Search (230 results, page 12 of 12)

1.7416083E-4 = product of:
  0.0031348949 = sum of:
    0.0031348949 = weight(_text_:in in 3753) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0031348949 = score(doc=3753,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.029798867 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021906832 = queryNorm
        0.10520181 = fieldWeight in 3753, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3753)
  0.055555556 = coord(1/18)

Abstract

Investigates the retrieval capabilities of 6 Internet search engines on a simple query. Existing work on search engine evaluation considers only the first 10 or 20 results returned by the search engine. In this work, all documents that the search engine pointed at were retrieved and thoroughly examined. Thus the precision of the whole retrieval process could be calculated, the overlap between the results of the engines studied, and an estimate on the recall of the searches given. The precision of the engines is high, recall is very low and the overlap is minimal

1.7416083E-4 = product of:
  0.0031348949 = sum of:
    0.0031348949 = weight(_text_:in in 5197) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0031348949 = score(doc=5197,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.029798867 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021906832 = queryNorm
        0.10520181 = fieldWeight in 5197, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5197)
  0.055555556 = coord(1/18)

Abstract

Presents a view of portal sites as a radically different model from those currently embraced by traditional information companies. The concept of a portal as a starting point that Web users pass through is an uncomfortable one for most traditional services, which are designed to be one-stop destinations for information. It will become increasingly difficult for even the largest data warehouses to compete with the rising volume of Web content if closed end information models are not abandoned in favour of distributed ones which better reflect the reality of what is available to information consumers. Dow Jones Interactive Publishing is among the first to embrace a distributed model by indexing the sites which it believes have customer value, regardless of whether they offer their content on the subscriber service

1.7416083E-4 = product of:
  0.0031348949 = sum of:
    0.0031348949 = weight(_text_:in in 5442) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0031348949 = score(doc=5442,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.029798867 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021906832 = queryNorm
        0.10520181 = fieldWeight in 5442, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5442)
  0.055555556 = coord(1/18)

Abstract

Overview of product development among Web search engines. They all went through a language acquisition phase in the past 2 years at an accelerated pace, with results that even the largest traditional services would envy. Spotlights some of the best features, including AltaVista's honouring of upper case and assumption of adjacency; InfoSeek's ability to place reviewed sites at the top of a results list, and its automatic pluralization and singularization; Northern Light's user controlled single and multiple character truncation; Excite's ability to group and ungroup results; HotBot's option to limit a search to specific major disciplines; and Lycos Pro's user controlled ranking of search results. Web searching has never been a more intuitive or user friendly process

1.4928072E-4 = product of:
  0.0026870528 = sum of:
    0.0026870528 = weight(_text_:in in 4803) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0026870528 = score(doc=4803,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.029798867 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021906832 = queryNorm
        0.09017298 = fieldWeight in 4803, 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=4803)
  0.055555556 = coord(1/18)

Abstract

Das WWW ermöglicht den einfachen Zugriff auf eine große und stark wachsende Menge an Informationen. Die gezielte Suche nach relevanten WWW-Dokumenten wird zunehmens zu einer zentralen Aufgabe innerhalb des WWW. Dieser Beitrag beschreibt verschiedene Verfahren, die zur lokalen und globalen Suche im WWW verwendet werden. Client-basierte Suchtools mit automatischer Navigation, die bei einigen wenigen WWW-Browsern fest implementiert sind, ermöglichen eine Suche ausgehend von einer Startseite. Weitaus breiter Anwendung finden aber Server-basierte Suchverfahren, die sowohl die lokale Suche innerhalb eines WWW-Servers als auch die weltweite Suche über WWW-Kataloge und roboterbasiertes Suchmaschinen ermöglichen. In diesem Beitrag werden gängige verzeichnis- und roboterbasierte Suchdienste des WWW von ihrer Funktionalität her untersucht und verglichen. Erwähnt werden aber auch Beispiele alternativer Suchmaschinen sowie erweiterter Suchdienste, die eine zusätzliche Suche auch außerhalb des Internet ermöglichen

1.4928072E-4 = product of:
  0.0026870528 = sum of:
    0.0026870528 = weight(_text_:in in 6951) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0026870528 = score(doc=6951,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.029798867 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021906832 = queryNorm
        0.09017298 = fieldWeight in 6951, 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=6951)
  0.055555556 = coord(1/18)

Abstract

Examines how the 71,1 million dollars in advertising revenue from 600 Web sites has been gained. 2/3 of this went to only 10 sites, the top 5 of which were Netscape, InfoSeek, Yahoo!, Lycos anc Excite. Offers 5 tips for effective banner advertising on Web pages. Multithreaded parallel search sites such as MetaCrawler and SavvySearch which enable a user to run several search engines simultaneously, pose a threat to advertising. Cyber 411, a new tool, queries 15 different search engines. Another category, software for querying multiple search engines such as WebCompass, willbuild a keyword searchable index with the summary of results which is output as an HTML file. Compares this with similar products including a Netscape product. InfoSeek and Excite offer mini-applications to place a labelled button on the browser's tool-bar to go straight to their respective search engine. VistaPass from AltaVista will run minimized on a task bar

1.4928072E-4 = product of:
  0.0026870528 = sum of:
    0.0026870528 = weight(_text_:in in 824) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0026870528 = score(doc=824,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.029798867 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021906832 = queryNorm
        0.09017298 = fieldWeight in 824, 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=824)
  0.055555556 = coord(1/18)

Abstract

Abstracts from 7 Internet subject trees (Euroferret, Excite, Infoseek, Lycos Top 5%, Magellan, WebCrawler, Yahoo!), 5 Internet subject gateways (ADAM, EEVL, NetFirst, OMNI, SOSIG), and 3 online databases (ERIC, ISI, LISA) were examined for their subject content, treatment of various enriching features, physical properties such as overall length, anf their readability. Considerable differences were measured, and consistent similarities among abstracts from each type of source were demonstrated. Internet subject tree abstracts were generally the shortest, and online database abstracts the longest. Subject tree and online database abstracts were the most informative, but the level of coverage of document features such as tables, bibliographies, and geographical constraints were disappointingly poor. On balance, the Internet gateways appeared to be providing the most satisfactory abstracts. The authors discuss the continuing role in networked information retrieval of abstracts and their functional analoques such as metadata

1.4928072E-4 = product of:
  0.0026870528 = sum of:
    0.0026870528 = weight(_text_:in in 2411) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0026870528 = score(doc=2411,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.029798867 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021906832 = queryNorm
        0.09017298 = fieldWeight in 2411, 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=2411)
  0.055555556 = coord(1/18)

Abstract

The scope and characteristics of what may be considered the first three generations of automated Internet indexing systems are identified and described as to their methods of compiling their datasets, their search interfaces and the associated etymological metaphors and mythologies. These three are suggested to be: firstly, the Archie system for single keyword and regular expression searches of the file lists of anonymous ftp sites: secondly, the Veronica system for Boolean keyword in title searches of the world's gopher servers; thirdly, a range of software techniques jnown as robots and search engines, which compile searchable databases of information accessible via the WWW, such as the currently popular Lycos project at Carnegie Mellon University. The present dominance of WWW client software as the preferred interface to Internet information has led to provision of methods of also using the first two systems by this single interface, and these are also noted

1.4928072E-4 = product of:
  0.0026870528 = sum of:
    0.0026870528 = weight(_text_:in in 5698) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0026870528 = score(doc=5698,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.029798867 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021906832 = queryNorm
        0.09017298 = fieldWeight in 5698, 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=5698)
  0.055555556 = coord(1/18)

Theme

Semantisches Umfeld in Indexierung u. Retrieval

1.4928072E-4 = product of:
  0.0026870528 = sum of:
    0.0026870528 = weight(_text_:in in 6207) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0026870528 = score(doc=6207,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.029798867 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021906832 = queryNorm
        0.09017298 = fieldWeight in 6207, 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=6207)
  0.055555556 = coord(1/18)

Abstract

Clustering is an effective way of organizing documents into collections for ease of browsing. Recently with the growth of WWW, clustering has become a paradigm for organizing search results. Online systems face many new challenges, including the need for fast response time, generating high quality clusters with simple descriptions for novice users, and working with document distributions that violates many traditional assumptions. How do different clustering algorithms trade off quality of clusters and speed? What modifications are necessary to adapt traditional clustering algorithm to the WWW? How do these system scale to larger document collection? How do these systems evaluate the quality of the cluster they generate? How are the clusters generated in each case, and are there any processing after cluster generation to improve on the cluster quality?

1.4074321E-4 = product of:
  0.0025333778 = sum of:
    0.0025333778 = weight(_text_:in in 869) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0025333778 = score(doc=869,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.029798867 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021906832 = queryNorm
        0.08501591 = fieldWeight in 869, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=869)
  0.055555556 = coord(1/18)

Abstract

The Internet provides an exceptional testbed for developing algorithms that can improve bowsing and searching large information spaces. Browsing and searching tasks are susceptible to problems of information overload and vocabulary differences. Much of the current research is aimed at the development and refinement of algorithms to improve browsing and searching by addressing these problems. Our research was focused on discovering whether two of the algorithms our research group has developed, a Kohonen algorithm category map for browsing, and an automatically generated concept space algorithm for searching, can help improve browsing and / or searching the Internet. Our results indicate that a Kohonen self-organizing map (SOM)-based algorithm can successfully categorize a large and eclectic Internet information space (the Entertainment subcategory of Yahoo!) into manageable sub-spaces that users can successfully navigate to locate a homepage of interest to them. The SOM algorithm worked best with browsing tasks that were very broad, and in which subjects skipped around between categories. Subjects especially liked the visual and graphical aspects of the map. Subjects who tried to do a directed search, and those that wanted to use the more familiar mental models (alphabetic or hierarchical organization) for browsing, found that the work did not work well. The results from the concept space experiment were especially encouraging. There were no significant differences among the precision measures for the set of documents identified by subject-suggested terms, thesaurus-suggested terms, and the combination of subject- and thesaurus-suggested terms. The recall measures indicated that the combination of subject- and thesaurs-suggested terms exhibited significantly better recall than subject-suggested terms alone. Furthermore, analysis of the homepages indicated that there was limited overlap between the homepages retrieved by the subject-suggested and thesaurus-suggested terms. Since the retrieval homepages for the most part were different, this suggests that a user can enhance a keyword-based search by using an automatically generated concept space. Subejcts especially liked the level of control that they could exert over the search, and the fact that the terms suggested by the thesaurus were 'real' (i.e., orininating in the homepages) and therefore guaranteed to have retrieval success