Search (663 results, page 1 of 34)

  • × theme_ss:"Suchmaschinen"
  1. Li, L.; Shang, Y.; Zhang, W.: Improvement of HITS-based algorithms on Web documents 0.24 
    0.24454576 = product of:
  0.53800064 = sum of:
    0.04113365 = product of:
      0.1645346 = sum of:
        0.1645346 = weight(_text_:3a in 2514) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1645346 = score(doc=2514,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2927568 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.034531306 = 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)
    0.23268706 = weight(_text_:2f in 2514) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.23268706 = score(doc=2514,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.2927568 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.7948135 = fieldWeight in 2514, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2514)
    0.015832627 = weight(_text_:of in 2514) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015832627 = score(doc=2514,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.053998582 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.2932045 = fieldWeight in 2514, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2514)
    0.015660247 = weight(_text_:on in 2514) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015660247 = score(doc=2514,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.07594867 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.20619515 = fieldWeight in 2514, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2514)
    0.23268706 = weight(_text_:2f in 2514) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.23268706 = score(doc=2514,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.2927568 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.7948135 = fieldWeight in 2514, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2514)
  0.45454547 = coord(5/11)
    Abstract
    In this paper, we present two ways to improve the precision of HITS-based algorithms onWeb documents. First, by analyzing the limitations of current HITS-based algorithms, we propose a new weighted HITS-based method that assigns appropriate weights to in-links of root documents. Then, we combine content analysis with HITS-based algorithms and study the effects of four representative relevance scoring methods, VSM, Okapi, TLS, and CDR, using a set of broad topic queries. Our experimental results show that our weighted HITS-based method performs significantly better than Bharat's improved HITS algorithm. When we combine our weighted HITS-based method or Bharat's HITS algorithm with any of the four relevance scoring methods, the combined methods are only marginally better than our weighted HITS-based method. Between the four relevance scoring methods, there is no significant quality difference when they are combined with a HITS-based algorithm.
    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/.
    Source
    WWW '02: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on World Wide Web, May 7-11, 2002, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA
  2. White, R.W.: Interactions with search systems (2016) 0.12 
    0.12461829 = product of:
  0.27416024 = sum of:
    0.05263353 = weight(_text_:higher in 3612) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05263353 = score(doc=3612,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18138453 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.252756 = idf(docFreq=628, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.2901765 = fieldWeight in 3612, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.252756 = idf(docFreq=628, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3612)
    0.011426214 = weight(_text_:of in 3612) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011426214 = score(doc=3612,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.053998582 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.21160212 = fieldWeight in 3612, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3612)
    0.07616316 = weight(_text_:technological in 3612) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07616316 = score(doc=3612,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.18347798 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.3133807 = idf(docFreq=591, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.41510788 = fieldWeight in 3612, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.3133807 = idf(docFreq=591, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3612)
    0.12470941 = weight(_text_:innovations in 3612) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12470941 = score(doc=3612,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.23478 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.7990475 = idf(docFreq=133, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.5311756 = fieldWeight in 3612, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          6.7990475 = idf(docFreq=133, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3612)
    0.009227889 = weight(_text_:on in 3612) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009227889 = score(doc=3612,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07594867 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.121501654 = fieldWeight in 3612, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3612)
  0.45454547 = coord(5/11)
    Abstract
    Information seeking is a fundamental human activity. In the modern world, it is frequently conducted through interactions with search systems. The retrieval and comprehension of information returned by these systems is a key part of decision making and action in a broad range of settings. Advances in data availability coupled with new interaction paradigms, and mobile and cloud computing capabilities, have created a broad range of new opportunities for information access and use. In this comprehensive book for professionals, researchers, and students involved in search system design and evaluation, search expert Ryen White discusses how search systems can capitalize on new capabilities and how next-generation systems must support higher order search activities such as task completion, learning, and decision making. He outlines the implications of these changes for the evolution of search evaluation, as well as challenges that extend beyond search systems in areas such as privacy and societal benefit.
    LCSH
    Search engines / Technological innovations
    Subject
    Search engines / Technological innovations
  3. Joint, N.: Aspects of Google : bigger is better - or less is more? (2005) 0.05 
    0.049098127 = product of:
  0.18002646 = sum of:
    0.011195358 = weight(_text_:of in 4734) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011195358 = score(doc=4734,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.053998582 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.20732689 = fieldWeight in 4734, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4734)
    0.14965129 = weight(_text_:innovations in 4734) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14965129 = score(doc=4734,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.23478 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.7990475 = idf(docFreq=133, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.6374107 = fieldWeight in 4734, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          6.7990475 = idf(docFreq=133, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4734)
    0.01917981 = weight(_text_:on in 4734) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01917981 = score(doc=4734,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.07594867 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.25253648 = fieldWeight in 4734, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4734)
  0.27272728 = coord(3/11)
    Abstract
    Purpose - To investigate recent enhancements to the internet search engine Google. Design/methodology/approach - An opinion piece based on practitioner experience and recent commentary on search engine innovations. Findings - That recent innovations in Google's functionality have yet to deliver what they promise, but that it is still early to say what can genuinely be achieved in these areas. Research limitations/implications - This is an expression of opinion about a service that will be radically improved and developed in the immediate future. Practical implications - Gives some useful insights and tips on how to use existing digital library tools to achieve information retrieval results along the lines of those aspired to by Google. Originality/value - An attempt to give clear, practice-based examples of how to apply recent digital information retrieval developments to contemporary library work.
  4. Moghaddam, A.I.; Parirokh, M.: ¬A comparative study on overlapping of search results in metasearch engines and their common underlying search engines (2006) 0.04 
    0.043424875 = product of:
  0.1194184 = sum of:
    0.04281316 = weight(_text_:effect in 4741) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04281316 = score(doc=4741,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18289955 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.23408018 = fieldWeight in 4741, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4741)
    0.013455146 = weight(_text_:of in 4741) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013455146 = score(doc=4741,freq=26.0), product of:
        0.053998582 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.2491759 = fieldWeight in 4741, product of:
          5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
            26.0 = termFreq=26.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4741)
    0.014764623 = weight(_text_:on in 4741) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014764623 = score(doc=4741,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.07594867 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.19440265 = fieldWeight in 4741, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4741)
    0.048385475 = weight(_text_:great in 4741) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.048385475 = score(doc=4741,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19443816 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.24884763 = fieldWeight in 4741, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4741)
  0.36363637 = coord(4/11)
    Abstract
    Purpose - The age of the information explosion, effective access to the most relevant resources available on the internet is one of the chief concerns for users. Familiarity with types of search tools is required. One of the search tools designed to solve this problem for internet users is the metasearch engine (MSE). The purpose of this paper is to assess how far this search tool is truly effective in solving users' problems of Internet access. Design/methodology/approach - This research examines MSEs in terms of recall ratio in retrieving documents indexed and ranked highly (1-10) within their common underlying search engines (SEs). Five general MSEs in English, which are free of charge, were utilized in this research. In order to calculate the recall ratio of MSEs, five well known MSEs which have four common underlying SEs were chosen. Then, selected keywords were searched in each SE and MSE. Two lists were prepared: one list was based on the first ten results recalled by the SE, and the other was based on the first 40 results recalled by the MSE. These lists were compared with each other. An equation was utilized in this process. Findings - The findings indicate that MSEs are more likely to find the same documents which are common in their underlying search engines. Research limitations/implications - This paper offers a rigorous quantitative method for comparative evaluation of MSEs. Practical implications - Furthermore, MSEs which have a successful recall ratio are identified, which is a finding of great practical relevance to library and information practitioners helping users exploit the Internet to best effect. Originality/value - This paper provides clear descriptive evidence for the underlying retrieval patterns of important search tools which are commonly used by internet users today.
  5. Nicholson, S.; Sierra, T.; Eseryel, U.Y.; Park, J.-H.; Barkow, P.; Pozo, E.J.; Ward, J.: How much of it is real? : analysis of paid placement in Web search engine results (2006) 0.04 
    0.041490275 = product of:
  0.11409825 = sum of:
    0.064219736 = weight(_text_:effect in 5278) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.064219736 = score(doc=5278,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18289955 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.35112026 = fieldWeight in 5278, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5278)
    0.020182718 = weight(_text_:of in 5278) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020182718 = score(doc=5278,freq=26.0), product of:
        0.053998582 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.37376386 = fieldWeight in 5278, product of:
          5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
            26.0 = termFreq=26.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5278)
    0.015660247 = weight(_text_:on in 5278) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015660247 = score(doc=5278,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.07594867 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.20619515 = fieldWeight in 5278, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5278)
    0.014035545 = product of:
      0.02807109 = sum of:
        0.02807109 = weight(_text_:22 in 5278) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02807109 = score(doc=5278,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12092275 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.034531306 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 5278, 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=5278)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.36363637 = coord(4/11)
    Abstract
    Most Web search tools integrate sponsored results with results from their internal editorial database in providing results to users. The goal of this research is to get a better idea of how much of the screen real estate displays real editorial results as compared to sponsored results. The overall average results are that 40% of all results presented on the first screen are real results, and when the entire first Web page is considered, 67% of the results are nonsponsored results. For general search tools such as Google, 56% of the first screen and 82% of the first Web page contain nonsponsored results. Other results include that query structure makes a significant difference in the percentage of nonsponsored results returned by a search. Similarly, the topic of the query also can have a significant effect on the percentage of sponsored results displayed by most Web search tools.
    Date
    22. 7.2006 16:32:57
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 57(2006) no.4, S.448-461
  6. Jansen, B.J.; Zhang, M.; Schultz, C.D.: Brand and its effect on user perception of search engine performance (2009) 0.04 
    0.03696935 = product of:
  0.13555427 = sum of:
    0.107032895 = weight(_text_:effect in 2948) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.107032895 = score(doc=2948,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.18289955 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.5852004 = fieldWeight in 2948, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2948)
    0.015471167 = weight(_text_:of in 2948) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015471167 = score(doc=2948,freq=22.0), product of:
        0.053998582 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.28651062 = fieldWeight in 2948, product of:
          4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
            22.0 = termFreq=22.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2948)
    0.013050207 = weight(_text_:on in 2948) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013050207 = score(doc=2948,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.07594867 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.1718293 = fieldWeight in 2948, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2948)
  0.27272728 = coord(3/11)
    Abstract
    In this research we investigate the effect of search engine brand on the evaluation of searching performance. Our research is motivated by the large amount of search traffic directed to a handful of Web search engines, even though many have similar interfaces and performance. We conducted a laboratory experiment with 32 participants using a 42 factorial design confounded in four blocks to measure the effect of four search engine brands (Google, MSN, Yahoo!, and a locally developed search engine) while controlling for the quality and presentation of search engine results. We found brand indeed played a role in the searching process. Brand effect varied in different domains. Users seemed to place a high degree of trust in major search engine brands; however, they were more engaged in the searching process when using lesser-known search engines. It appears that branding affects overall Web search at four stages: (a) search engine selection, (b) search engine results page evaluation, (c) individual link evaluation, and (d) evaluation of the landing page. We discuss the implications for search engine marketing and the design of empirical studies measuring search engine performance.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 60(2009) no.8, S.1572-1595
  7. Libraries and Google (2005) 0.04 
    0.03582962 = product of:
  0.09853145 = sum of:
    0.009140971 = weight(_text_:of in 1973) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009140971 = score(doc=1973,freq=48.0), product of:
        0.053998582 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.16928169 = fieldWeight in 1973, product of:
          6.928203 = tf(freq=48.0), with freq of:
            48.0 = termFreq=48.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=1973)
    0.030465262 = weight(_text_:technological in 1973) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.030465262 = score(doc=1973,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.18347798 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.3133807 = idf(docFreq=591, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.16604315 = fieldWeight in 1973, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.3133807 = idf(docFreq=591, maxDocs=44218)
          0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=1973)
    0.04988376 = weight(_text_:innovations in 1973) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04988376 = score(doc=1973,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.23478 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.7990475 = idf(docFreq=133, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.21247023 = fieldWeight in 1973, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          6.7990475 = idf(docFreq=133, maxDocs=44218)
          0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=1973)
    0.009041448 = weight(_text_:on in 1973) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009041448 = score(doc=1973,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.07594867 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.11904682 = fieldWeight in 1973, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=1973)
  0.36363637 = coord(4/11)
    Abstract
    Google[trademark] has become a nearly omnipresent tool of the Internet, with its potential only now beginning to be realised. How can librarians effectively integrate this powerful search engine to provide service to their patrons? "Libraries and Google[trademark]" presents leading authorities discussing the many possibilities of using Google products as effective, user-friendly tools in libraries. Google Scholar and Print are extensively explored with an eye towards offering an expanded view of what is and may be possible for the future, with practical insights on how to make the most of the product's capabilities.
    Content
    Introduction: Libraries and Their Interrelationships with Google - William Miller Disruptive Beneficence: The Google Print Program and the Future of Libraries - Mark Sandler The Google Library Project at Oxford - Ronald Milne The (Uncertain) Future of Libraries in a Google World: Sounding an Alarm - Rick Anderson A Gaggle of Googles: Limitations and Defects of Electronic Access as Panacea - -Mark Y. Herring Using the Google Search Appliance for Federated Searching: A Case Study - Mary Taylor Google's Print and Scholar Initiatives: The Value of and Impact on Libraries and Information Services - Robert J. Lackie Google Scholar vs. Library Scholar: Testing the Performance of Schoogle - Burton Callicott; Debbie Vaughn Google, the Invisible Web, and Librarians: Slaying the Research Goliath - Francine Egger-Sider; Jane Devine Choices in the Paradigm Shift: Where Next for Libraries? - Shelley E. Phipps; Krisellen Maloney Calling the Scholars Home: Google Scholar as a Tool for Rediscovering the Academic Library - Maurice C. York Checking Under the Hood: Evaluating Google Scholar for Reference Use - Janice Adlington; Chris Benda Running with the Devil: Accessing Library-Licensed Full Text Holdings Through Google Scholar - Rebecca Donlan; Rachel Cooke Directing Students to New Information Types: A New Role for Google in Literature Searches? - Mike Thelwall Evaluating Google Scholar as a Tool for Information Literacy Rachael Cathcart - Amanda Roberts Optimising Publications for Google Users - Alan Dawson Google and Privacy - Paul S. Piper Image: Google's Most Important Product - Ron Force Keeping Up with Google: Resources and Strategies for Staying Ahead of the Pack - Michael J. Krasulski; Steven J. Bell
    Footnote
    Co-published simultaneously as Internet reference services quarterly, vol. 10(1005), nos. 3/4 Rez. in: ZfBB 54(2007) H.2, S.98-99 (D. Lewandowski): "Google und Bibliotheken? Meist hat man leider den Eindruck, dass hier eher ein oder gedacht wird. Dies sehen auch die Herausgeber des vorliegenden Bandes und nehmen deshalb neben Beiträgen zur Diskussion um die Rolle der Bibliotheken im Zeitalter von Google auch solche auf, die Tipps zur Verwendung unterschiedlicher Google-Dienste geben. Die allgemeine Diskussion um Google und die Bibliotheken dreht sich vor allem um die Rolle, die Bibliotheken (mit ihren Informationsportalen) noch spielen können, wenn ihre Nutzer sowieso bei Google suchen, auch wenn die Bibliotheksangebote (zumindest von den Bibliothekaren) als überlegen empfunden werden. Auch wenn die Nutzer geschult werden, greifen sie doch meist lieber zur einfachen Recherchemöglichkeit bei Google oder anderen Suchmaschinen - vielleicht lässt sich die Situation am besten mit dem Satz eines im Buch zitierten Bibliothekars ausdrücken: »Everyone starts with Google except librarians.« (5.95) Sollen die Bibliotheken nun Google die einfache Recherche ganz überlassen und sich auf die komplexeren Suchfragen konzentrieren? Oder verlieren sie dadurch eine Nutzerschaft, die sich mittlerweile gar nicht mehr vorstellen kann, dass man mit anderen Werkzeugen als Suchmaschinen bessere Ergebnisse erzielen kann? Diese sicherlich für die Zukunft der Bibliotheken maßgebliche Frage wird in mehreren Beiträgen diskutiert, wobei auffällt, dass die jeweiligen Autoren keine klare Antwort bieten können, wie Bibliotheken ihre Quellen so präsentieren können, dass die Nutzer mit der Recherche so zufrieden sind, dass sie freiwillig in den Bibliotheksangeboten anstatt in Google recherchieren. Den Schwerpunkt des Buchs machen aber nicht diese eher theoretischen Aufsätze aus, sondern solche, die sich mit konkreten Google-Diensten beschäftigen. Aufgrund ihrer Nähe zu den Bibliotheksangeboten bzw. den Aufgaben der Bibliotheken sind dies vor allem Google Print und Google Scholar, aber auch die Google Search Appliance. Bei letzterer handelt es sich um eine integrierte Hard- und Softwarelösung, die die Indexierung von Inhalten aus unterschiedlichen Datenquellen ermöglicht. Der Aufsatz von Mary Taylor beschreibt die Vor- und Nachteile des Systems anhand der praktischen Anwendung in der University of Nevada.
    Weitere Rez. in JASIST 59(2008) H.9, S.1531-1533 (J. Satyanesan): "Libraries and Google is an interesting and enlightening compilation of 18 articles on Google and its impact on libraries. The topic is very current, debatable, and thought provoking. Google has profoundly empowered individuals and transformed access to information and librarians are very much concerned about its popularity and visibility. In this book, the leading authorities discuss the usefulness of Google, its influence and potential menace to libraries, and its implications for libraries and the scholarly communication. They offer practical suggestions to cope with the changing situation. The articles are written from different perspective and express all shades of opinion, both hopeful and fearful. One can discern varied moods-apprehension, resignation, encouragement, and motivation-on the part of the librarians. This is an important book providing a wealth of information for the 21st century librarian. There is a section called "Indexing, Abstracting & Website/Internet Coverage," which lists major indexing and abstracting services and other tools for bibliographic access. The format of the articles is uniform with an introduction, key words, and with the exception of two articles the rest have summaries and conclusions. References and notes of varying lengths are included in each article. This book has been copublished simultaneously as Internet Reference Quarterly, 10(3/4), 2005. Although there are single articles written on Google and libraries, this is the first book-length treatment of the topic.
    ... This book is written by library professionals and aimed at the librarians in particular, but it will be useful to others who may be interested in knowing what libraries are up to in the age of Google. It is intended for library science educators and students, library administrators, publishers and university presses. It is well organized, well researched, and easily readable. Article titles are descriptive, allowing the reader to find what he needs by scanning the table of contents or by consulting the index. The only flaw in this book is the lack of summary or conclusions in a few articles. The book is in paperback and has 240 pages. This book is a significant contribution and I highly recommend it."
    LCSH
    Communication in learning and scholarship / Technological innovations
    Subject
    Communication in learning and scholarship / Technological innovations
  8. Vaughan, L.; Romero-Frías, E.: Web search volume as a predictor of academic fame : an exploration of Google trends (2014) 0.04 
    0.0352885 = product of:
  0.12939116 = sum of:
    0.090820424 = weight(_text_:effect in 1233) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.090820424 = score(doc=1233,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.18289955 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.49655905 = fieldWeight in 1233, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1233)
    0.01939093 = weight(_text_:of in 1233) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01939093 = score(doc=1233,freq=24.0), product of:
        0.053998582 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.3591007 = fieldWeight in 1233, product of:
          4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
            24.0 = termFreq=24.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1233)
    0.01917981 = weight(_text_:on in 1233) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01917981 = score(doc=1233,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.07594867 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.25253648 = fieldWeight in 1233, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1233)
  0.27272728 = coord(3/11)
    Abstract
    Searches conducted on web search engines reflect the interests of users and society. Google Trends, which provides information about the queries searched by users of the Google web search engine, is a rich data source from which a wealth of information can be mined. We investigated the possibility of using web search volume data from Google Trends to predict academic fame. As queries are language-dependent, we studied universities from two countries with different languages, the United States and Spain. We found a significant correlation between the search volume of a university name and the university's academic reputation or fame. We also examined the effect of some Google Trends features, namely, limiting the search to a specific country or topic category on the search volume data. Finally, we examined the effect of university sizes on the correlations found to gain a deeper understanding of the nature of the relationships.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 65(2014) no.4, S.707-720
  9. Carroll, N.: Search engine optimization (2009) 0.03 
    0.031065114 = product of:
  0.113905415 = sum of:
    0.08421365 = weight(_text_:higher in 3874) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08421365 = score(doc=3874,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18138453 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.252756 = idf(docFreq=628, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.46428242 = fieldWeight in 3874, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.252756 = idf(docFreq=628, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3874)
    0.014927144 = weight(_text_:of in 3874) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014927144 = score(doc=3874,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.053998582 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.27643585 = fieldWeight in 3874, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3874)
    0.014764623 = weight(_text_:on in 3874) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014764623 = score(doc=3874,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07594867 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.19440265 = fieldWeight in 3874, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3874)
  0.27272728 = coord(3/11)
    Abstract
    Search engine optimization (SEO) is the craft of elevating Web sites or individual Web site pages to higher rankings on search engines through programming, marketing, or content acumen. This section covers the origins of SEO, strategies and tactics, history and trends, and the evolution of user behavior in online searching.
    Source
    Encyclopedia of library and information sciences. 3rd ed. Ed.: M.J. Bates
  10. Craven, T.C.: Variations in use of meta tag descriptions by Web pages in different languages (2004) 0.03 
    0.02979154 = product of:
  0.109235644 = sum of:
    0.07368694 = weight(_text_:higher in 2569) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07368694 = score(doc=2569,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18138453 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.252756 = idf(docFreq=628, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.4062471 = fieldWeight in 2569, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.252756 = idf(docFreq=628, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2569)
    0.01727841 = weight(_text_:of in 2569) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01727841 = score(doc=2569,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.053998582 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.31997898 = fieldWeight in 2569, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2569)
    0.01827029 = weight(_text_:on in 2569) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01827029 = score(doc=2569,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.07594867 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.24056101 = fieldWeight in 2569, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2569)
  0.27272728 = coord(3/11)
    Abstract
    Sets of top-ranking pages in 20 languages returned by the Google search engine were downloaded and analyzed for presence of meta tag descriptions and lengths of descriptions. Results showed significant differences in proportion of pages with descriptions and in lengths of descriptions depending on language; specifically, pages in major Western European languages showed higher proportions with descriptions, while pages in Chinese showed the lowest proportions. Descriptions were mostly in the languages of the pages, though English descriptions were provided on some non-English pages. With few exceptions, coding schemes adopted for diacritics and non-Roman characters were standard.
  11. Truran, M.; Schmakeit, J.-F.; Ashman, H.: ¬The effect of user intent on the stability of search engine results (2011) 0.03 
    0.028994584 = product of:
  0.106313474 = sum of:
    0.07492303 = weight(_text_:effect in 4478) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07492303 = score(doc=4478,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18289955 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.4096403 = fieldWeight in 4478, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4478)
    0.0184714 = weight(_text_:of in 4478) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0184714 = score(doc=4478,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.053998582 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.34207192 = fieldWeight in 4478, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4478)
    0.012919044 = weight(_text_:on in 4478) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012919044 = score(doc=4478,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07594867 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.17010231 = fieldWeight in 4478, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4478)
  0.27272728 = coord(3/11)
    Abstract
    Previous work has established that search engine queries can be classified according to the intent of the searcher (i.e., why is the user searching, what specifically do they intend to do). In this article, we describe an experiment in which four sets of queries, each set representing a different user intent, are repeatedly submitted to three search engines over a period of 60 days. Using a variety of measurements, we describe the overall stability of the search engine results recorded for each group. Our findings suggest that search engine results for informational queries are significantly more stable than the results obtained using transactional, navigational, or commercial queries.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.7, S.1276-1287
  12. Jenkins, C.: Automatic classification of Web resources using Java and Dewey Decimal Classification (1998) 0.03 
    0.028925031 = product of:
  0.10605845 = sum of:
    0.07368694 = weight(_text_:higher in 1673) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07368694 = score(doc=1673,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18138453 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.252756 = idf(docFreq=628, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.4062471 = fieldWeight in 1673, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.252756 = idf(docFreq=628, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1673)
    0.0159967 = weight(_text_:of in 1673) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0159967 = score(doc=1673,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.053998582 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.29624295 = fieldWeight in 1673, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1673)
    0.016374804 = product of:
      0.03274961 = sum of:
        0.03274961 = weight(_text_:22 in 1673) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03274961 = score(doc=1673,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12092275 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.034531306 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 1673, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1673)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.27272728 = coord(3/11)
    Abstract
    The Wolverhampton Web Library (WWLib) is a WWW search engine that provides access to UK based information. The experimental version developed in 1995, was a success but highlighted the need for a much higher degree of automation. An interesting feature of the experimental WWLib was that it organised information according to DDC. Discusses the advantages of classification and describes the automatic classifier that is being developed in Java as part of the new, fully automated WWLib
    Date
    1. 8.1996 22:08:06
    Footnote
    Contribution to a special issue devoted to the Proceedings of the 7th International World Wide Web Conference, held 14-18 April 1998, Brisbane, Australia; vgl. auch: http://www7.scu.edu.au/programme/posters/1846/com1846.htm.
  13. Thelwall, M.; Stuart, D.: Web crawling ethics revisited : cost, privacy, and denial of service (2006) 0.03 
    0.028798673 = product of:
  0.105595134 = sum of:
    0.01727841 = weight(_text_:of in 6098) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01727841 = score(doc=6098,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.053998582 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.31997898 = fieldWeight in 6098, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6098)
    0.07539768 = weight(_text_:technological in 6098) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07539768 = score(doc=6098,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18347798 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.3133807 = idf(docFreq=591, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.41093582 = fieldWeight in 6098, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.3133807 = idf(docFreq=591, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6098)
    0.012919044 = weight(_text_:on in 6098) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012919044 = score(doc=6098,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07594867 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.17010231 = fieldWeight in 6098, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6098)
  0.27272728 = coord(3/11)
    Abstract
    Ethical aspects of the employment of Web crawlers for information science research and other contexts are reviewed. The difference between legal and ethical uses of communications technologies is emphasized as well as the changing boundary between ethical and unethical conduct. A review of the potential impacts on Web site owners is used to underpin a new framework for ethical crawling, and it is argued that delicate human judgment is required for each individual case, with verdicts likely to change over time. Decisions can be based upon an approximate cost-benefit analysis, but it is crucial that crawler owners find out about the technological issues affecting the owners of the sites being crawled in order to produce an informed assessment.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 57(2006) no.13, S.1771-1779
  14. Lewandowski, D.: Evaluating the retrieval effectiveness of web search engines using a representative query sample (2015) 0.03 
    0.028764404 = product of:
  0.10546948 = sum of:
    0.013711456 = weight(_text_:of in 2157) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013711456 = score(doc=2157,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.053998582 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.25392252 = fieldWeight in 2157, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2157)
    0.01917981 = weight(_text_:on in 2157) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01917981 = score(doc=2157,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.07594867 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.25253648 = fieldWeight in 2157, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2157)
    0.072578214 = weight(_text_:great in 2157) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.072578214 = score(doc=2157,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19443816 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.37327147 = fieldWeight in 2157, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2157)
  0.27272728 = coord(3/11)
    Abstract
    Search engine retrieval effectiveness studies are usually small scale, using only limited query samples. Furthermore, queries are selected by the researchers. We address these issues by taking a random representative sample of 1,000 informational and 1,000 navigational queries from a major German search engine and comparing Google's and Bing's results based on this sample. Jurors were found through crowdsourcing, and data were collected using specialized software, the Relevance Assessment Tool (RAT). We found that although Google outperforms Bing in both query types, the difference in the performance for informational queries was rather low. However, for navigational queries, Google found the correct answer in 95.3% of cases, whereas Bing only found the correct answer 76.6% of the time. We conclude that search engine performance on navigational queries is of great importance, because users in this case can clearly identify queries that have returned correct results. So, performance on this query type may contribute to explaining user satisfaction with search engines.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 66(2015) no.9, S.1763-1775
  15. Phipps, S.E.; Maloney, K.: Choices in the paradigm shift : where next for libraries? (2005) 0.03 
    0.026138645 = product of:
  0.09584169 = sum of:
    0.07368694 = weight(_text_:higher in 360) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07368694 = score(doc=360,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18138453 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.252756 = idf(docFreq=628, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.4062471 = fieldWeight in 360, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.252756 = idf(docFreq=628, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=360)
    0.0092357 = weight(_text_:of in 360) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0092357 = score(doc=360,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.053998582 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.17103596 = fieldWeight in 360, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=360)
    0.012919044 = weight(_text_:on in 360) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012919044 = score(doc=360,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07594867 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.17010231 = fieldWeight in 360, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=360)
  0.27272728 = coord(3/11)
    Abstract
    External factors are forcing libraries to seriously evaluate and redefine their purpose within higher education. Libraries have identified themselves as gateways to information. Google, and other Internet search tools, have changed the need and importance of the gatekeeper role in libraries. The authors argue that libraries have a role that is broader than that of gatekeeper. It is necessary to move beyond our existing mental models and truly redefine our unique role based on the needs within the external environment. To develop this broader role, libraries must develop collaborative relationships and leverage existing tools and services.
  16. Berget, G.; Sandnes, F.E.: Do autocomplete functions reduce the impact of dyslexia on information-searching behavior? : the case of Google (2016) 0.03 
    0.02610344 = product of:
  0.09571261 = sum of:
    0.064219736 = weight(_text_:effect in 3112) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.064219736 = score(doc=3112,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18289955 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.35112026 = fieldWeight in 3112, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3112)
    0.015832627 = weight(_text_:of in 3112) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015832627 = score(doc=3112,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.053998582 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.2932045 = fieldWeight in 3112, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3112)
    0.015660247 = weight(_text_:on in 3112) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015660247 = score(doc=3112,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.07594867 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.20619515 = fieldWeight in 3112, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3112)
  0.27272728 = coord(3/11)
    Abstract
    Dyslexic users often do not exhibit spelling and reading skills at a level required to perform effective search. To explore whether autocomplete functions reduce the impact of dyslexia on information searching, 20 participants with dyslexia and 20 controls solved 10 predefined tasks in the search engine Google. Eye-tracking and screen-capture documented the searches. There were no significant differences between the dyslexic students and the controls in time usage, number of queries, query lengths, or the use of the autocomplete function. However, participants with dyslexia made more misspellings and looked less at the screen and the autocomplete suggestions lists while entering the queries. The results indicate that although the autocomplete function supported the participants in the search process, a more extensive use of the autocomplete function would have reduced misspellings. Further, the high tolerance for spelling errors considerably reduced the effect of dyslexia, and may be as important as the autocomplete function.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.10, S.2320-2328
  17. Topi, H.; Lucas, W.: Searching the Web : operator assistance required (2005) 0.03 
    0.02582456 = product of:
  0.09469005 = sum of:
    0.064219736 = weight(_text_:effect in 1012) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.064219736 = score(doc=1012,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18289955 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.35112026 = fieldWeight in 1012, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1012)
    0.014810067 = weight(_text_:of in 1012) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014810067 = score(doc=1012,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.053998582 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.2742677 = fieldWeight in 1012, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1012)
    0.015660247 = weight(_text_:on in 1012) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015660247 = score(doc=1012,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.07594867 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.20619515 = fieldWeight in 1012, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1012)
  0.27272728 = coord(3/11)
    Abstract
    This study examines the effects of the search interface and Boolean logic training on user search performance and satisfaction. We compared the use of an assisted search tool to that of a simple search interface like those typically found at commercial search engine sites. We found that the assisted search tool had a significant positive effect on performance, satisfaction, and confidence. Promoting the use of advanced search features is therefore in the best interest of both Web search providers and users. In the absence of an assisted interface, a simple interface coupled with Boolean logic training was also an effective means for improving user performance. Given that most searchers choose to use the simple search box, it is important to provide them with applicable training to promote the effective use of the search tool. Interestingly, coupling the assisted interface with Boolean training was no more effective than either treatment alone.
  18. Jansen, B.J.; Spink, A.; Koshman, S.: Web searcher interaction with the Dogpile.com metasearch engine (2007) 0.02 
    0.024785481 = product of:
  0.090880096 = sum of:
    0.05263353 = weight(_text_:higher in 270) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05263353 = score(doc=270,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18138453 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.252756 = idf(docFreq=628, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.2901765 = fieldWeight in 270, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.252756 = idf(docFreq=628, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=270)
    0.019790784 = weight(_text_:of in 270) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019790784 = score(doc=270,freq=36.0), product of:
        0.053998582 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.36650562 = fieldWeight in 270, product of:
          6.0 = tf(freq=36.0), with freq of:
            36.0 = termFreq=36.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=270)
    0.018455777 = weight(_text_:on in 270) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018455777 = score(doc=270,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.07594867 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.24300331 = fieldWeight in 270, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=270)
  0.27272728 = coord(3/11)
    Abstract
    Metasearch engines are an intuitive method for improving the performance of Web search by increasing coverage, returning large numbers of results with a focus on relevance, and presenting alternative views of information needs. However, the use of metasearch engines in an operational environment is not well understood. In this study, we investigate the usage of Dogpile.com, a major Web metasearch engine, with the aim of discovering how Web searchers interact with metasearch engines. We report results examining 2,465,145 interactions from 534,507 users of Dogpile.com on May 6, 2005 and compare these results with findings from other Web searching studies. We collect data on geographical location of searchers, use of system feedback, content selection, sessions, queries, and term usage. Findings show that Dogpile.com searchers are mainly from the USA (84% of searchers), use about 3 terms per query (mean = 2.85), implement system feedback moderately (8.4% of users), and generally (56% of users) spend less than one minute interacting with the Web search engine. Overall, metasearchers seem to have higher degrees of interaction than searchers on non-metasearch engines, but their sessions are for a shorter period of time. These aspects of metasearching may be what define the differences from other forms of Web searching. We discuss the implications of our findings in relation to metasearch for Web searchers, search engines, and content providers.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 58(2007) no.5, S.744-755
  19. Can, F.; Nuray, R.; Sevdik, A.B.: Automatic performance evaluation of Web search engines (2004) 0.02 
    0.023985045 = product of:
  0.08794516 = sum of:
    0.06316024 = weight(_text_:higher in 2570) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06316024 = score(doc=2570,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18138453 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.252756 = idf(docFreq=628, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.34821182 = fieldWeight in 2570, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.252756 = idf(docFreq=628, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2570)
    0.013711456 = weight(_text_:of in 2570) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013711456 = score(doc=2570,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.053998582 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.25392252 = fieldWeight in 2570, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2570)
    0.011073467 = weight(_text_:on in 2570) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011073467 = score(doc=2570,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07594867 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.14580199 = fieldWeight in 2570, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2570)
  0.27272728 = coord(3/11)
    Abstract
    Measuring the information retrieval effectiveness of World Wide Web search engines is costly because of human relevance judgments involved. However, both for business enterprises and people it is important to know the most effective Web search engines, since such search engines help their users find higher number of relevant Web pages with less effort. Furthermore, this information can be used for several practical purposes. In this study we introduce automatic Web search engine evaluation method as an efficient and effective assessment tool of such systems. The experiments based on eight Web search engines, 25 queries, and binary user relevance judgments show that our method provides results consistent with human-based evaluations. It is shown that the observed consistencies are statistically significant. This indicates that the new method can be successfully used in the evaluation of Web search engines.
  20. Bilal, D.; Gwizdka, J.: Children's query types and reformulations in Google search (2018) 0.02 
    0.023821225 = product of:
  0.08734449 = sum of:
    0.053516448 = weight(_text_:effect in 5047) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.053516448 = score(doc=5047,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18289955 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.2926002 = fieldWeight in 5047, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5047)
    0.013193856 = weight(_text_:of in 5047) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013193856 = score(doc=5047,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.053998582 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.24433708 = fieldWeight in 5047, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5047)
    0.02063419 = weight(_text_:on in 5047) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02063419 = score(doc=5047,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.07594867 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.271686 = fieldWeight in 5047, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5047)
  0.27272728 = coord(3/11)
    Abstract
    We investigated the searching behaviors of twenty-four children in grades 6, 7, and 8 (ages 11-13) in finding information on three types of search tasks in Google. Children conducted 72 search sessions and issued 150 queries. Children's phrase- and question-like queries combined were much more prevalent than keyword queries (70% vs. 30%, respectively). Fifty two percent of the queries were reformulations (33 sessions). We classified children's query reformulation types into five classes based on the taxonomy by Liu et al. (2010). We found that most query reformulations were by Substitution and Specialization, and that children hardly repeated queries. We categorized children's queries by task facets and examined the way they expressed these facets in their query formulations and reformulations. Oldest children tended to target the general topic of search tasks in their queries most frequently, whereas younger children expressed one of the two facets more often. We assessed children's achieved task outcomes using the search task outcomes measure we developed. Children were mostly more successful on the fact-finding and fully self-generated task and partially successful on the research-oriented task. Query type, reformulation type, achieved task outcomes, and expressing task facets varied by task type and grade level. There was no significant effect of query length in words or of the number of queries issued on search task outcomes. The study findings have implications for human intervention, digital literacy, search task literacy, as well as for system intervention to support children's query formulation and reformulation during interaction with Google.

Authors

Years

Languages

Types

  • a 580
  • el 69
  • m 33
  • s 10
  • r 4
  • x 4
  • p 2
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications