Search (17 results, page 1 of 1)

0.0128297005 = product of:
  0.025659401 = sum of:
    0.008582841 = weight(_text_:information in 2565) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008582841 = score(doc=2565,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 2565, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2565)
    0.01707656 = product of:
      0.03415312 = sum of:
        0.03415312 = weight(_text_:22 in 2565) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03415312 = score(doc=2565,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17654699 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2565, 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=2565)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Date

16. 1.2016 10:22:28

Source

http://chato.cl/papers/baeza06_general_pagerank_damping_functions_link_ranking.pdf [Proceedings of the ACM Special Interest Group on Information Retrieval (SIGIR) Conference, SIGIR'06, August 6-10, 2006, Seattle, Washington, USA]

0.011398684 = product of:
  0.022797368 = sum of:
    0.010406143 = weight(_text_:information in 93) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010406143 = score(doc=93,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.11757882 = fieldWeight in 93, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=93)
    0.012391226 = product of:
      0.024782453 = sum of:
        0.024782453 = weight(_text_:organization in 93) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024782453 = score(doc=93,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.13787198 = fieldWeight in 93, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=93)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

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.

0.006068985 = product of:
  0.02427594 = sum of:
    0.02427594 = weight(_text_:information in 1159) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02427594 = score(doc=1159,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.27429342 = fieldWeight in 1159, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1159)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Information und Mobilität: Optimierung und Vermeidung von Mobilität durch Information. Proceedings des 8. Internationalen Symposiums für Informationswissenschaft (ISI 2002), 7.-10.10.2002, Regensburg. Hrsg.: Rainer Hammwöhner, Christian Wolff, Christa Womser-Hacker

0.006007989 = product of:
  0.024031956 = sum of:
    0.024031956 = weight(_text_:information in 1161) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024031956 = score(doc=1161,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.27153665 = fieldWeight in 1161, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1161)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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

Theme

Information Gateway

0.0052030715 = product of:
  0.020812286 = sum of:
    0.020812286 = weight(_text_:information in 4838) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020812286 = score(doc=4838,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.23515764 = fieldWeight in 4838, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4838)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

DAFFODIL is a search system for digital libraries aiming at strategic support during the information search process. From a user point of view this strategic support is mainly implemented by high-level search functions, so-called stratagems, which provide functionality beyond today's digital libraries. Through the tight integration of stratagems and with the federation of heterogeneous digital libraries, DAFFODIL reaches high effects of synergy for information and services. These effects provide high-quality metadata for the searcher through an intuitively controllable user interface. The implementation of stratagems follows a tool-based model.

Theme

Information Gateway

0.005149705 = product of:
  0.02059882 = sum of:
    0.02059882 = weight(_text_:information in 1215) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02059882 = score(doc=1215,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 1215, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1215)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Directed Query Engines, an emerging class of search engine specifically designed to access distributed resources on the deep web, offer the opportunity to create inexpensive digital libraries. Already, one such engine, Distributed Explorer, has been used to select and assemble high quality information resources and incorporate them into publicly available systems for the physical sciences. By nesting Directed Query Engines so that one query launches several other engines in a cascading fashion, enormous virtual collections may soon be assembled to form a comprehensive information infrastructure for the physical sciences. Once a Directed Query Engine has been configured for a set of information resources, distributed alerts tools can provide patrons with personalized, profile-based notices of recent additions to any of the selected resources. Due to the potentially enormous size and scope of Directed Query Engine applications, consideration must be given to issues surrounding the representation of large quantities of information from multiple, heterogeneous sources.

0.00426914 = product of:
  0.01707656 = sum of:
    0.01707656 = product of:
      0.03415312 = sum of:
        0.03415312 = weight(_text_:22 in 2564) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03415312 = score(doc=2564,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17654699 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2564, 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=2564)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

16. 1.2016 10:22:28

0.0036413912 = product of:
  0.014565565 = sum of:
    0.014565565 = weight(_text_:information in 940) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014565565 = score(doc=940,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 940, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=940)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Content

Enthält eine Zusammenstellung der Werkzeuge und Hilfsmittel des Information Retrieval

Source

Information Research. 5(2000) no.3, April 2000

0.0036413912 = product of:
  0.014565565 = sum of:
    0.014565565 = weight(_text_:information in 4704) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014565565 = score(doc=4704,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 4704, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4704)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Swoogle is a crawler-based indexing and retrieval system for the Semantic Web, i.e., for Web documents in RDF or OWL. It extracts metadata for each discovered document, and computes relations between documents. Discovered documents are also indexed by an information retrieval system which can use either character N-Gram or URIrefs as keywords to find relevant documents and to compute the similarity among a set of documents. One of the interesting properties we compute is rank, a measure of the importance of a Semantic Web document.

Source

CIKM '04 Proceedings of the thirteenth ACM international conference on Information and knowledge management

0.003538796 = product of:
  0.014155184 = sum of:
    0.014155184 = weight(_text_:information in 1555) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014155184 = score(doc=1555,freq=34.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.15993917 = fieldWeight in 1555, product of:
          5.8309517 = tf(freq=34.0), with freq of:
            34.0 = termFreq=34.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=1555)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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.
ET-Map was created using a sophisticated AI technique called Kohonen self-organizing map, a neural network approach that has been used for automatic analysis and classification of semantic content of text documents like Web pages. I do not pretend to fully understand how this technique works; I tend to think of it as a clever 'black-box' that group together things that are alike [5] . It is a real challenge to automatically classify pages from a very heterogeneous information collection like the Web into categories that will match the conceptions of a typical user. Directories like Yahoo! tend to rely on the skill of human editors to achieve this. ET-Map is an interesting prototype that I think highlights well the potential for a map-based approach to Web browsing. I am surprised none of the major search engines or directories have introduced the option of mapping results. Although, I am sure many are working on ideas. People certainly need all the help they get, as Web growth shows no sign of slowing. Just last month it was reported that the Web had surpassed one billion indexable pages [6].
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."

0.0026279476 = product of:
  0.01051179 = sum of:
    0.01051179 = weight(_text_:information in 3245) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01051179 = score(doc=3245,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.11877254 = fieldWeight in 3245, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=3245)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Content

Text des Artikels: "Wenn der Rohstoff des 21. Jahrhunderts wirklich Information ist, dann unterscheidet er sich grundlegend von seinen Vorgängern Eisenerz und Erdöl: Er verbraucht sich nicht, kann endlos wiederverwertet werden, ist einfach um die ganze Welt transportierbar, und kann sich sogar durch Neuzusammensetzung vermehren. Letztere Eigenschaft, so schön sie zunächst scheint, wird allmählich zur Plage. Die Menge der weltweit vorliegenden Information wächst seit Jahrhunderten stetig. Laut einem Bericht der University of California in Berkeley schafft die Menschheit derzeit ein bis zwei Exabyte (Milliarden Gigabyte) an Information pro Jahr. Dargestellt als Text entspricht das einem Stapel von rund einer Billion dicker Bücher - dessen Höhe etwa die 130-fachen Entfernung Erde-Mond erreichen würde. Die große Herausforderung ist, aus solch gigantischen Informationsmengen das subjektiv Wesentliche - also das Wissen - herauszusuchen. Die Wissensextraktion wird im digitalen Zeitalter zunehmend von Internet-Suchmaschinen übernommen. Sie verarbeiten den Rohstoff Information zu Wissen, kontrollieren und verteilen ihn. Es kann keinem Nutzer ganz geheuer sein, dass diese Schlüsselfunktion der Informationsgesellschaft in die Hände weniger Konzerne gerät: Google hat mit einem Marktanteil von mehr als 80 Prozent in Deutschland ein De-facto-Monopol erreicht, das nun Microsoft mit seiner "MSN Search" angreifen will. Aber diese Alternative weckt schwerlich mehr Vertrauen.
Suchmaschinen-Monopolisten können bestimmen oder kontrollieren, welche Information wann und auf welchen Rechnern verfügbar ist, und in welcher Reihenfolge die Ergebnisse angezeigt werden. Durch Beobachtung der Abrufe können die Unternehmen genaue Profile ihrer Nutzer erstellen. Um die Vormacht der kommerziellen Wissenswächter zu brechen, bedarf es einer freien Suchkultur - so wie das offene Betriebssystem Linux die Welt vor einer reinen Windows-Monokultur bewahrt hat. Immerhin scheint man auch auf staatlicher Seite das Problem des "Information Overkill" erkannt zu haben. Die öffentliche Hand fördert zahlreiche Projekte, die Ordnung in den Datenwust bringen wollen. Doch die meisten davon sind mehr visionär als realistisch. Vom einst so gefeierten "Semantic Web" etwa ist auch nach Jahren kaum Handfestes zu sehen. Kein Wunder: Solche Vorhaben setzen voraus, dass die Daten zunächst eingesammelt und suchgerecht indiziert werden. Mangels freier Software fehlt diese Voraussetzung. Was also ist nötig, um im Informationszeitalter die freie Verfügbarkeit der Ressourcen sicherzustellen? Die Antwort ist die gleiche wie einst für Kohle, Eisen und Öl: eine Vielfalt von Anbietern. Der beste Weg dorthin führt über freie Suchmaschinen-Software, auf welche die Betreiber solcher Maschinen zurückgreifen können. Dann entstünde ganz von selbst ein offener und dynamischer Wettbewerb. Freie Suchmaschinen-Software ist jedoch sehr rar. Es gibt Ansätze dazu in Russland und ein einziges Projekt in den USA (nutch.org). Auch Europa ist weitgehend Ödnis - bis auf den Lichtblick Yacy, ein Vorhaben des Frankfurter Softwarespezialisten Michael Christen. Yacy ist meines Wissen der weltweit einzige proof-of-concept einer strikt dezentralen Peer-to-Peer-Suchmaschine (suma-lab.de:8080"). Um die Suchmaschinen-Landschaft zu beleben, haben nun 13 Forscher, Politiker und Unternehmer den "Gemeinnützigen Verein zur Förderung der Suchmaschinen-Technologie und des freien Wissenszugangs" (kurz: SuMa-eV, suma-ev.de) mit Sitz in Hannover gegründet. Zu den Gründungsmitgliedern gehören der MP3-Erfinder Karlheinz Brandenburg, der Vizepräsident für Forschung der Universität Hannover Wolfgang Ertmer und ich selbst. Ziel des SuMa-eV ist die Etablierung einer auf möglichst viele autarke Systeme verteilten Suchmaschinen-Infrastruktur, die von ihrem Bauprinzip her kaum monopolisierbar ist. Der Kerngedanke dieser Struktur, die sich aus sehr vielen und sehr unterschiedlichen Bausteinen zusammensetzen kann, liegt in der Autarkie der Einzelsysteme: gesellschaftlicher Pluralismus wird netztopologisch abgebildet. Eigentlich wäre es im Interesse und in der Macht des Staats, die Meinungsvielfalt im Netz besser zu sichern. Während er - abgesehen von ein paar hellhörigen Parlamentariern - noch träumerische Visionen pflegt, müssen Initiativen wie SuMa-eV einspringen."

0.0025748524 = product of:
  0.01029941 = sum of:
    0.01029941 = weight(_text_:information in 5661) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01029941 = score(doc=5661,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 5661, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5661)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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

0.0025748524 = product of:
  0.01029941 = sum of:
    0.01029941 = weight(_text_:information in 155) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01029941 = score(doc=155,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 155, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=155)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Everyone loves images. The web wasn't anything until images came along, then it was an overnight success. So how does one find a specific image on the web? By using one of a burgeoning number of image-focused search engines. These search engines are simply optimized versions of typical web indexes, with crawlers that go around sucking down web content and indexing it. But with image search engines, they focus on images only, and the web page text that may describe them. As information professionals, we know that this is a clumsy approach at best, but as the author puts it, until more sophisticated methods become available, the tools profiled here will "have to suffice." Seven search engines are thoroughly tested in this review article, with Google's Image Search (http://www.google.com/imghp?hl=en) being the highest rated

0.002427594 = product of:
  0.009710376 = sum of:
    0.009710376 = weight(_text_:information in 1196) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009710376 = score(doc=1196,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.10971737 = fieldWeight in 1196, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1196)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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.

Theme

Information Gateway

0.0022298878 = product of:
  0.008919551 = sum of:
    0.008919551 = weight(_text_:information in 3071) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008919551 = score(doc=3071,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.10078184 = fieldWeight in 3071, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3071)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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."

0.0017165683 = product of:
  0.006866273 = sum of:
    0.006866273 = weight(_text_:information in 4709) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006866273 = score(doc=4709,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.0775819 = fieldWeight in 4709, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4709)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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."

0.0010728551 = product of:
  0.0042914203 = sum of:
    0.0042914203 = weight(_text_:information in 2678) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0042914203 = score(doc=2678,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.048488684 = fieldWeight in 2678, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=2678)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Content

Eine neue visuelle Ordnung Martin Hirsch ist der Enkel des Nobelpreisträgers Werner Heisenberg. Außerdem ist er Hirnforscher und beschäftigt sich seit Jahren mit der Frage: Was tut mein Kopf eigentlich, während ich hirnforsche? Ralf von Grafenstein ist Marketingexperte und spezialisiert auf Dienstleistungen im Internet. Zusammen haben sie also am 1. Dezember 2008 eine Firma in Berlin gegründet, deren Heiliger Gral besagte Scheibe ist, auf der - das ist die Idee - bald die ganze Welt, die Internetwelt zumindest, Platz finden soll. Die Scheibe heißt eyePlorer, was sich als Aufforderung an ihre Nutzer versteht. Die sollen auf einer neuartigen, eben scheibenförmigen Plattform die unermesslichen Datensätze des Internets in eine neue visuelle Ordnung bringen. Der Schlüssel dafür, da waren sich Hirsch und von Grafenstein sicher, liegt in der Hirnforschung, denn warum nicht die assoziativen Fähigkeiten des Menschen auf Suchmaschinen übertragen? Anbieter wie Google lassen von solchen Ansätzen bislang die Finger. Hier setzt man dafür auf Volltextprogramme, also sprachbegabte Systeme, die letztlich aber, genau wie die Schlagwortsuche, nur zu opak gerankten Linksammlungen führen. Weiter als auf Seite zwei des Suchergebnisses wagt sich der träge Nutzer meistens nicht vor. Weil sie niemals wahrgenommen wird, fällt eine Menge möglicherweise kostbare Information unter den Tisch.