Search (48 results, page 3 of 3)

0.0017844755 = product of:
  0.012491328 = sum of:
    0.012491328 = weight(_text_:with in 1281) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012491328 = score(doc=1281,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.1331223 = fieldWeight in 1281, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1281)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Previous studies have shown that users' cognitive styles play an important role during web searching. However, only a limited number of studies have showed the relationship between cognitive styles and web search behavior. Most importantly, it is not clear which components of web search behavior are influenced by cognitive styles. This article examines the relationships between users' cognitive styles and their web searching and develops a model that portrays the relationship. The study uses qualitative and quantitative analyses based on data gathered from 50 participants. A questionnaire was utilized to collect participants' demographic information, and Riding's (1991) Cognitive Styles Analysis (CSA) test to assess their cognitive styles. Results show that users' cognitive styles influenced their information-searching strategies, query reformulation behavior, web navigational styles, and information-processing approaches. The user model developed in this study depicts the fundamental relationships between users' web search behavior and their cognitive styles. Modeling web search behavior with a greater understanding of users' cognitive styles can help information science researchers and information systems designers to bridge the semantic gap between the user and the systems. Implications of the research for theory and practice, and future work, are discussed.

0.0017844755 = product of:
  0.012491328 = sum of:
    0.012491328 = weight(_text_:with in 1525) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012491328 = score(doc=1525,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.1331223 = fieldWeight in 1525, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1525)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Serendipity occurs when unexpected circumstances and an "aha" moment of insight result in a valuable, unanticipated outcome. Designing digital information environments to support serendipity can not only provide users with new knowledge, but also propel them in directions they might not otherwise have traveled in-surprising and delighting them along the way. As serendipity involves unexpected circumstances it cannot be directly controlled, but it can be potentially influenced. However, to the best of our knowledge, no previous work has focused on providing a rich empirical understanding of how it might be influenced. We interviewed 14 creative professionals to identify their self-reported strategies aimed at increasing the likelihood of serendipity. These strategies form a framework for examining ways existing digital environments support serendipity and for considering how future environments can create opportunities for it. This is a new way of thinking about how to design for serendipity; by supporting the strategies found to increase its likelihood rather than attempting to support serendipity as a discrete phenomenon, digital environments not only have the potential to help users experience serendipity but also encourage them to adopt the strategies necessary to experience it more often.

0.0017844755 = product of:
  0.012491328 = sum of:
    0.012491328 = weight(_text_:with in 3588) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012491328 = score(doc=3588,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.1331223 = fieldWeight in 3588, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3588)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Evaluation of information during information problem-solving processes already starts when trying to select the appropriate search result on a search engine results page (SERP). Up to now, research has mainly focused on the evaluation of webpages, while the evaluation of SERPs received less attention. Furthermore, task complexity is often not taken into account. A within-subjects design was used to study the influence of task complexity on search query formulation, evaluation of search results, and task performance. Three search tasks were used: a fact-finding, cause-effect, and a controversial topic task. To measure perceptual search processes, we used a combination of log files, eye-tracking data, answer forms, and think-aloud protocols. The results reveal that an increase in task complexity results in more search queries and used keywords, more time to formulate search queries, and more considered search results on the SERPs. Furthermore, higher ranked search results were considered more often than lower ranked results. However, not all the results for the most complex task were in line with expectations. These conflicting results can be explained by a lack of prior knowledge and the possible interference of prior attitudes.

0.0017844755 = product of:
  0.012491328 = sum of:
    0.012491328 = weight(_text_:with in 3594) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012491328 = score(doc=3594,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.1331223 = fieldWeight in 3594, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3594)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Both user involvement and system support play important roles in applying search tactics. To apply search tactics in the information retrieval (IR) processes, users make decisions and take actions in the search process, while IR systems assist them by providing different system features. After analyzing 61 participants' information searching diaries and questionnaires we identified various types of user involvement and system support in applying different types of search tactics. Based on quantitative analysis, search tactics were classified into 3 groups: user-dominated, system-dominated, and balanced tactics. We further explored types of user involvement and types of system support in applying search tactics from the 3 groups. The findings show that users and systems play major roles in applying user-dominated and system-dominated tactics, respectively. When applying balanced tactics, users and systems must collaborate closely with each other. In this article, we propose a model that illustrates user involvement and system support as they occur in user-dominated tactics, system-dominated tactics, and balanced tactics. Most important, IR system design implications are discussed to facilitate effective and efficient applications of the 3 groups of search tactics.

0.0017844755 = product of:
  0.012491328 = sum of:
    0.012491328 = weight(_text_:with in 5047) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012491328 = score(doc=5047,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.1331223 = fieldWeight in 5047, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5047)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

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.

0.0017844755 = product of:
  0.012491328 = sum of:
    0.012491328 = weight(_text_:with in 5048) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012491328 = score(doc=5048,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.1331223 = fieldWeight in 5048, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5048)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Legal researchers, recruitment professionals, healthcare information professionals, and patent analysts all undertake work tasks where search forms a core part of their duties. In these instances, the search task is often complex and time-consuming and requires specialist expertise to identify relevant documents and insights within large domain-specific repositories and collections. Several studies have been made investigating the search practices of professionals such as these, but few have attempted to directly compare their professional practices and so it remains unclear to what extent insights and approaches from one domain can be applied to another. In this paper we describe the results of a survey of a purposive sample of 108 legal researchers, 64 recruitment professionals and 107 healthcare information professionals. Their responses are compared with results from a previous survey of 81 patent analysts. The survey investigated their search practices and preferences, the types of functionality they value, and their requirements for future information retrieval systems. The results reveal that these professions share many fundamental needs and face similar challenges. In particular a continuing preference to formulate queries as Boolean expressions, the need to manage, organise and re-use search strategies and results and an ambivalence toward the use of relevance ranking. The results stress the importance of recall and coverage for the healthcare and patent professionals, while precision and recency were more important to the legal and recruitment professionals. The results also highlight the need to ensure that search systems give confidence to the professional searcher and so trust, explainability and accountability remains a significant challenge when developing such systems. The findings suggest that translational research between the different areas could benefit professionals across domains.

0.0015073324 = product of:
  0.010551327 = sum of:
    0.010551327 = product of:
      0.021102654 = sum of:
        0.021102654 = weight(_text_:22 in 1628) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021102654 = score(doc=1628,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13635688 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038938753 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 1628, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1628)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.0011304993 = product of:
  0.0079134945 = sum of:
    0.0079134945 = product of:
      0.015826989 = sum of:
        0.015826989 = weight(_text_:22 in 3206) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015826989 = score(doc=3206,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13635688 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038938753 = queryNorm
            0.116070345 = fieldWeight in 3206, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3206)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Date

3. 5.1997 8:44:22