in the study: sites from China, Taiwan and Singapore. We then examined the possible technical causes of the differences and found that the language of a site does not affect its coverage by search engines. However, the visibility of a site, measured by the number of links to it, affects its chance to be covered by search engines. We conclude that the coverage bias does exist but this is due not to deliberate choices of the search engines but occurs as a natural result of cumulative advantage effects of US sites on the Web. Nevertheless, the bias remains a cause for international concern.
  12. Can, F.; Nuray, R.; Sevdik, A.B.: Automatic performance evaluation of Web search engines (2004) 0.05 
    0.046939135 = product of:
  0.18775654 = sum of:
    0.18775654 = weight(_text_:engines in 2570) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.18775654 = score(doc=2570,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.22757743 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04479146 = queryNorm
        0.82502264 = fieldWeight in 2570, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2570)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Measuring the information retrieval effectiveness of World Wide Web search engines is costly because of human relevance judgments involved. However, both for business enterprises and people it is important to know the most effective Web search engines, since such search engines help their users find higher number of relevant Web pages with less effort. Furthermore, this information can be used for several practical purposes. In this study we introduce automatic Web search engine evaluation method as an efficient and effective assessment tool of such systems. The experiments based on eight Web search engines, 25 queries, and binary user relevance judgments show that our method provides results consistent with human-based evaluations. It is shown that the observed consistencies are statistically significant. This indicates that the new method can be successfully used in the evaluation of Web search engines.
  13. Jansen, B.J.; Molina, P.R.: ¬The effectiveness of Web search engines for retrieving relevant ecommerce links (2006) 0.05 
    0.046939135 = product of:
  0.18775654 = sum of:
    0.18775654 = weight(_text_:engines in 983) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.18775654 = score(doc=983,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.22757743 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04479146 = queryNorm
        0.82502264 = fieldWeight in 983, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=983)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Ecommerce is developing into a fast-growing channel for new business, so a strong presence in this domain could prove essential to the success of numerous commercial organizations. However, there is little research examining ecommerce at the individual customer level, particularly on the success of everyday ecommerce searches. This is critical for the continued success of online commerce. The purpose of this research is to evaluate the effectiveness of search engines in the retrieval of relevant ecommerce links. The study examines the effectiveness of five different types of search engines in response to ecommerce queries by comparing the engines' quality of ecommerce links using topical relevancy ratings. This research employs 100 ecommerce queries, five major search engines, and more than 3540 Web links. The findings indicate that links retrieved using an ecommerce search engine are significantly better than those obtained from most other engines types but do not significantly differ from links obtained from a Web directory service. We discuss the implications for Web system design and ecommerce marketing campaigns.
  14. Jansen, B.J.; Spink, A.: How are we searching the World Wide Web? : A comparison of nine search engine transaction logs (2006) 0.05 
    0.045167204 = product of:
  0.18066882 = sum of:
    0.18066882 = weight(_text_:engines in 968) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.18066882 = score(doc=968,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.22757743 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04479146 = queryNorm
        0.79387844 = fieldWeight in 968, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=968)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    The Web and especially major Web search engines are essential tools in the quest to locate online information for many people. This paper reports results from research that examines characteristics and changes in Web searching from nine studies of five Web search engines based in the US and Europe. We compare interactions occurring between users and Web search engines from the perspectives of session length, query length, query complexity, and content viewed among the Web search engines. The results of our research shows (1) users are viewing fewer result pages, (2) searchers on US-based Web search engines use more query operators than searchers on European-based search engines, (3) there are statistically significant differences in the use of Boolean operators and result pages viewed, and (4) one cannot necessary apply results from studies of one particular Web search engine to another Web search engine. The wide spread use of Web search engines, employment of simple queries, and decreased viewing of result pages may have resulted from algorithmic enhancements by Web search engine companies. We discuss the implications of the findings for the development of Web search engines and design of online content.
  15. Hock, R.: ¬A new era of search engines : not just Web pages anymore (2002) 0.04 
    0.044713248 = product of:
  0.17885299 = sum of:
    0.17885299 = weight(_text_:engines in 7688) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.17885299 = score(doc=7688,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22757743 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04479146 = queryNorm
        0.7858995 = fieldWeight in 7688, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=7688)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
  16. Bradley, P.: ¬The relevance of underpants to searching the Web (2000) 0.04 
    0.044713248 = product of:
  0.17885299 = sum of:
    0.17885299 = weight(_text_:engines in 3961) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.17885299 = score(doc=3961,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22757743 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04479146 = queryNorm
        0.7858995 = fieldWeight in 3961, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=3961)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Footnote
    Auch unter: http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue24/search-engines
  17. Sugiura, A.; Etzioni, O.: Query routing for Web search engines : architecture and experiments (2000) 0.04 
    0.044713248 = product of:
  0.17885299 = sum of:
    0.17885299 = weight(_text_:engines in 5009) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.17885299 = score(doc=5009,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22757743 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04479146 = queryNorm
        0.7858995 = fieldWeight in 5009, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=5009)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
  18. Hume, C.: Internet search engines and robots : what they are and how to use them (2000) 0.04 
    0.044713248 = product of:
  0.17885299 = sum of:
    0.17885299 = weight(_text_:engines in 6104) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.17885299 = score(doc=6104,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.22757743 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04479146 = queryNorm
        0.7858995 = fieldWeight in 6104, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6104)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    An overview of the Internet is provided. It describes what the Internet is, how and when it was started, and the four main functions it currently offers. It then focuses on the World Wide Web, and in particular robots and search engines. An overview is provided of both robots and search engines, with some examples and illustrations. It concludes with how to choose a search engine for a particular enquiry, gives some hints and tips for Internet searches, and emphasises that good retrieval is achieved not only by good search engines but also by responsible Web mastering which helps to disseminate effectively any Internet published material.
  19. King, D.: Specialized search engines : alternatives to the big guys (2000) 0.04 
    0.044713248 = product of:
  0.17885299 = sum of:
    0.17885299 = weight(_text_:engines in 6867) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.17885299 = score(doc=6867,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22757743 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04479146 = queryNorm
        0.7858995 = fieldWeight in 6867, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6867)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
  20. Ojala, M.: Web search engines : search syntax and features (2002) 0.04 
    0.044713248 = product of:
  0.17885299 = sum of:
    0.17885299 = weight(_text_:engines in 253) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.17885299 = score(doc=253,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22757743 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04479146 = queryNorm
        0.7858995 = fieldWeight in 253, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=253)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Authors

Languages

  • e 131
  • d 71
  • sp 2
  • More… Less…

Themes