Search (160 results, page 1 of 8)

0.074492864 = product of:
  0.29797146 = sum of:
    0.29797146 = weight(_text_:3a in 2514) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.29797146 = score(doc=2514,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.5301813 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.062536046 = queryNorm
        0.56201804 = fieldWeight in 2514, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2514)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Content

Vgl.: http%3A%2F%2Fdelab.csd.auth.gr%2F~dimitris%2Fcourses%2Fir_spring06%2Fpage_rank_computing%2Fp527-li.pdf. Vgl. auch: http://www2002.org/CDROM/refereed/643/.

0.04201526 = product of:
  0.16806103 = sum of:
    0.16806103 = weight(_text_:assess in 2605) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.16806103 = score(doc=2605,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.36863554 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.8947687 = idf(docFreq=330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.062536046 = queryNorm
        0.45590025 = fieldWeight in 2605, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.8947687 = idf(docFreq=330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2605)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Describes the establishment of an Internet gateway local to the University of sussex, UK, firstly as a gopher and more recently as a WWW server. Describes a project currently uderway to assess the practical value of Internet searches to research and the consequential training and support requirements. Determines the value of a local gateway to academic researchers at Sussex and the roles specific to a local gateway that such comprehensive resources as Yahoo and BUBL cannot fulfil. The project is using an interview-based methodology to gain an understanding of researchers' views of Internet resource provision, and these interviews are being analyzed with the help of the NUD*IST qualitative data analysis software package

0.036013078 = product of:
  0.14405231 = sum of:
    0.14405231 = weight(_text_:assess in 5700) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14405231 = score(doc=5700,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.36863554 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.8947687 = idf(docFreq=330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.062536046 = queryNorm
        0.39077166 = fieldWeight in 5700, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.8947687 = idf(docFreq=330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5700)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This reviews looks briefly at the history of WWW search engine development, considers the current state of affairs, and reflects on the future. Networked discovery tools have evolved along with Internet resource availability. WWW search engines display some complexity in their variety, content, resource acquisition strategies, and in the array of tools the deploy to assist users. A small but growing body of evaluation literature, much of it not systematic in nature, indicates that performance effectiveness is difficult to assess in this setting. Significant improvements in general-content search engine retrieval and ranking performance may not be possible, and are probalby not worth the effort, although search engine providers have introduced some rudimentary attempts at personalization, summarization, and query expansion. The shift to distributed search across multitype database systems could extend general networked discovery and retrieval to include smaller resource collections with rich metadata and navigation tools

0.036013078 = product of:
  0.14405231 = sum of:
    0.14405231 = weight(_text_:assess in 1338) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14405231 = score(doc=1338,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.36863554 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.8947687 = idf(docFreq=330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.062536046 = queryNorm
        0.39077166 = fieldWeight in 1338, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.8947687 = idf(docFreq=330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1338)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Although designed for general Web searching, Webometrics and related research commercial search engines are also used to produce estimated hit counts or lists of URLs matching a query. Unfortunately, however, they do not return all matching URLs for a search and their hit count estimates are unreliable. In this article, we assess whether it is possible to obtain complete lists of matching URLs from Windows Live, and whether any of its hit count estimates are robust. As part of this, we introduce two new methods to extract extra URLs from search engines: automated query splitting and automated domain and TLD searching. Both methods successfully identify additional matching URLs but the findings suggest that there is no way to get complete lists of matching URLs or accurate hit counts from Windows Live, although some estimating suggestions are provided.

0.036013078 = product of:
  0.14405231 = sum of:
    0.14405231 = weight(_text_:assess in 10) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14405231 = score(doc=10,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.36863554 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.8947687 = idf(docFreq=330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.062536046 = queryNorm
        0.39077166 = fieldWeight in 10, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.8947687 = idf(docFreq=330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=10)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Information Retrieval (IR) research typically evaluates search systems in terms of the standard precision, recall and F-measures to weight the relative importance of precision and recall (e.g. van Rijsbergen, 1979). All of these assess the extent to which the system returns good matches for a query. In contrast, webometric measures are designed specifically for web search engines and are designed to monitor changes in results over time and various aspects of the internal logic of the way in which search engine select the results to be returned. This chapter introduces a range of webometric measurements and illustrates them with case studies of Google, Bing and Yahoo! This is a very fertile area for simple and complex new investigations into search engine results.

0.035946924 = product of:
  0.1437877 = sum of:
    0.1437877 = weight(_text_:22 in 3227) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1437877 = score(doc=3227,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.21899058 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.062536046 = queryNorm
        0.6565931 = fieldWeight in 3227, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3227)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

7. 2.1996 22:38:41

Pages

22 S

0.035946924 = product of:
  0.1437877 = sum of:
    0.1437877 = weight(_text_:22 in 4007) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1437877 = score(doc=4007,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.21899058 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.062536046 = queryNorm
        0.6565931 = fieldWeight in 4007, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4007)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 8.1999 20:22:06

0.035946924 = product of:
  0.1437877 = sum of:
    0.1437877 = weight(_text_:22 in 4009) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1437877 = score(doc=4009,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.21899058 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.062536046 = queryNorm
        0.6565931 = fieldWeight in 4009, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4009)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 8.1999 21:22:59

0.033953458 = product of:
  0.13581383 = sum of:
    0.13581383 = weight(_text_:assess in 616) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13581383 = score(doc=616,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.36863554 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.8947687 = idf(docFreq=330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.062536046 = queryNorm
        0.36842304 = fieldWeight in 616, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.8947687 = idf(docFreq=330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=616)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Purpose - The objective of this paper is to characterize the changes in the rankings of the top ten results of major search engines over time and to compare the rankings between these engines. Design/methodology/approach - The papers compare rankings of the top-ten results of the search engines Google and AlltheWeb on ten identical queries over a period of three weeks. Only the top-ten results were considered, since users do not normally inspect more than the first results page returned by a search engine. The experiment was repeated twice, in October 2003 and in January 2004, in order to assess changes to the top-ten results of some of the queries during the three months interval. In order to assess the changes in the rankings, three measures were computed for each data collection point and each search engine. Findings - The findings in this paper show that the rankings of AlltheWeb were highly stable over each period, while the rankings of Google underwent constant yet minor changes, with occasional major ones. Changes over time can be explained by the dynamic nature of the web or by fluctuations in the search engines' indexes. The top-ten results of the two search engines had surprisingly low overlap. With such small overlap, the task of comparing the rankings of the two engines becomes extremely challenging. Originality/value - The paper shows that because of the abundance of information on the web, ranking search results is of extreme importance. The paper compares several measures for computing the similarity between rankings of search tools, and shows that none of the measures is fully satisfactory as a standalone measure. It also demonstrates the apparent differences in the ranking algorithms of two widely used search engines.

0.033891086 = product of:
  0.13556434 = sum of:
    0.13556434 = weight(_text_:22 in 4686) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13556434 = score(doc=4686,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21899058 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.062536046 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

27.11.2005 18:04:22

0.030010901 = product of:
  0.120043606 = sum of:
    0.120043606 = weight(_text_:assess in 2565) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.120043606 = score(doc=2565,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.36863554 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.8947687 = idf(docFreq=330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.062536046 = queryNorm
        0.32564306 = fieldWeight in 2565, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.8947687 = idf(docFreq=330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2565)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

In this study, we compare a search tool, TOPIC, with three other widely used tools that retrieve information from the Web: AltaVista, Google, and Lycos. These tools use different techniques for outputting and ranking Web sites: external link structure (TOPIC and Google) and semantic content analysis (AltaVista and Lycos). TOPIC purports to output, and highly rank within its hit list, reputable Web sites for searched topics. In this study, 80 participants reviewed the output (i.e., highly ranked sites) from each tool and assessed the quality of retrieved sites. The 4800 individual assessments of 240 sites that represent 12 topics indicated that Google tends to identify and highly rank significantly more reputable Web sites than TOPIC, which, in turn, outputs more than AltaVista and Lycos, but this was not consistent from topic to topic. Metrics derived from reputation research were used in the assessment and a factor analysis was employed to identify a key factor, which we call 'repute'. The results of this research include insight into the factors that Web users consider in formulating perceptions of Web site reputation, and insight into which search tools are outputting reputable sites for Web users. Our findings, we believe, have implications for Web users and suggest the need for future research to assess the relationship between Web page characteristics and their perceived reputation.

0.030010901 = product of:
  0.120043606 = sum of:
    0.120043606 = weight(_text_:assess in 648) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.120043606 = score(doc=648,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.36863554 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.8947687 = idf(docFreq=330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.062536046 = queryNorm
        0.32564306 = fieldWeight in 648, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.8947687 = idf(docFreq=330, 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.

0.030010901 = product of:
  0.120043606 = sum of:
    0.120043606 = weight(_text_:assess in 2017) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.120043606 = score(doc=2017,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.36863554 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.8947687 = idf(docFreq=330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.062536046 = queryNorm
        0.32564306 = fieldWeight in 2017, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.8947687 = idf(docFreq=330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2017)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Purpose - This article is an edited version of a report commissioned by the British Library and JISC to identify how the specialist researchers of the future (those born after 1993) are likely to access and interact with digital resources in five to ten years' time. The purpose is to investigate the impact of digital transition on the information behaviour of the Google Generation and to guide library and information services to anticipate and react to any new or emerging behaviours in the most effective way. Design/methodology/approach - The study was virtually longitudinal and is based on a number of extensive reviews of related literature, survey data mining and a deep log analysis of a British Library and a JISC web site intended for younger people. Findings - The study shows that much of the impact of ICTs on the young has been overestimated. The study claims that although young people demonstrate an apparent ease and familiarity with computers, they rely heavily on search engines, view rather than read and do not possess the critical and analytical skills to assess the information that they find on the web. Originality/value - The paper reports on a study that overturns the common assumption that the "Google generation" is the most web-literate.

0.030010901 = product of:
  0.120043606 = sum of:
    0.120043606 = weight(_text_:assess in 2044) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.120043606 = score(doc=2044,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.36863554 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.8947687 = idf(docFreq=330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.062536046 = queryNorm
        0.32564306 = fieldWeight in 2044, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.8947687 = idf(docFreq=330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2044)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Categorized overviews of web search results are a promising way to support user exploration, understanding, and discovery. These search interfaces combine a metadata-based overview with the list of search results to enable a rich form of interaction. A study of 24 sophisticated users carrying out complex tasks suggests how searchers may adapt their search tactics when using categorized overviews. This mixed methods study evaluated categorized overviews of web search results organized into thematic, geographic, and government categories. Participants conducted four exploratory searches during a 2-hour session to generate ideas for newspaper articles about specified topics such as "human smuggling." Results showed that subjects explored deeper while feeling more organized, and that the categorized overview helped subjects better assess their results, although no significant differences were detected in the quality of the article ideas. A qualitative analysis of searcher comments identified seven tactics that participants reported adopting when using categorized overviews. This paper concludes by proposing a set of guidelines for the design of exploratory search interfaces. An understanding of the impact of categorized overviews on search tactics will be useful to web search researchers, search interface designers, information architects and web developers.

0.030010901 = product of:
  0.120043606 = sum of:
    0.120043606 = weight(_text_:assess in 4201) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.120043606 = score(doc=4201,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.36863554 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.8947687 = idf(docFreq=330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.062536046 = queryNorm
        0.32564306 = fieldWeight in 4201, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.8947687 = idf(docFreq=330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4201)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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.

0.030010901 = product of:
  0.120043606 = sum of:
    0.120043606 = weight(_text_:assess in 1085) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.120043606 = score(doc=1085,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.36863554 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.8947687 = idf(docFreq=330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.062536046 = queryNorm
        0.32564306 = fieldWeight in 1085, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.8947687 = idf(docFreq=330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1085)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Modern search engines have been moving away from simplistic interfaces that aimed at satisfying a user's need with a single-shot query. Interactive features are now integral parts of web search engines. However, generating good query modification suggestions remains a challenging issue. Query log analysis is one of the major strands of work in this direction. Although much research has been performed on query logs collected on the web as a whole, query log analysis to enhance search on smaller and more focused collections has attracted less attention, despite its increasing practical importance. In this article, we report on a systematic study of different query modification methods applied to a substantial query log collected on a local website that already uses an interactive search engine. We conducted experiments in which we asked users to assess the relevance of potential query modification suggestions that have been constructed using a range of log analysis methods and different baseline approaches. The experimental results demonstrate the usefulness of log analysis to extract query modification suggestions. Furthermore, our experiments demonstrate that a more fine-grained approach than grouping search requests into sessions allows for extraction of better refinement terms from query log files.

0.030010901 = product of:
  0.120043606 = sum of:
    0.120043606 = weight(_text_:assess in 2726) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.120043606 = score(doc=2726,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.36863554 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.8947687 = idf(docFreq=330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.062536046 = queryNorm
        0.32564306 = fieldWeight in 2726, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.8947687 = idf(docFreq=330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2726)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This research investigates how people's perceptions of information retrieval (IR) systems, their perceptions of search tasks, and their perceptions of self-efficacy influence the amount of invested mental effort (AIME) they put into using two different IR systems: a Web search engine and a library system. It also explores the impact of mental effort on an end user's search experience. To assess AIME in online searching, two experiments were conducted using these methods: Experiment 1 relied on self-reports and Experiment 2 employed the dual-task technique. In both experiments, data were collected through search transaction logs, a pre-search background questionnaire, a post-search questionnaire and an interview. Important findings are these: (1) subjects invested greater mental effort searching a library system than searching the Web; (2) subjects put little effort into Web searching because of their high sense of self-efficacy in their searching ability and their perception of the easiness of the Web; (3) subjects did not recognize that putting mental effort into searching was something needed to improve the search results; and (4) data collected from multiple sources proved to be effective for assessing mental effort in online searching.

0.029955769 = product of:
  0.119823076 = sum of:
    0.119823076 = weight(_text_:22 in 4872) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.119823076 = score(doc=4872,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.21899058 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.062536046 = queryNorm
        0.54716086 = fieldWeight in 4872, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4872)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 6.2002 19:40:22

0.029654698 = product of:
  0.118618794 = sum of:
    0.118618794 = weight(_text_:22 in 3175) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.118618794 = score(doc=3175,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21899058 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.062536046 = queryNorm
        0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 3175, 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=3175)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Computers in libraries. 19(1999) no.5, S.22-28

0.029654698 = product of:
  0.118618794 = sum of:
    0.118618794 = weight(_text_:22 in 3445) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.118618794 = score(doc=3445,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21899058 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.062536046 = queryNorm
        0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 3445, 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=3445)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

25. 8.2005 17:42:22