Search (4 results, page 1 of 1)

0.03855045 = product of:
  0.0771009 = sum of:
    0.0771009 = sum of:
      0.046456624 = weight(_text_:n in 1495) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.046456624 = score(doc=1495,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.19504215 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045236014 = queryNorm
          0.23818761 = fieldWeight in 1495, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1495)
      0.030644279 = weight(_text_:22 in 1495) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.030644279 = score(doc=1495,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15840882 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045236014 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1495, 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=1495)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

People who are collaborating can share files in two main ways: performing Group Information Management (GIM) using a common repository or performing Personal Information Management (PIM) by distributing files as e-mail attachments and storing them in personal repositories. There is a trend toward using common repositories with many organizations encouraging workers to use GIM to avoid duplication of files and management. So far, PIM and GIM have been studied by different research communities, so their effectiveness for file retrieval has not yet been systematically compared. We compared PIM and GIM in a large-scale elicited personal information retrieval study. We asked 275 users to retrieve 860 of their own shared files, testing the effect of sharing method on success and efficiency of retrieval. Participants preferred PIM over GIM. More important, PIM retrieval was more successful: Participants using GIM failed to find 22% of their files compared with 13% failures using PIM. This may be because active organization aids retrieval: When using personally created folders, the failure percentage was 65% lower than when using default folders (e.g., My Documents), and more than 5 times lower than when using folders created by others for GIM. Theoretical reasons for this are discussed.

0.016424898 = product of:
  0.032849796 = sum of:
    0.032849796 = product of:
      0.06569959 = sum of:
        0.06569959 = weight(_text_:n in 1354) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06569959 = score(doc=1354,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.19504215 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045236014 = queryNorm
            0.33684817 = fieldWeight in 1354, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1354)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Personal Information Management (PIM) is an activity in which an individual stores personal information items to retrieve them later. In a former article, we suggested the user-subjective approach, a theoretical approach proposing design principles with which PIM systems can systematically use subjective attributes of information items. In this consecutive article, we report on a study that tested the approach by exploring the use of subjective attributes (i.e., project, importance, and context) in current PIM systems, and its dependence on design characteristics. Participants were 84 personal computer users. Tools included a questionnaire (N = 84), a semistructured interview that was transcribed and analyzed (n = 20), and screen captures taken from this subsample. Results indicate that participants tended to use subjective attributes when the design encouraged them to; however, when the design discouraged such use, they either found their own alternative ways to use them or refrained from using them altogether. This constitutes evidence in support of the user-subjective approach as it implies that current PIM systems do not allow for sufficient use of subjective attributes. The article also introduces seven novel system design schemes, suggested by the authors, which demonstrate how the user-subjective principles can be implemented.

0.011614156 = product of:
  0.023228312 = sum of:
    0.023228312 = product of:
      0.046456624 = sum of:
        0.046456624 = weight(_text_:n in 1103) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.046456624 = score(doc=1103,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19504215 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045236014 = queryNorm
            0.23818761 = fieldWeight in 1103, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1103)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.0076610697 = product of:
  0.0153221395 = sum of:
    0.0153221395 = product of:
      0.030644279 = sum of:
        0.030644279 = weight(_text_:22 in 5843) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030644279 = score(doc=5843,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15840882 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045236014 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5843, 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=5843)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22