Search (153 results, page 2 of 8)

0.019732658 = product of:
  0.07893063 = sum of:
    0.07893063 = product of:
      0.15786126 = sum of:
        0.15786126 = weight(_text_:project in 5465) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.15786126 = score(doc=5465,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21156175 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.74617106 = fieldWeight in 5465, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=5465)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

0.017619558 = product of:
  0.035239115 = sum of:
    0.021657582 = weight(_text_:library in 1188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021657582 = score(doc=1188,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.16433616 = fieldWeight in 1188, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1188)
    0.013581533 = product of:
      0.027163066 = sum of:
        0.027163066 = weight(_text_:22 in 1188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027163066 = score(doc=1188,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 1188, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1188)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Date

22. 9.1997 19:16:05

Imprint

Urbana-Champaign, IL : Illinois University at Urbana-Champaign, Graduate School of Library and Information Science

Source

Saving the time of the library user through subject access innovation: Papers in honor of Pauline Atherton Cochrane. Ed.: W.J. Wheeler

0.016243188 = product of:
  0.06497275 = sum of:
    0.06497275 = weight(_text_:library in 6869) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06497275 = score(doc=6869,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.4930085 = fieldWeight in 6869, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6869)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Evaluation of AskJeeves, Electric Library and Information Please as questions answering search engines

Object

Electric Library

0.015078641 = product of:
  0.060314562 = sum of:
    0.060314562 = weight(_text_:digital in 364) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.060314562 = score(doc=364,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.30507088 = fieldWeight in 364, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=364)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Conducting a literature review is an important activity for postgraduates and many undergraduates. Librarians can play an important role, directing students to digital libraries, compiling online subject reSource lists, and educating about the need to evaluate the quality of online resources. In order to conduct an effective literature search in a new area, however, in some subjects it is necessary to gain basic topic knowledge, including specialist vocabularies. Google's link-based page ranking algorithm makes this search engine an ideal tool for finding specialist topic introductory material, particularly in computer science, and so librarians should be teaching this as part of a strategic literature review approach.

0.015078641 = product of:
  0.060314562 = sum of:
    0.060314562 = weight(_text_:digital in 1161) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.060314562 = score(doc=1161,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.30507088 = fieldWeight in 1161, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1161)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

0.014574958 = product of:
  0.058299832 = sum of:
    0.058299832 = sum of:
      0.034532152 = weight(_text_:project in 5937) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.034532152 = score(doc=5937,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.21156175 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050121464 = queryNorm
          0.16322492 = fieldWeight in 5937, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
            0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=5937)
      0.023767682 = weight(_text_:22 in 5937) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.023767682 = score(doc=5937,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050121464 = queryNorm
          0.1354154 = fieldWeight in 5937, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=5937)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Social phenomena happen, and the historians follow. So it goes with Google, the latest star shooting through the universe of trend-setting businesses. This company has even entered our popular lexicon: as many note, "Google" has moved beyond noun to verb, becoming an action which most tech-savvy citizens at the turn of the twenty-first century recognize and in fact do, on a daily basis. It's this wide societal impact that fascinated authors David Vise and Mark Malseed, who came to the book with well-established reputations in investigative reporting. Vise authored the bestselling The Bureau and the Mole, and Malseed contributed significantly to two Bob Woodward books, Bush at War and Plan of Attack. The kind of voluminous research and behind-the-scenes insight in which both writers specialize, and on which their earlier books rested, comes through in The Google Story. The strength of the book comes from its command of many small details, and its focus on the human side of the Google story, as opposed to the merely academic one. Some may prefer a dryer, more analytic approach to Google's impact on the Internet, like The Search or books that tilt more heavily towards bits and bytes on the spectrum between technology and business, like The Singularity is Near. Those wanting to understand the motivations and personal growth of founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin and CEO Eric Schmidt, however, will enjoy this book. Vise and Malseed interviewed over 150 people, including numerous Google employees, Wall Street analysts, Stanford professors, venture capitalists, even Larry Page's Cub Scout leader, and their comprehensiveness shows. As the narrative unfolds, readers learn how Google grew out of the intellectually fertile and not particularly directed friendship between Page and Brin; how the founders attempted to peddle early versions of their search technology to different Silicon Valley firms for $1 million; how Larry and Sergey celebrated their first investor's check with breakfast at Burger King; how the pair initially housed their company in a Palo Alto office, then eventually moved to a futuristic campus dubbed the "Googleplex"; how the company found its financial footing through keyword-targeted Web ads; how various products like Google News, Froogle, and others were cooked up by an inventive staff; how Brin and Page proved their mettle as tough businessmen through negotiations with AOL Europe and their controversial IPO process, among other instances; and how the company's vision for itself continues to grow, such as geographic expansion to China and cooperation with Craig Venter on the Human Genome Project. Like the company it profiles, The Google Story is a bit of a wild ride, and fun, too. Its first appendix lists 23 "tips" which readers can use to get more utility out of Google. The second contains the intelligence test which Google Research offers to prospective job applicants, and shows the sometimes zany methods of this most unusual business. Through it all, Vise and Malseed synthesize a variety of fascinating anecdotes and speculation about Google, and readers seeking a first draft of the history of the company will enjoy an easy read.

Date

3. 5.1997 8:44:22

0.013581533 = product of:
  0.054326132 = sum of:
    0.054326132 = product of:
      0.108652264 = sum of:
        0.108652264 = weight(_text_:22 in 4686) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.108652264 = score(doc=4686,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 4686, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=4686)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

27.11.2005 18:04:22

0.013399946 = product of:
  0.053599782 = sum of:
    0.053599782 = weight(_text_:library in 1043) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.053599782 = score(doc=1043,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.40671125 = fieldWeight in 1043, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=1043)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Library and information science research. 25(2003) no.4, S.403-418

0.012924549 = product of:
  0.051698197 = sum of:
    0.051698197 = weight(_text_:digital in 1215) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.051698197 = score(doc=1215,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.26148933 = fieldWeight in 1215, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, 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.

0.012011749 = product of:
  0.024023497 = sum of:
    0.017232731 = weight(_text_:digital in 4871) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017232731 = score(doc=4871,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.087163106 = fieldWeight in 4871, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=4871)
    0.0067907665 = product of:
      0.013581533 = sum of:
        0.013581533 = weight(_text_:22 in 4871) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013581533 = score(doc=4871,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.07738023 = fieldWeight in 4871, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=4871)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Content

"Seit wenigen Jahren haben Suchmaschinen die Recherche im Internet revolutioniert. Statt in Büchereien zu gehen, um dort mühsam etwas nachzuschlagen, erhalten wir die gewünschten Dokumente heute mit ein paar Tastaturanschlägen und Mausklicks. »Googeln«, nach dem Namen der weltweit dominierenden Suchmaschine, ist zum Synonym für die Online-Recherche geworden. Künftig werden verbesserte Suchmaschinen die gewünschten Informationen sogar noch zielsicherer aufspüren. Die neuen Programme dringen dazu tiefer in die Online-Materie ein. Sie sortieren und präsentieren ihre Ergebnisse besser, und zur Optimierung der Suche merken sie sich die persönlichen Präferenzen der Nutzer, die sie in vorherigen Anfragen ermittelt haben. Zudem erweitern sie den inhaltlichen Horizont, da sie mehr leisten, als nur eingetippte Schlüsselwörter zu verarbeiten. Einige der neuen Systeme berücksichtigen automatisch, an welchem Ort die Anfrage gestellt wurde. Dadurch kann beispielsweise ein PDA (Personal Digital Assistant) über seine Funknetzverbindung das nächstgelegene Restaurant ausfindig machen. Auch Bilder spüren die neuen Suchmaschinen besser auf, indem sie Vorlagen mit ähnlichen, bereits abgespeicherten Mustern vergleichen. Sie können sogar den Namen eines Musikstücks herausfinden, wenn man ihnen nur ein paar Takte daraus vorsummt. Heutige Suchmaschinen basieren auf den Erkenntnissen aus dem Bereich des information retrieval (Wiederfinden von Information), mit dem sich Computerwissenschaftler schon seit über 50 Jahren befassen. Bereits 1966 schrieb Ben Ami Lipetz im Scientific American einen Artikel über das »Speichern und Wiederfinden von Information«. Damalige Systeme konnten freilich nur einfache Routine- und Büroanfragen bewältigen. Lipetz zog den hellsichtigen Schluss, dass größere Durchbrüche im information retrieval erst dann erreichbar sind, wenn Forscher die Informationsverarbeitung im menschlichen Gehirn besser verstanden haben und diese Erkenntnisse auf Computer übertragen. Zwar können Computer dabei auch heute noch nicht mit Menschen mithalten, aber sie berücksichtigen bereits weit besser die persönlichen Interessen, Gewohnheiten und Bedürfnisse ihrer Nutzer. Bevor wir uns neuen Entwicklungen bei den Suchmaschinen zuwenden, ist es hilfreich, sich ein Bild davon zu machen, wie die bisherigen funktionieren: Was genau ist passiert, wenn »Google« auf dem Bildschirm meldet, es habe in 0,32 Sekunden einige Milliarden Dokumente durchsucht? Es würde wesentlich länger dauern, wenn dabei die Schlüsselwörter der Anfrage nacheinander mit den Inhalten all dieser Webseiten verglichen werden müssten. Um lange Suchzeiten zu vermeiden, führen die Suchmaschinen viele ihrer Kernoperationen bereits lange vor dem Zeitpunkt der Nutzeranfrage aus.

Date

22. 1.2006 18:34:49

0.011883841 = product of:
  0.047535364 = sum of:
    0.047535364 = product of:
      0.09507073 = sum of:
        0.09507073 = weight(_text_:22 in 844) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09507073 = score(doc=844,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 844, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=844)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

7. 6.2008 16:22:20

0.011722512 = product of:
  0.046890046 = sum of:
    0.046890046 = weight(_text_:library in 648) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.046890046 = score(doc=648,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.35579824 = fieldWeight in 648, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=648)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of the study was to compare an internet search engine, Google, with appropriate library databases and systems, in order to assess the relative value, strengths and weaknesses of the two sorts of system. Design/methodology/approach - A case study approach was used, with detailed analysis and failure checking of results. The performance of the two systems was assessed in terms of coverage, unique records, precision, and quality and accessibility of results. A novel form of relevance assessment, based on the work of Saracevic and others was devised. Findings - Google is superior for coverage and accessibility. Library systems are superior for quality of results. Precision is similar for both systems. Good coverage requires use of both, as both have many unique items. Improving the skills of the searcher is likely to give better results from the library systems, but not from Google. Research limitations/implications - Only four case studies were included. These were limited to the kind of queries likely to be searched by university students. Library resources were limited to those in two UK academic libraries. Only the basic Google web search functionality was used, and only the top ten records examined. Practical implications - The results offer guidance for those providing support and training for use of these retrieval systems, and also provide evidence for debates on the "Google phenomenon". Originality/value - This is one of the few studies which provide evidence on the relative performance of internet search engines and library databases, and the only one to conduct such in-depth case studies. The method for the assessment of relevance is novel.

0.011604695 = product of:
  0.04641878 = sum of:
    0.04641878 = weight(_text_:library in 361) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04641878 = score(doc=361,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.3522223 = fieldWeight in 361, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=361)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Library guides to Google Scholar reveal the concerns and fears of librarians as they watch their users slip further and further outside of their domain of influence. Comparing these fears against data from recent surveys and studies of students and faculty suggests that a profound change in the role of the library in relation to how users search for and discover information has been underway for some time, and that Google Scholar is only the most recent and visible manifestation of that revolution.

0.011485667 = product of:
  0.045942668 = sum of:
    0.045942668 = weight(_text_:library in 6802) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.045942668 = score(doc=6802,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.34860963 = fieldWeight in 6802, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6802)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

0.010828791 = product of:
  0.043315165 = sum of:
    0.043315165 = weight(_text_:library in 4956) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.043315165 = score(doc=4956,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.32867232 = fieldWeight in 4956, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4956)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Content

"Der internationale Web-Dienstleister Google hat mit bekannten Universitäten Vereinbarungen zur Digitalisierung ihrer Bibliotheksbestände getroffen. Damit könnten User schon bald auf Buchbestände von Universitäten, wie Stanford, Harvard, Michigan oder der britischen Oxford University zugreifen. Auch die Werke der New York Public Library will man online zugänglich machen. Google hat die Absicht, einen Wissenschafts-Suchdienst aufzubauen."

Footnote

Vgl. auch den Artikel in der New York Times Nr.xxx vom 27.12.2004, S.1,5.: "The library, unbound and everywhere."

0.010828791 = product of:
  0.043315165 = sum of:
    0.043315165 = weight(_text_:library in 16) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.043315165 = score(doc=16,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.32867232 = fieldWeight in 16, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=16)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

United States Intellectual Property law, specifically that covering copyright, has important implications for American libraries. This article considers the following: fair use and the Internet; current and prospective law and electronic media, especially concerning interlibrary loan and online reserves; publishers and users; and the impact that copyright law has on the role of the library and the issue of free access.

Source

Library trends. 52(2004) no.2, S.307-317

0.010828791 = product of:
  0.043315165 = sum of:
    0.043315165 = weight(_text_:library in 308) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.043315165 = score(doc=308,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.32867232 = fieldWeight in 308, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=308)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Libraries are in competition with other entities that provide information access to students, scholars and the general public. This constitutes a radical change in the information environment. The library profession's failure to take seriously the change that has taken place in the information environment, and to respond with fundamental changes of its own, may well spell disaster for the library as we know it.

0.010770457 = product of:
  0.043081827 = sum of:
    0.043081827 = weight(_text_:digital in 381) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.043081827 = score(doc=381,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.21790776 = fieldWeight in 381, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=381)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

In the United Kingdom, the BBC is principally known for television and until recently there was no difficulty in finding BBC content on your TV. There was only one channel and then two. It wasn't until the late 1950's in the UK that commercial TV provided an alternative, but even then we owned the transmitters, the distribution and crucially the BBC remained 1 and 2 on the dial. The explosion of multi-channel TV and now internet has meant falling market share inevitably and the arrival of digital television has meant hundred of channels, thousands in the case of the internet, and the need to invent new forms of navigation. Today, the BBC does not control those guides or the navigation systems that will inevitably drive people to the content of the future. Eastenders is a much loved BBC soap opera which gets about 8 million viewers a week, but some people no longer associate the programme with the BBC. Many people in the UK get their television via Rupert Murdoch's SKY platform and so the credit often goes to the aggregator. In Focus groups, we hear comments like »I watched Eastenders last night on SKY«. Today British consumers, who have only just got used to hundreds of television channels are now being bombarded by a second wave of content. There are podcasts, vodcasts, webcasts, user generated content - and on its way even more on demand video content as the world's major media companies open un 7 day output and their archives directly to consumers.

0.010770457 = product of:
  0.043081827 = sum of:
    0.043081827 = weight(_text_:digital in 24) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.043081827 = score(doc=24,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.21790776 = fieldWeight in 24, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=24)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Seit die Techniker der Digital Equipment Company 1995 AltaVista einführten, die erste große Suchmaschine für das World Wide Web, hat sich vieles verändert. 2009 ist das Web die zentrale Plattform für alles, was mit Information und Kommunikation zu tun hat: es bietet Raum für eine Vielfalt von Aktivitäten und Vorgängen, die früher über zahlreiche verschiedene Kanäle verteilt waren. Mit 1,5 Milliarden Nutzern, mehr als einer Trillion Seiten und einer Palette von Services, die von der einfachen Darstellung von Text-basierter Information bis zu hoch entwickelten Applikationen und Multimedia-Technologien reichen, ist das Web der Gegenwart ein Informationsgigant und außerdem zentraler Bestandteil einer kapitalistischen Ökonomie, die sich von einem industriellen zu einem kognitiven Produktionsmodus entwickelt. Da das Web kein eigenes Index- oder Katalogsystem mitbringt, liegt es an den Suchmaschinen, die unübersichtliche Struktur des Web den Nutzern zu erschließen. Obwohl Suchmaschinen komplexe Werkzeuge sind, ist ihre Handhabung überraschend einfach: Eine aus einem oder mehreren Wörtern bestehende Suchanfrage führt zu einer geordneten Liste von Seiten, welche die angegebenen Begriffe enthalten. Es ist kein Wunder, dass Suchmaschinen zu den beliebtesten Internet-Diensten gehören.

0.010464822 = product of:
  0.041859288 = sum of:
    0.041859288 = product of:
      0.083718576 = sum of:
        0.083718576 = weight(_text_:project in 6387) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.083718576 = score(doc=6387,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.21156175 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.39571697 = fieldWeight in 6387, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=6387)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Webkataloge sind gemeinsam mit Suchmaschinen die entscheidenden Navigationshilfen im Internet-, ursprünglich als Hobby begonnene Webverzeichnisse haben sich zu großen Internetportalen wie Yahoo! oder Web.de entwickelt. Die Kataloge sind innerhalb weniger Jahre bis auf über zwei Millionen Einträge gewachsen; das Vorgehen bei der Erstellung ihrer Systematik und die Qualität der Erfassung der Websites sind von diesem rapiden Wachstum geprägt. Die Tatsache, dass die Webkataloge überwiegend von "Nicht-Dokumentaren" erstellt werden, ist ein weiterer entscheidender Punkt zum Verständnis der Katalogentwicklung in den USA und Deutschland. Dokumentarisches bzw. bibliothekarisches Know-how spielt nur eine Nebenrolle bei ihrer Entwicklung. Am deutlichsten wird dies beim nichtkommerziellen "Open Directory Project", das in den letzten drei Jahren den weltgrößten Webkatalog erarbeitet hat. Auf Grund der Konkurrenzsituation auf dem Portalmarkt und des hohen Personalaufwands für die Katalogerstellung hat in den USA eine Marktbereinigung auf nur noch drei große Webkatalog-Anbieter stattgefunden; diese Faktoren werden auch die Entwicklung der Kataloge im deutschsprachigen Raum beeinflussen. Ein guter Zeitpunkt, um eine Zwischenbilanz zu ziehen und über die Trends in diesem Bereich zu berichten

Object

Open Directory Project