Search (44 results, page 2 of 3)

0.0065233777 = product of:
  0.019570133 = sum of:
    0.005354538 = weight(_text_:in in 940) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005354538 = score(doc=940,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.09017298 = fieldWeight in 940, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=940)
    0.014215595 = weight(_text_:und in 940) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014215595 = score(doc=940,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09675359 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.14692576 = fieldWeight in 940, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=940)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

Traditional on-line search services such as Dialog, DataStar and Lexis provide a wide range of search features (boolean and proximity operators, truncation, etc). This paper discusses the use of these features for effective searching, and argues that these features are required, regardless of advances in search engine technology. The literature on on-line searching is reviewed, identifying features that searchers find desirable for effective searching. A selective survey of current digital libraries available on the Web was undertaken, identifying which search features are present. The survey indicates that current digital libraries do not implement a wide range of search features. For instance: under half of the examples included controlled vocabulary, under half had proximity searching, only one enabled browsing of term indexes, and none of the digital libraries enable searchers to refine an initial search. Suggestions are made for enhancing the search effectiveness of digital libraries; for instance, by providing a full range of search operators, enabling browsing of search terms, enhancement of records with controlled vocabulary, enabling the refining of initial searches, etc.

Content

Enthält eine Zusammenstellung der Werkzeuge und Hilfsmittel des Information Retrieval

0.005584413 = product of:
  0.03350648 = sum of:
    0.03350648 = weight(_text_:und in 4443) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03350648 = score(doc=4443,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09675359 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.34630734 = fieldWeight in 4443, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4443)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Clevere Präsentation, schwache Datenbasis: Die Suchmaschine Wolfram Alpha wurde vorab schon als "Google Killer" gehandelt - jetzt hat SPIEGEL ONLINE eine erste Version getestet. Sie weiß viel über Aspirin, versagt bei Kultur - und hält die CDU für einen Regionalflughafen.

0.005528287 = product of:
  0.03316972 = sum of:
    0.03316972 = weight(_text_:und in 1164) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03316972 = score(doc=1164,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09675359 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.34282678 = fieldWeight in 1164, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=1164)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

0.005219984 = product of:
  0.01565995 = sum of:
    0.0061828885 = weight(_text_:in in 3453) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0061828885 = score(doc=3453,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.1041228 = fieldWeight in 3453, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3453)
    0.009477063 = weight(_text_:und in 3453) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009477063 = score(doc=3453,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09675359 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.09795051 = fieldWeight in 3453, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3453)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

Mit nicht völlig neuen, aber überarbeiteten Suchfunktionen erweitert das zum Firmenimperium des US-Medienzaren Barry Diller gehörende Unternehmen Ask Jeeves das Leistungsspektrum seiner Suchmaschine. Mit der Ergebnisverfeinerungsfunktion Focus erhält der Suchende auf der rechten oberen Bildschirmseite eine Liste, die das Thema seiner Suche thematisch aufgliedern soll. Eine zweite Neuerung verspricht präzise Antworten auf als Fragen formulierte Sucheinträge. So ergibt der Eintrag "Lady Diana" zum Beispiel eine Liste mit den Items Princess Di, Princess Dianas Life, Princess Diana's Wedding. Interessant dabei ist, dass diese Liste nicht einfach aus einem monolithischen Block von Schlüsselwörtern besteht, sondern in drei Kategorien aufgeteilt ist: "Narrow Your Search", "Expand Your Search" und "Related Names". Waren die eben genannten Beispiele aus der ersten Kategorie, finden sich unter Expand Your Search Einträge wie Royal Family, Princess Di Ring, Princess Di Prince Charles History oder Prince William Harry, allerdings auch Who Is Louis De Funes? "Related Names" verweist auf Einträge wie Diana Spencer, Prince Harry oder Imran Khan. Die Suchfunktion soll also die thematische Verfeinerung oder Ausweitung gleichermaßen wie die Fortsetzung der Suche mit einem verwandten Thema ermöglichen. Auf die Frage "who invented the telephone" erhält der Suchende als ersten Eintrag die Antwort "The telephone was invented by Alexander Graham Bell" mit dem roten Vermerk "Web Answer'. Bemerkenswert ist hier, dass auf eine Frage nicht nur eine passende Webseite mit der Antwort angezeigt wird, sondern die ausformulierte Antwort direkt aus der vorgeschlagenen Webseite zitiert wird. Die Frage "who is the mother of Albert Einstein" gibt immerhin einen Eintrag unter "Narrow Your Search" mit "Albert Einstein Family tree". Ask Jeeves wird wohl noch eine weitere Neuerung bevorstehen: Auf einer Pressekonferenz in San Francisco bemerkte Chief Executive Barry Diller, dass das Unternehmen über eine Namensänderung von Ask Jeeves nachdenke. Wahrscheinlich werde auf eines der beiden Worte verzichtet werden. Mit dem Sucheintrag "How will Ask Jeeves be called in the future" erhält man bislang jedoch noch keine "Web Answer". (26.05.2005 15:30)

0.0020823204 = product of:
  0.012493922 = sum of:
    0.012493922 = weight(_text_:in in 2390) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012493922 = score(doc=2390,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.21040362 = fieldWeight in 2390, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=2390)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Footnote

Vortrag anläßlich der Inetbib-Tagung 2004 in Bonn

0.0019676082 = product of:
  0.011805649 = sum of:
    0.011805649 = weight(_text_:in in 2548) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011805649 = score(doc=2548,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.19881277 = fieldWeight in 2548, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2548)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Page Rank is a topic much discussed by Search Engine Optimisation (SEO) experts. At the heart of PageRank is a mathematical formula that seems scary to look at but is actually fairly simple to understand. Despite this many people seem to get it wrong! In particular "Chris Ridings of www.searchenginesystems.net" has written a paper entitled "PageRank Explained: Everything you've always wanted to know about PageRank", pointed to by many people, that contains a fundamental mistake early on in the explanation! Unfortunately this means some of the recommendations in the paper are not quite accurate. By showing code to correctly calculate real PageRank I hope to achieve several things in this response: - Clearly explain how PageRank is calculated. - Go through every example in Chris' paper, and add some more of my own, showing the correct PageRank for each diagram. By showing the code used to calculate each diagram I've opened myself up to peer review - mostly in an effort to make sure the examples are correct, but also because the code can help explain the PageRank calculations. - Describe some principles and observations on website design based on these correctly calculated examples. Any good web designer should take the time to fully understand how PageRank really works - if you don't then your site's layout could be seriously hurting your Google listings! [Note: I have nothing in particular against Chris. If I find any other papers on the subject I'll try to comment evenly]

0.0019478323 = product of:
  0.011686994 = sum of:
    0.011686994 = weight(_text_:in in 93) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011686994 = score(doc=93,freq=28.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.19681457 = fieldWeight in 93, product of:
          5.2915025 = tf(freq=28.0), with freq of:
            28.0 = termFreq=28.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=93)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Imagine a library containing 25 billion documents but with no centralized organization and no librarians. In addition, anyone may add a document at any time without telling anyone. You may feel sure that one of the documents contained in the collection has a piece of information that is vitally important to you, and, being impatient like most of us, you'd like to find it in a matter of seconds. How would you go about doing it? Posed in this way, the problem seems impossible. Yet this description is not too different from the World Wide Web, a huge, highly-disorganized collection of documents in many different formats. Of course, we're all familiar with search engines (perhaps you found this article using one) so we know that there is a solution. This article will describe Google's PageRank algorithm and how it returns pages from the web's collection of 25 billion documents that match search criteria so well that "google" has become a widely used verb. Most search engines, including Google, continually run an army of computer programs that retrieve pages from the web, index the words in each document, and store this information in an efficient format. Each time a user asks for a web search using a search phrase, such as "search engine," the search engine determines all the pages on the web that contains the words in the search phrase. (Perhaps additional information such as the distance between the words "search" and "engine" will be noted as well.) Here is the problem: Google now claims to index 25 billion pages. Roughly 95% of the text in web pages is composed from a mere 10,000 words. This means that, for most searches, there will be a huge number of pages containing the words in the search phrase. What is needed is a means of ranking the importance of the pages that fit the search criteria so that the pages can be sorted with the most important pages at the top of the list. One way to determine the importance of pages is to use a human-generated ranking. For instance, you may have seen pages that consist mainly of a large number of links to other resources in a particular area of interest. Assuming the person maintaining this page is reliable, the pages referenced are likely to be useful. Of course, the list may quickly fall out of date, and the person maintaining the list may miss some important pages, either unintentionally or as a result of an unstated bias. Google's PageRank algorithm assesses the importance of web pages without human evaluation of the content. In fact, Google feels that the value of its service is largely in its ability to provide unbiased results to search queries; Google claims, "the heart of our software is PageRank." As we'll see, the trick is to ask the web itself to rank the importance of pages.

0.0017848461 = product of:
  0.010709076 = sum of:
    0.010709076 = weight(_text_:in in 2809) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010709076 = score(doc=2809,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.18034597 = fieldWeight in 2809, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2809)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

The hbz (Academic Library Center, Cologne) has a strong focus on search engine applications: Beyond the projected integration of respective technologies into the new release of the Digital Library portal solution (DigiBib6), vascoda background services also apply and take advantage of search engine technology. Experience since 2003 has given proof that building and updating of search engine indexes involves a vast amount of resources. The use of search engine federations, however, pledges major improvements: The total amount of data records held in linked indexes can be almost unlimited but also allow for a joint output of all hits retrieved. A federation also comes with excellent response times - hits retrieved can also refer to or link into the original system's layout. Nonetheless, the major challenge these days is different search engine technologies, e.g. Lucene and FAST, the variations in terms of ranking, and the implementation or non-implementation of so-called drill-downs. The lecture is designed to give a brief insight into the hbz search engine workshop with an introduction to the special project state of play.

0.001682769 = product of:
  0.010096614 = sum of:
    0.010096614 = weight(_text_:in in 5595) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010096614 = score(doc=5595,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.17003182 = fieldWeight in 5595, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5595)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

The study of the web as a graph is not only fascinating in its own right, but also yields valuable insight into web algorithms for crawling, searching and community discovery, and the sociological phenomena which characterize its evolution. We report on experiments on local and global properties of the web graph using two Altavista crawls each with over 200M pages and 1.5 billion links. Our study indicates that the macroscopic structure of the web is considerably more intricate than suggested by earlier experiments on a smaller scale

0.001682769 = product of:
  0.010096614 = sum of:
    0.010096614 = weight(_text_:in in 755) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010096614 = score(doc=755,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.17003182 = fieldWeight in 755, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=755)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Consolidated statement of financial position of MOZILLA FOUNDATION AND SUBSIDIARY (Mozilla) as of December 31, 2006 and 2005 and the related consolidated statements of activities and changes in net assets and cash flows for the years then ended. - Angaben zu den Einnahmen der Mozilla Foundation durch die Einbindung des Google-Suchfesters in den Browser.

0.0016088387 = product of:
  0.009653032 = sum of:
    0.009653032 = weight(_text_:in in 754) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009653032 = score(doc=754,freq=26.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.16256167 = fieldWeight in 754, product of:
          5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
            26.0 = termFreq=26.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=754)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

The aim of our investigation was to discuss exactly what is formulated in the title. This will of course constitute a main part of this write-up. However, in the process of investigations it also became clear that the focus has to be extended, not to just cover Google and search engines in an isolated fashion, but to also cover other Web 2.0 related phenomena, particularly Wikipedia, Blogs, and other related community efforts. It was the purpose of our investigation to demonstrate: - Plagiarism and IPR violation are serious concerns in academia and in the commercial world - Current techniques to fight both are rudimentary, yet could be improved by a concentrated initiative - One reason why the fight is difficult is the dominance of Google as THE major search engine and that Google is unwilling to cooperate - The monopolistic behaviour of Google is also threatening how we see the world, how we as individuals are seen (complete loss of privacy) and is threatening even world economy (!) In our proposal we did present a list of typical sections that would be covered at varying depth, with the possible replacement of one or the other by items that would emerge as still more important.
The preliminary intended and approved list was: Section 1: To concentrate on Google as virtual monopoly, and Google's reported support of Wikipedia. To find experimental evidence of this support or show that the reports are not more than rumours. Section 2: To address the copy-past syndrome with socio-cultural consequences associated with it. Section 3: To deal with plagiarism and IPR violations as two intertwined topics: how they affect various players (teachers and pupils in school; academia; corporations; governmental studies, etc.). To establish that not enough is done concerning these issues, partially due to just plain ignorance. We will propose some ways to alleviate the problem. Section 4: To discuss the usual tools to fight plagiarism and their shortcomings. Section 5: To propose ways to overcome most of above problems according to proposals by Maurer/Zaka. To examples, but to make it clear that do this more seriously a pilot project is necessary beyond this particular study. Section 6: To briefly analyze various views of plagiarism as it is quite different in different fields (journalism, engineering, architecture, painting, .) and to present a concept that avoids plagiarism from the very beginning. Section 7: To point out the many other dangers of Google or Google-like undertakings: opportunistic ranking, analysis of data as window into commercial future. Section 8: To outline the need of new international laws. Section 9: To mention the feeble European attempts to fight Google, despite Google's growing power. Section 10. To argue that there is no way to catch up with Google in a frontal attack.
Section 11: To argue that fighting large search engines and plagiarism slice-by-slice by using dedicated servers combined by one hub could eventually decrease the importance of other global search engines. Section 12: To argue that global search engines are an area that cannot be left to the free market, but require some government control or at least non-profit institutions. We will mention other areas where similar if not as glaring phenomena are visible. Section 13: We will mention in passing the potential role of virtual worlds, such as the currently overhyped system "second life". Section 14: To elaborate and try out a model for knowledge workers that does not require special search engines, with a description of a simple demonstrator. Section 15 (Not originally part of the proposal): To propose concrete actions and to describe an Austrian effort that could, with moderate support, minimize the role of Google for Austria. Section 16: References (Not originally part of the proposal) In what follows, we will stick to Sections 1 -14 plus the new Sections 15 and 16 as listed, plus a few Appendices.
We believe that the importance has shifted considerably since the approval of the project. We thus will emphasize some aspects much more than ever planned, and treat others in a shorter fashion. We believe and hope that this is also seen as unexpected benefit by BMVIT. This report is structured as follows: After an Executive Summary that will highlight why the topic is of such paramount importance we explain in an introduction possible optimal ways how to study the report and its appendices. We can report with some pride that many of the ideas have been accepted by the international scene at conferences and by journals as of such crucial importance that a number of papers (constituting the appendices and elaborating the various sections) have been considered high quality material for publication. We want to thank the Austrian Federal Ministry of Transport, Innovation and Technology (BMVIT) for making this study possible. We would be delighted if the study can be distributed widely to European decision makers, as some of the issues involved do indeed involve all of Europe, if not the world.

0.0015457221 = product of:
  0.009274333 = sum of:
    0.009274333 = weight(_text_:in in 5661) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009274333 = score(doc=5661,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.1561842 = fieldWeight in 5661, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5661)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

In a series of capsule reviews of 20 search engines Sirapyan gives a good overview of the state of Internet search tools. She starts out with a clear discussion of the types of search tools available, the availability of advanced features such as Boolean queries and differences between directories, regular search engines and metasearch engines. It is unclear from the article whether the author and other testers used the same searches across all of the 20 tools but each review clearly outlines perceived strengths and weaknesses, gives tips on the advanced features, if any, of the search tool in question and suggests the types of searches that are most successful. The tools which receive top honors are Google, Northern Light, HotBot and Oingo. Finally, there is an extra sidebar the discusses meta and specialized search tools such as Infozoid and FirstGov. I can't help thinking that the usefulness of this article is related to the fact that Sirapyan is PC Magazine's librarian and goes into greater depth on those features that are of interest to information professionals

0.0014873719 = product of:
  0.008924231 = sum of:
    0.008924231 = weight(_text_:in in 3080) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008924231 = score(doc=3080,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.15028831 = fieldWeight in 3080, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3080)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Ein simples Beispiel eines Mini-Internets aus drei Web-Seiten verdeutlicht, wie dieses Ranking-System in der Praxis funktioniert.

0.0014724231 = product of:
  0.008834538 = sum of:
    0.008834538 = weight(_text_:in in 1161) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008834538 = score(doc=1161,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.14877784 = fieldWeight in 1161, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1161)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

With the development of the World Wide Web, the "information search" has grown to be a significant business sector of a global, competitive and commercial market. Powerful players have entered this market, such as commercial internet search engines, information portals, multinational publishers and online content integrators. Will Google, Yahoo or Microsoft be the only portals to global knowledge in 2010? If libraries do not want to become marginalized in a key area of their traditional services, they need to acknowledge the challenges that come with the globalisation of scholarly information, the existence and further growth of the academic internet

0.0014573209 = product of:
  0.008743925 = sum of:
    0.008743925 = weight(_text_:in in 1555) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008743925 = score(doc=1555,freq=48.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.14725187 = fieldWeight in 1555, product of:
          6.928203 = tf(freq=48.0), with freq of:
            48.0 = termFreq=48.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=1555)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Content

"Introduction Yahoo! is the undisputed king of the Web directories, providing one of the key information navigation tools on the Internet. It has maintained its popularity over many Internet-years as the most visited Web site, against intense competition. This is because it does a good job of shifting, cataloguing and organising the Web [1] . But what would a map of Yahoo!'s hierarchical classification of the Web look like? Would an interactive map of Yahoo!, rather than the conventional listing of sites, be more useful as navigational tool? We can get some idea what a map of Yahoo! might be like by taking a look at ET-Map, a prototype developed by Hsinchun Chen and colleagues in the Artificial Intelligence Lab [2] at the University of Arizona. ET-Map was developed in 1995 as part of innovative research in automatic Internet homepage categorization and it charts a large chunk of Yahoo!, from the entertainment section representing some 110,000 different Web links. The map is a two-dimensional, multi-layered category map; its aim is to provide an intuitive visual information browsing tool. ET-Map can be browsed interactively, explored and queried, using the familiar point-and-click navigation style of the Web to find information of interest.
The View From Above Browsing for a particular piece on information on the Web can often feel like being stuck in an unfamiliar part of town walking around at street level looking for a particular store. You know the store is around there somewhere, but your viewpoint at ground level is constrained. What you really want is to get above the streets, hovering half a mile or so up in the air, to see the whole neighbourhood. This kind of birds-eye view function has been memorably described by David D. Clark, Senior Research Scientist at MIT's Laboratory for Computer Science and the Chairman of the Invisible Worlds Protocol Advisory Board, as the missing "up button" on the browser [3] . ET-Map is a nice example of a prototype for Clark's "up-button" view of an information space. The goal of information maps, like ET-Map, is to provide the browser with a sense of the lie of the information landscape, what is where, the location of clusters and hotspots, what is related to what. Ideally, this 'big-picture' all-in-one visual summary needs to fit on a single standard computer screen. ET-Map is one of my favourite examples, but there are many other interesting information maps being developed by other researchers and companies (see inset at the bottom of this page). How does ET-Map work? Here is a sequence of screenshots of a typical browsing session with ET-Map, which ends with access to Web pages on jazz musician Miles Davis. You can also tryout ET-Map for yourself, using a fully working demo on the AI Lab's website [4] . We begin with the top-level map showing forty odd broad entertainment 'subject regions' represented by regularly shaped tiles. Each tile is a visual summary of a group of Web pages with similar content. These tiles are shaded different colours to differentiate them, while labels identify the subject of the tile and the number in brackets telling you how many individual Web page links it contains. ET-Map uses two important, but common-sense, spatial concepts in its organisation and representation of the Web. Firstly, the 'subject regions' size is directly related to the number of Web pages in that category. For example, the 'MUSIC' subject area contains over 11,000 pages and so has a much larger area than the neighbouring area of 'LIVE' which only has 4,300 odd pages. This is intuitively meaningful, as the largest tiles are visually more prominent on the map and are likely to be more significant as they contain the most links. In addition, a second spatial concept, that of neighbourhood proximity, is applied so 'subject regions' closely related in term of content are plotted close to each other on the map. For example, 'FILM' and 'YEAR'S OSCARS', at the bottom left, are neighbours in both semantic and spatial space. This make senses as many things in the real-world are ordered in this way, with things that are alike being spatially close together (e.g. layout of goods in a store, or books in a library). Importantly, ET-Map is also a multi-layer map, with sub-maps showing greater informational resolution through a finer degree of categorization. So for any subject region that contains more than two hundred Web pages, a second-level map, with more detailed categories is generated. This subdivision of information space is repeated down the hierarchy as far as necessary. In the example, the user selected the 'MUSIC' subject region which, not surprisingly, contained many thousands of pages. A second-level map with numerous different music categories is then presented to the user. Delving deeper, the user wants to learn more about jazz music, so clicking on the 'JAZZ' tile leads to a third-level map, a fine-grained map of jazz related Web pages. Finally, selecting the 'MILES DAVIS' subject region leads to more a conventional looking ranking of pages from which the user selects one to download.
Information Maps There are many other fascinating examples that employ two dimensional interactive maps to provide a 'birds-eye' view of information. They use various underlying techniques of textual analysis and clustering to turn the mass of information into a useful summary map (see "Mining in Textual Mountains" in Mappa.Mundi Magazine). In terms of visual representations they can be divided into two groups, those that generate smooth surfaces and those that produce regular, tiled maps. Unfortunately, we don't have space to examine them in detail, but they are well worth spending some time exploring. I will be covering some of them in future columns.
Research Prototypes Visual SiteMap Developed by Xia Lin, based at the College of Library and Information Science, Drexel University. CVG Cyberspace geography visualization, developed by Luc Girardin, at The Graduate Institute of International Studies, Switzerland. WEBSOM Maps the thousands of articles posted on Usenet newsgroups. It is being developed by researchers at the Neural Networks Research Centre, Helsinki University of Technology in Finland. TreeMaps Developed by Brian Johnson, Ben Shneiderman and colleagues in the Human-Computer Interaction Lab at the University of Maryland. Commercial Information Maps: NewsMaps Provides interactive information landscapes summarizing daily news stories, developed Cartia, Inc. Web Squirrel Creates maps known as information farms. It is developed by Eastgate Systems, Inc. Umap Produces interactive maps of Web searches. Map of the Market An interactive map of the market performance of the stocks of major US corporations developed by SmartMoney.com."

0.0014573209 = product of:
  0.008743925 = sum of:
    0.008743925 = weight(_text_:in in 1196) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008743925 = score(doc=1196,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.14725187 = fieldWeight in 1196, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1196)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

This article describes the journey from the conception of and vision for a modern search-engine-based search environment to its technological realisation. In doing so, it takes up the thread of an earlier article on this subject, this time from a technical viewpoint. As well as presenting the conceptual considerations of the initial stages, this article will principally elucidate the technological aspects of this journey. The starting point for the deliberations about development of an academic search engine was the experience we gained through the generally successful project "Digital Library NRW", in which from 1998 to 2000-with Bielefeld University Library in overall charge-we designed a system model for an Internet-based library portal with an improved academic search environment at its core. At the heart of this system was a metasearch with an availability function, to which we added a user interface integrating all relevant source material for study and research. The deficiencies of this approach were felt soon after the system was launched in June 2001. There were problems with the stability and performance of the database retrieval system, with the integration of full-text documents and Internet pages, and with acceptance by users, because users are increasingly performing the searches themselves using search engines rather than going to the library for help in doing searches. Since a long list of problems are also encountered using commercial search engines for academic use (in particular the retrieval of academic information and long-term availability), the idea was born for a search engine configured specifically for academic use. We also hoped that with one single access point founded on improved search engine technology, we could access the heterogeneous academic resources of subject-based bibliographic databases, catalogues, electronic newspapers, document servers and academic web pages.

0.0013303459 = product of:
  0.007982075 = sum of:
    0.007982075 = weight(_text_:in in 4709) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007982075 = score(doc=4709,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.13442196 = fieldWeight in 4709, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4709)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Content

"Swoogle, the Semantic web search engine, is a research project carried out by the ebiquity research group in the Computer Science and Electrical Engineering Department at the University of Maryland. It's an engine tailored towards finding documents on the semantic web. The whole research paper is available here. Semantic web is touted as the next generation of online content representation where the web documents are represented in a language that is not only easy for humans but is machine readable (easing the integration of data as never thought possible) as well. And the main elements of the semantic web include data model description formats such as Resource Description Framework (RDF), a variety of data interchange formats (e.g. RDF/XML, Turtle, N-Triples), and notations such as RDF Schema (RDFS), the Web Ontology Language (OWL), all of which are intended to provide a formal description of concepts, terms, and relationships within a given knowledge domain (Wikipedia). And Swoogle is an attempt to mine and index this new set of web documents. The engine performs crawling of semantic documents like most web search engines and the search is available as web service too. The engine is primarily written in Java with the PHP used for the front-end and MySQL for database. Swoogle is capable of searching over 10,000 ontologies and indexes more that 1.3 million web documents. It also computes the importance of a Semantic Web document. The techniques used for indexing are the more google-type page ranking and also mining the documents for inter-relationships that are the basis for the semantic web. For more information on how the RDF framework can be used to relate documents, read the link here. Being a research project, and with a non-commercial motive, there is not much hype around Swoogle. However, the approach to indexing of Semantic web documents is an approach that most engines will have to take at some point of time. When the Internet debuted, there were no specific engines available for indexing or searching. The Search domain only picked up as more and more content became available. One fundamental question that I've always wondered about it is - provided that the search engines return very relevant results for a query - how to ascertain that the documents are indeed the most relevant ones available. There is always an inherent delay in indexing of document. Its here that the new semantic documents search engines can close delay. Experimenting with the concept of Search in the semantic web can only bore well for the future of search technology."

0.0012620769 = product of:
  0.0075724614 = sum of:
    0.0075724614 = weight(_text_:in in 3071) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0075724614 = score(doc=3071,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.12752387 = fieldWeight in 3071, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3071)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Content

"One of the things I enjoyed the most when I was a reference librarian was the wide range of questions my clients sent my way. What was the original title of the first Godzilla movie? (Gojira, released in 1954) Who said 'I'm as pure as the driven slush'? (Tallulah Bankhead) What percentage of adults have gone to a jazz performance in the last year? (11%) I have found that librarians, speech writers and journalists have one thing in common - we all need to find information on all kinds of topics, and we usually need the answers right now. The following are a few of my favorite sites for finding answers to those there-must-be-an-answer-out-there questions. - For the electronic equivalent to the "ready reference" shelf of resources that most librarians keep hidden behind their desks, check out RefDesk . It is particularly good for answering factual questions - Where do I get the new Windows XP Service Pack? Where is the 386 area code? How do I contact my member of Congress? - Another resource for lots of those quick-fact questions is InfoPlease, the publishers of the Information Please almanac .- Right now, it's full of Olympics data, but it also has links to facts and factoids that you would look up in an almanac, atlas, or encyclopedia. - If you want numbers, start with the Statistical Abstract of the US. This source, produced by the U.S. Census Bureau, gives you everything from the divorce rate by state to airline cost indexes going back to 1980. It is many librarians' secret weapon for pulling numbers together quickly. - My favorite question is "how does that work?" Haven't you ever wondered how they get that Olympic torch to continue to burn while it is being carried by runners from one city to the next? Or how solar sails manage to propel a spacecraft? For answers, check out the appropriately-named How Stuff Works. - For questions about movies, my first resource is the Internet Movie Database. It is easy to search, is such a popular site that mistakes are corrected quickly, and is a fun place to catch trailers of both upcoming movies and those dating back to the 30s. - When I need to figure out who said what, I still tend to rely on the print sources such as Bartlett's Familiar Quotations . No, the current edition is not available on the web, but - and this is the librarian in me - I really appreciate the fact that I not only get the attribution but I also see the source of the quote. There are far too many quotes being attributed to a celebrity, but with no indication of the publication in which the quote appeared. Take, for example, the much-cited quote of Margaret Meade, "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful committed people can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has!" Then see the page on the Institute for Intercultural Studies site, founded by Meade, and read its statement that it has never been able to verify this alleged quote from Meade. While there are lots of web-based sources of quotes (see QuotationsPage.com and Bartleby, for example), unless the site provides the original source for the quotation, I wouldn't rely on the citation. Of course, if you have a hunch as to the source of a quote, and it was published prior to 1923, head over to Project Gutenberg , which includes the full text of over 12,000 books that are in the public domain. When I needed to confirm a quotation of the Red Queen in "Through the Looking Glass", this is where I started. - And if you are stumped as to where to go to find information, instead of Googling it, try the Librarians' Index to the Internet. While it is somewhat US-centric, it is a great directory of web resources."

0.0012620769 = product of:
  0.0075724614 = sum of:
    0.0075724614 = weight(_text_:in in 3072) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0075724614 = score(doc=3072,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.12752387 = fieldWeight in 3072, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3072)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

We present an analysis of the Yahoo Buzz Index over a period of 45 weeks. Our key findings are that: (1) It is most common for a search term to show up on the index for one week, followed by two weeks, three weeks, etc. Only two terms persist for all 45 weeks studied - Britney Spears and Jennifer Lopez. Search term longevity follows a power-law distribution or a winner-take-all structure; (2) Most search terms focus on entertainment. Search terms related to serious topics are found less often. The Buzz Index does not necessarily follow the "news cycle"; and, (3) We provide two ways to determine "star power" of various search terms - one that emphasizes staying power on the Index and another that emphasizes rank. In general, the methods lead to dramatically different results. Britney Spears performs well in both methods. We conclude that the data available on the Index is symptomatic of a celebrity-crazed, entertainment-centered culture.

0.0012620769 = product of:
  0.0075724614 = sum of:
    0.0075724614 = weight(_text_:in in 852) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0075724614 = score(doc=852,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.12752387 = fieldWeight in 852, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=852)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Nutch is an open-source Web search engine that can be used at global, local, and even personal scale. Its initial design goal was to enable a transparent alternative for global Web search in the public interest - one of its signature features is the ability to "explain" its result rankings. Recent work has emphasized how it can also be used for intranets; by local communities with richer data models, such as the Creative Commons metadata-enabled search for licensed content; on a personal scale to index a user's files, email, and web-surfing history; and we also report on several other research projects built on Nutch. In this paper, we present how the architecture of the Nutch system enables it to be more flexible and scalable than other comparable systems today.