Search (5 results, page 1 of 1)

0.018671993 = product of:
  0.056015976 = sum of:
    0.056015976 = product of:
      0.11203195 = sum of:
        0.11203195 = weight(_text_:group in 1660) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11203195 = score(doc=1660,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.21906674 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.628715 = idf(docFreq=1173, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047327764 = queryNorm
            0.5114056 = fieldWeight in 1660, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              4.628715 = idf(docFreq=1173, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1660)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This study examines the ways in which informational support based on user-generated content is provided for the needs of leisure-related travel planning in an online discussion group and a Q&A site. Attention is paid to the grounds by which the participants bolster the informational support. The findings draw on the analysis of 200 threads of a Finnish online discussion group and a Yahoo! Answers Q&A (question and answer) forum. Three main types of informational support were identified: providing factual information, providing advice, and providing personal opinion. The grounds used in the answers varied across the types of informational support. While providing factual information, the most popular ground was description of the attributes of an entity. In the context of providing advice, reference to external sources of information was employed most frequently. Finally, although providing personal opinions, the participants most often bolstered their views by articulating positive or negative evaluations of an entity. Overall, regarding the grounds, there were more similarities than differences between the discussion group and the Q&A site.

0.011203195 = product of:
  0.033609584 = sum of:
    0.033609584 = product of:
      0.06721917 = sum of:
        0.06721917 = weight(_text_:group in 1075) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06721917 = score(doc=1075,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21906674 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.628715 = idf(docFreq=1173, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047327764 = queryNorm
            0.30684334 = fieldWeight in 1075, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.628715 = idf(docFreq=1173, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1075)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The author reviews the major approaches and central findings of empirical research use studies. 6 major approaches were identified by cross-tabulating 2 criteria: the major context of network use (job-related vs. non-work) and the social level of variables (individual vs. group level). Examples of all types of studies are presented. Themajority of studies can be classified among the surveys focusing on frequencies of service use. From these studies, analyses of job-related are the most advanced both theoretically and methodologically while studies focused on non-work context of use are less established in this sense. The qualitative research settings seem to gain more popularity, thus making the use studies more balanced methodologically. The strengths and weaknesses of the research approaches are assessed and conclusions are drawn concerning the development of more context sensitive analyses of network uses

0.007468797 = product of:
  0.02240639 = sum of:
    0.02240639 = product of:
      0.04481278 = sum of:
        0.04481278 = weight(_text_:group in 2319) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04481278 = score(doc=2319,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21906674 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.628715 = idf(docFreq=1173, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047327764 = queryNorm
            0.20456223 = fieldWeight in 2319, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.628715 = idf(docFreq=1173, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2319)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to specify the role of emotions played in information seeking and sharing taking place in online discussion forum. To this end, an explorative study was made that focussed on consumer awareness. Design/methodology/approach - The study is based on the analysis of a sample of 30 discussion threads containing altogether 1,630 messages available in Canadian Content - a major online platform. The expression of emotions was examined by using the categories of the interaction process analysis (IPA) model. Two research questions were addressed: first, what kind of emotions are expressed in the four functional areas of the IPA model when discussing online about consumer awareness? and second, what is the role of positive and negative emotions in information seeking and sharing about the above topic? The data were analyzed by means of descriptive statistics and qualitative content analysis. Findings - Of the emotional expressions, 42 percent were positive and 58 percent negative. The most frequent emotions were amusement, contempt, worry, irritation and pleasure. The frequencies of positive and emotional expressions varied in the context of 12 IPA categories. Positive emotions predominated when participants showed solidarity or agreed, while negative emotions were particularly prevalent when indicating antagonism. The repertoire of positive and negative emotions was broadest while providing opinions or sharing information with others. In contrast, emotions were expressed rarely in the context of information seeking. Research limitations/implications - The study is explorative in nature and the findings are based on the examination of an online discussion group focussed on the issues of consumer awareness. Originality/value - The study contributes to the study of affective factors in computer-mediated interaction by empirically specifying the repertoire of positive and negative emotions expressed in online discussion.

0.005343549 = product of:
  0.016030647 = sum of:
    0.016030647 = product of:
      0.032061294 = sum of:
        0.032061294 = weight(_text_:22 in 3713) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.032061294 = score(doc=3713,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16573377 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047327764 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 3713, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3713)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.005343549 = product of:
  0.016030647 = sum of:
    0.016030647 = product of:
      0.032061294 = sum of:
        0.032061294 = weight(_text_:22 in 5498) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.032061294 = score(doc=5498,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16573377 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047327764 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5498, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5498)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22