Search (9 results, page 1 of 1)

0.012385738 = product of:
  0.043350082 = sum of:
    0.02942481 = weight(_text_:internet in 630) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02942481 = score(doc=630,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11276311 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03819578 = queryNorm
        0.2609436 = fieldWeight in 630, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=630)
    0.013925271 = product of:
      0.04177581 = sum of:
        0.04177581 = weight(_text_:29 in 630) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04177581 = score(doc=630,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13436082 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03819578 = queryNorm
            0.31092256 = fieldWeight in 630, 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=630)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

Die Forschungsgruppe Search Studies forscht an der HAW Hamburg zur Nutzung kommerzieller Suchmaschinen, zur Suchmaschinenoptimierung und zum Relevance Assessment von Suchmaschinen. Der Leiter der Forschungsgruppe, Prof. Dr. Dirk Lewandowski, stand für ein Interview zu seiner Tätigkeit und der seines Teams, sowie seiner Lehre an der HAW Hamburg zur Verfügung. Sollten wir Informationen aus dem Internet vertrauen oder ist Vorsicht angebracht?

Date

28. 1.2022 11:05:29

0.0063053165 = product of:
  0.044137213 = sum of:
    0.044137213 = weight(_text_:internet in 5658) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.044137213 = score(doc=5658,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11276311 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03819578 = queryNorm
        0.3914154 = fieldWeight in 5658, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=5658)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Das Internet steckt voller Informationen. Um aber diejenigen zu finden, die einen wirklich interessieren, braucht man gute Suchmaschinen - und die richtige Mathematik.

0.0057327193 = product of:
  0.040129032 = sum of:
    0.040129032 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 185) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.040129032 = score(doc=185,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.11553899 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03819578 = queryNorm
        0.34732026 = fieldWeight in 185, 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=185)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Evaluation of information retrieval systems is a fundamental topic in Library and Information Science. The aim of this paper is to connect the system-oriented and the user-oriented approaches to relevant philosophical schools. By reviewing the related literature, it was found that the evaluation of information retrieval systems is successful if it benefits from both system-oriented and user-oriented approaches (composite). The system-oriented approach is rooted in Parmenides' philosophy of stability (immovable) which Plato accepts and attributes to the world of forms; the user-oriented approach is rooted in Heraclitus' flux philosophy (motion) which Plato defers and attributes to the tangible world. Thus, using Plato's theory is a comprehensive approach for recognizing the concept of relevance. The theoretical and philosophical foundations determine the type of research methods and techniques. Therefore, Plato's dialectical method is an appropriate composite method for evaluating information retrieval systems.

0.0052544307 = product of:
  0.036781013 = sum of:
    0.036781013 = weight(_text_:internet in 418) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.036781013 = score(doc=418,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11276311 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03819578 = queryNorm
        0.3261795 = fieldWeight in 418, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=418)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

PimEyes untergräbt die Anonymität von Menschen, deren Gesicht im Internet zu finden ist. Nach breiter Kritik hatte sich die polnische Suchmaschine auf die Seychellen abgesetzt. Jetzt hat PimEyes einen neuen Chef - und geht an die Öfffentlichkeit.

0.0052544307 = product of:
  0.036781013 = sum of:
    0.036781013 = weight(_text_:internet in 952) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.036781013 = score(doc=952,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11276311 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03819578 = queryNorm
        0.3261795 = fieldWeight in 952, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=952)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Wer nicht möchte, dass seine oder ihre Daten beim Surfen im Internet gesammelt werden, muss sich nach anderen Suchmaschinen umsehen. Die arbeiten auch gut - teils sogar mit künstlicher Intelligenz.

0.0052544307 = product of:
  0.036781013 = sum of:
    0.036781013 = weight(_text_:internet in 1084) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.036781013 = score(doc=1084,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.11276311 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03819578 = queryNorm
        0.3261795 = fieldWeight in 1084, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1084)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

From documenting human rights abuses to studying online advertising, web archives are increasingly positioned as critical resources for a broad range of scholarly Internet research agendas. In this article, we reflect on the motivations and methodological challenges of investigating the world's largest web archive, the Internet Archive's Wayback Machine (IAWM). Using a mixed methods approach, we report on a pilot project centred around documenting the inner workings of 'Save Page Now' (SPN) - an Internet Archive tool that allows users to initiate the creation and storage of 'snapshots' of web resources. By improving our understanding of SPN and its role in shaping the IAWM, this work examines how the public tool is being used to 'save the Web' and highlights the challenges of operationalising a study of the dynamic sociotechnical processes supporting this knowledge infrastructure. Inspired by existing Science and Technology Studies (STS) approaches, the paper charts our development of methodological interventions to support an interdisciplinary investigation of SPN, including: ethnographic methods, 'experimental blackbox tactics', data tracing, modelling and documentary research. We discuss the opportunities and limitations of our methodology when interfacing with issues associated with temporality, scale and visibility, as well as critically engage with our own positionality in the research process (in terms of expertise and access). We conclude with reflections on the implications of digital STS approaches for 'knowing infrastructure', where the use of these infrastructures is unavoidably intertwined with our ability to study the situated and material arrangements of their creation.

Object

Internet Archive Wayback Machine

0.0042035445 = product of:
  0.02942481 = sum of:
    0.02942481 = weight(_text_:internet in 954) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02942481 = score(doc=954,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11276311 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03819578 = queryNorm
        0.2609436 = fieldWeight in 954, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=954)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Content

"1. Use a range of different media 2. Access paywalled media content 3. Use an advertising and tracking blocker 4. Use alternatives to Google Search 5. Use alternatives to YouTube 6. Use alternatives to Facebook and Twitter 7. Caution with Wikipedia 8. Web browser, email, and internet access 9. Access books and scientific papers 10. Access deleted web content"

0.0027581556 = product of:
  0.019307088 = sum of:
    0.019307088 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5613) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019307088 = score(doc=5613,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11553899 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03819578 = queryNorm
        0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 5613, 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=5613)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Understanding search engine users' intents has been a popular study in information retrieval, which directly affects the quality of retrieved information. One of the fundamental problems in this field is to find a connection between the entity in a query and the potential intents of the users, the latter of which would further reveal important information for facilitating the users' future actions. In this article, we present a novel research method for mining the actionable intents for search users, by generating a ranked list of the potentially most informative actions based on a massive pool of action samples. We compare different search strategies and their combinations for retrieving the action pool and develop three criteria for measuring the informativeness of the selected action samples, that is, the significance of an action sample within the pool, the representativeness of an action sample for the other candidate samples, and the diverseness of an action sample with respect to the selected actions. Our experiment, based on the Action Mining (AM) query entity data set from the Actionable Knowledge Graph (AKG) task at NTCIR-13, suggests that the proposed approach is effective in generating an informative and early-satisfying ranking of potential actions for search users.

0.0027581556 = product of:
  0.019307088 = sum of:
    0.019307088 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 150) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019307088 = score(doc=150,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11553899 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03819578 = queryNorm
        0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 150, 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=150)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Previous research has found that improved search engine effectiveness-evaluated using a batch-style approach-does not always translate to significant improvements in user task performance; however, these prior studies focused on simple recall and precision-based search tasks. We investigated the same relationship, but for realistic, complex search tasks required in clinical decision making. One hundred and nine clinicians and final year medical students answered 16 clinical questions. Although the search engine did improve answer accuracy by 20 percentage points, there was no significant difference when participants used a more effective, state-of-the-art search engine. We also found that the search engine effectiveness difference, identified in the lab, was diminished by around 70% when the search engines were used with real users. Despite the aid of the search engine, half of the clinical questions were answered incorrectly. We further identified the relative contribution of search engine effectiveness to the overall end task success. We found that the ability to interpret documents correctly was a much more important factor impacting task success. If these findings are representative, information retrieval research may need to reorient its emphasis towards helping users to better understand information, rather than just finding it for them.