Search (25 results, page 1 of 2)

  • × theme_ss:"Suchmaschinen"
  • × year_i:[2010 TO 2020}
  1. Joint, N.: ¬The one-stop shop search engine : a transformational library technology? ANTAEUS (2010) 0.02
    0.023291955 = product of:
      0.04658391 = sum of:
        0.04658391 = product of:
          0.09316782 = sum of:
            0.09316782 = weight(_text_:light in 4201) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.09316782 = score(doc=4201,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.2920221 = queryWeight, product of:
                  5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.050563898 = queryNorm
                0.31904373 = fieldWeight in 4201, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4201)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to form one of a series which will give an overview of so-called "transformational" areas of digital library technology. The aim will be to assess how much real transformation these applications are bringing about, in terms of creating genuine user benefit and also changing everyday library practice. Design/methodology/approach - An overview of the present state of development of the one-stop shop library search engine, with particular reference to its relationship with the underlying bibliographic databases to which it provides a simplified single interface. Findings - The paper finds that the success of federated searching has proved valuable but limited to date in creating a one-stop shop search engine to rival Google Scholar; but the persistent value of the bibliographic databases sitting underneath a federated search system means that a harvesting search engine could well answer the need for a true one-stop search engine for academic and scholarly information. Research limitations/implications - This paper is based on the hypothesis that Google's success in providing such an apparently high degree of access to electronic journal services is not what it seems, and that it does not render library discovery tools obsolete. It argues that Google has not diminished the pre-eminent role of library bibliographic databases in mediating access to e-journal text, although this hypothesis needs further research to validate or disprove it. Practical implications - The paper affirms the value of bibliographic databases to practitioner librarians and the potential of single interface discovery tools in library practice. Originality/value - The paper uses statistics from US LIS sources to shed light on UK discovery tool issues.
  2. Unkel, J.; Haas, A.: ¬The effects of credibility cues on the selection of search engine results (2017) 0.02
    0.023291955 = product of:
      0.04658391 = sum of:
        0.04658391 = product of:
          0.09316782 = sum of:
            0.09316782 = weight(_text_:light in 3752) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.09316782 = score(doc=3752,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.2920221 = queryWeight, product of:
                  5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.050563898 = queryNorm
                0.31904373 = fieldWeight in 3752, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3752)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    Web search engines act as gatekeepers when people search for information online. Research has shown that search engine users seem to trust the search engines' ranking uncritically and mostly select top-ranked results. This study further examines search engine users' selection behavior. Drawing from the credibility and information research literature, we test whether the presence or absence of certain credibility cues influences the selection probability of search engine results. In an observational study, participants (N?=?247) completed two information research tasks on preset search engine results pages, on which three credibility cues (source reputation, message neutrality, and social recommendations) as well as the search result ranking were systematically varied. The results of our study confirm the significance of the ranking. Of the three credibility cues, only reputation had an additional effect on selection probabilities. Personal characteristics (prior knowledge about the researched issues, search engine usage patterns, etc.) did not influence the preference for search results linked with certain credibility cues. These findings are discussed in light of situational and contextual characteristics (e.g., involvement, low-cost scenarios).
  3. Söhler, M.: Schluss mit Schema F (2011) 0.02
    0.018633565 = product of:
      0.03726713 = sum of:
        0.03726713 = product of:
          0.07453426 = sum of:
            0.07453426 = weight(_text_:light in 4439) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.07453426 = score(doc=4439,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.2920221 = queryWeight, product of:
                  5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.050563898 = queryNorm
                0.255235 = fieldWeight in 4439, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4439)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Content
    Indem Schlagworte, sogenannte Tags, in den für Normal-User nicht sichtbaren Teil des Codes von Websites eingebettet werden, sind Suchmachinen nicht mehr so sehr auf die Analyse der natürlichen Sprache angewiesen, um Texte inhaltlich zu erfassen. Im Blog ZBW Mediatalk wird dies als "Semantic Web light" bezeichnet - ein semantisches Web auf niedrigster Ebene. Aber selbst das werde "schon viel bewirken", meint Bahls. "Das semantische Web wird sich über die nächsten Jahrzehnte evolutionär weiterentwickeln." Einen "Abschluss" werde es nie geben, "da eine einheitliche Formalisierung von Begrifflichkeiten auf feiner Stufe kaum möglich ist". Die Ergebnisse aus Schema.org würden "zeitnah" in die Suchmaschine integriert, "denn einen Zeitplan" gebe es nicht, so Stefan Keuchel, Pressesprecher von Google Deutschland. Bis das so weit ist, hilft der Verweis von Daniel Bahns auf die bereits existierende semantische Suchmaschine Sig.ma. Geschwindigkeit und Menge der Ergebnisse nach einer Suchanfrage spielen hier keine Rolle. Sig.ma sammelt seine Informationen allein im Bereich des semantischen Webs und listet nach einer Anfrage alles Bekannte strukturiert auf.
  4. Söhler, M.: "Dumm wie Google" war gestern : semantische Suche im Netz (2011) 0.02
    0.01630437 = product of:
      0.03260874 = sum of:
        0.03260874 = product of:
          0.06521748 = sum of:
            0.06521748 = weight(_text_:light in 4440) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.06521748 = score(doc=4440,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.2920221 = queryWeight, product of:
                  5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.050563898 = queryNorm
                0.22333062 = fieldWeight in 4440, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=4440)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Content
    - Neue Standards Doch was hier entstehen könnte, hat das Zeug dazu, Teile des Netzes und speziell die Funktionen von Suchmaschinen mittel- oder langfristig zu verändern. "Große Player sind dabei, sich auf Standards zu einigen", sagt Daniel Bahls, Spezialist für Semantische Technologien beim ZBW Leibniz-Informationszentrum Wirtschaft in Hamburg. "Die semantischen Technologien stehen schon seit Jahren im Raum und wurden bisher nur im kleineren Kontext verwendet." Denn Schema.org lädt Entwickler, Forscher, die Semantic-Web-Community und am Ende auch alle Betreiber von Websites dazu ein, an der Umgestaltung der Suche im Netz mitzuwirken. "Damit wollen Google, Bing und Yahoo! dem Info-Chaos im WWW den Garaus machen", schreibt André Vatter im Blog ZBW Mediatalk. Inhalte von Websites sollen mit einem speziellen, aber einheitlichen Vokabular für die Crawler der Suchmaschinen gekennzeichnet und aufbereitet werden. Indem Schlagworte, so genannte Tags, in den Code von Websites eingebettet werden, sind Suchmachinen nicht mehr so sehr auf die Analyse der natürlichen Sprache angewiesen, um Texte inhaltlich zu erfassen. Im Blog wird dies als "Semantic Web light" bezeichnet - ein semantisches Web auf niedrigster Ebene. Aber selbst das werde "schon viel bewirken", meint Bahls. "Das semantische Web wird sich über die nächsten Jahrzehnte evolutionär weiterentwickeln." Einen "Abschluss" werde es nie geben, "da eine einheitliche Formalisierung von Begrifflichkeiten auf feiner Stufe kaum möglich ist."
  5. Lewandowski, D.: Query understanding (2011) 0.01
    0.013701421 = product of:
      0.027402842 = sum of:
        0.027402842 = product of:
          0.054805685 = sum of:
            0.054805685 = weight(_text_:22 in 344) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.054805685 = score(doc=344,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17706616 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.050563898 = queryNorm
                0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 344, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=344)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Date
    18. 9.2018 18:22:18
  6. Bensman, S.J.: Eugene Garfield, Francis Narin, and PageRank : the theoretical bases of the Google search engine (2013) 0.01
    0.013701421 = product of:
      0.027402842 = sum of:
        0.027402842 = product of:
          0.054805685 = sum of:
            0.054805685 = weight(_text_:22 in 1149) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.054805685 = score(doc=1149,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17706616 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.050563898 = queryNorm
                0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 1149, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1149)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Date
    17.12.2013 11:02:22
  7. Tober, M.; Hennig, L.; Furch, D.: SEO Ranking-Faktoren und Rang-Korrelationen 2014 : Google Deutschland (2014) 0.01
    0.013701421 = product of:
      0.027402842 = sum of:
        0.027402842 = product of:
          0.054805685 = sum of:
            0.054805685 = weight(_text_:22 in 1484) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.054805685 = score(doc=1484,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17706616 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.050563898 = queryNorm
                0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 1484, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1484)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Date
    13. 9.2014 14:45:22
  8. Schaat, S.: Von der automatisierten Manipulation zur Manipulation der Automatisierung (2019) 0.01
    0.013701421 = product of:
      0.027402842 = sum of:
        0.027402842 = product of:
          0.054805685 = sum of:
            0.054805685 = weight(_text_:22 in 4996) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.054805685 = score(doc=4996,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17706616 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.050563898 = queryNorm
                0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 4996, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4996)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Date
    19. 2.2019 17:22:00
  9. Fluhr, C.: Crosslingual access to photo databases (2012) 0.01
    0.010276065 = product of:
      0.02055213 = sum of:
        0.02055213 = product of:
          0.04110426 = sum of:
            0.04110426 = weight(_text_:22 in 93) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.04110426 = score(doc=93,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17706616 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.050563898 = queryNorm
                0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 93, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=93)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Date
    17. 4.2012 14:25:22
  10. Chen, L.-C.: Next generation search engine for the result clustering technology (2012) 0.01
    0.010276065 = product of:
      0.02055213 = sum of:
        0.02055213 = product of:
          0.04110426 = sum of:
            0.04110426 = weight(_text_:22 in 105) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.04110426 = score(doc=105,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17706616 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.050563898 = queryNorm
                0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 105, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=105)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Date
    17. 4.2012 15:22:11
  11. Bouidghaghen, O.; Tamine, L.: Spatio-temporal based personalization for mobile search (2012) 0.01
    0.010276065 = product of:
      0.02055213 = sum of:
        0.02055213 = product of:
          0.04110426 = sum of:
            0.04110426 = weight(_text_:22 in 108) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.04110426 = score(doc=108,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17706616 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.050563898 = queryNorm
                0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 108, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=108)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Date
    20. 4.2012 13:19:22
  12. Lewandowski, D.: ¬Die Macht der Suchmaschinen und ihr Einfluss auf unsere Entscheidungen (2014) 0.01
    0.010276065 = product of:
      0.02055213 = sum of:
        0.02055213 = product of:
          0.04110426 = sum of:
            0.04110426 = weight(_text_:22 in 1491) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.04110426 = score(doc=1491,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17706616 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.050563898 = queryNorm
                0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1491, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1491)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Date
    22. 9.2014 18:54:11
  13. Huvila, I.: Affective capitalism of knowing and the society of search engine (2016) 0.01
    0.010276065 = product of:
      0.02055213 = sum of:
        0.02055213 = product of:
          0.04110426 = sum of:
            0.04110426 = weight(_text_:22 in 3246) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.04110426 = score(doc=3246,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17706616 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.050563898 = queryNorm
                0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3246, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3246)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22
  14. Chaudiron, S.; Ihadjadene, M.: Studying Web search engines from a user perspective : key concepts and main approaches (2012) 0.01
    0.008563388 = product of:
      0.017126776 = sum of:
        0.017126776 = product of:
          0.034253553 = sum of:
            0.034253553 = weight(_text_:22 in 109) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.034253553 = score(doc=109,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17706616 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.050563898 = queryNorm
                0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 109, 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=109)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Date
    20. 4.2012 13:22:37
  15. Lewandowski, D.; Spree, U.: Ranking of Wikipedia articles in search engines revisited : fair ranking for reasonable quality? (2011) 0.01
    0.008563388 = product of:
      0.017126776 = sum of:
        0.017126776 = product of:
          0.034253553 = sum of:
            0.034253553 = weight(_text_:22 in 444) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.034253553 = score(doc=444,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17706616 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.050563898 = queryNorm
                0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 444, 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=444)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Date
    30. 9.2012 19:27:22
  16. Aloteibi, S.; Sanderson, M.: Analyzing geographic query reformulation : an exploratory study (2014) 0.01
    0.008563388 = product of:
      0.017126776 = sum of:
        0.017126776 = product of:
          0.034253553 = sum of:
            0.034253553 = weight(_text_:22 in 1177) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.034253553 = score(doc=1177,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17706616 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.050563898 = queryNorm
                0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1177, 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=1177)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Date
    26. 1.2014 18:48:22
  17. Vaughan, L.; Chen, Y.: Data mining from web search queries : a comparison of Google trends and Baidu index (2015) 0.01
    0.008563388 = product of:
      0.017126776 = sum of:
        0.017126776 = product of:
          0.034253553 = sum of:
            0.034253553 = weight(_text_:22 in 1605) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.034253553 = score(doc=1605,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17706616 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.050563898 = queryNorm
                0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1605, 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=1605)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 66(2015) no.1, S.13-22
  18. Alqaraleh, S.; Ramadan, O.; Salamah, M.: Efficient watcher based web crawler design (2015) 0.01
    0.008563388 = product of:
      0.017126776 = sum of:
        0.017126776 = product of:
          0.034253553 = sum of:
            0.034253553 = weight(_text_:22 in 1627) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.034253553 = score(doc=1627,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17706616 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.050563898 = queryNorm
                0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1627, 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=1627)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22
  19. epd: Kaiserslauterer Forscher untersuchen Google-Suche (2017) 0.01
    0.008563388 = product of:
      0.017126776 = sum of:
        0.017126776 = product of:
          0.034253553 = sum of:
            0.034253553 = weight(_text_:22 in 3815) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.034253553 = score(doc=3815,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17706616 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.050563898 = queryNorm
                0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 3815, 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=3815)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Date
    22. 7.2004 9:42:33
  20. Lewandowski, D.; Sünkler, S.: What does Google recommend when you want to compare insurance offerings? (2019) 0.01
    0.008563388 = product of:
      0.017126776 = sum of:
        0.017126776 = product of:
          0.034253553 = sum of:
            0.034253553 = weight(_text_:22 in 5288) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.034253553 = score(doc=5288,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17706616 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.050563898 = queryNorm
                0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5288, 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=5288)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22