Search (7 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × theme_ss:"Retrievalalgorithmen"
  • × theme_ss:"Suchmaschinen"
  1. Back, J.: ¬An evaluation of relevancy ranking techniques used by Internet search engines (2000) 0.02
    0.021547427 = product of:
      0.043094855 = sum of:
        0.043094855 = product of:
          0.08618971 = sum of:
            0.08618971 = weight(_text_:22 in 3445) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.08618971 = score(doc=3445,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.15912095 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.045439374 = queryNorm
                0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 3445, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=3445)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Date
    25. 8.2005 17:42:22
  2. Wills, R.S.: Google's PageRank : the math behind the search engine (2006) 0.02
    0.020200564 = product of:
      0.040401127 = sum of:
        0.040401127 = product of:
          0.080802254 = sum of:
            0.080802254 = weight(_text_:i in 5954) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.080802254 = score(doc=5954,freq=16.0), product of:
                0.17138503 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.045439374 = queryNorm
                0.4714662 = fieldWeight in 5954, product of:
                  4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                    16.0 = termFreq=16.0
                  3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5954)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    Approximately 91 million American adults use the Internet on a typical day The number-one Internet activity is reading and writing e-mail. Search engine use is next in line and continues to increase in popularity. In fact, survey findings indicate that nearly 60 million American adults use search engines on a given day. Even though there are many Internet search engines, Google, Yahoo!, and MSN receive over 81% of all search requests. Despite claims that the quality of search provided by Yahoo! and MSN now equals that of Google, Google continues to thrive as the search engine of choice, receiving over 46% of all search requests, nearly double the volume of Yahoo! and over four times that of MSN. I use Google's search engine on a daily basis and rarely request information from other search engines. One day, I decided to visit the homepages of Google. Yahoo!, and MSN to compare the quality of search results. Coffee was on my mind that day, so I entered the simple query "coffee" in the search box at each homepage. Table 1 shows the top ten (unsponsored) results returned by each search engine. Although ordered differently, two webpages, www.peets.com and www.coffeegeek.com, appear in all three top ten lists. In addition, each pairing of top ten lists has two additional results in common. Depending on the information I hoped to obtain about coffee by using the search engines, I could argue that any one of the three returned better results: however, I was not looking for a particular webpage, so all three listings of search results seemed of equal quality. Thus, I plan to continue using Google. My decision is indicative of the problem Yahoo!, MSN, and other search engine companies face in the quest to obtain a larger percentage of Internet search volume. Search engine users are loyal to one or a few search engines and are generally happy with search results. Thus, as long as Google continues to provide results deemed high in quality, Google likely will remain the top search engine. But what set Google apart from its competitors in the first place? The answer is PageRank. In this article I explain this simple mathematical algorithm that revolutionized Web search.
  3. Tober, M.; Hennig, L.; Furch, D.: SEO Ranking-Faktoren und Rang-Korrelationen 2014 : Google Deutschland (2014) 0.01
    0.0123128155 = product of:
      0.024625631 = sum of:
        0.024625631 = product of:
          0.049251262 = sum of:
            0.049251262 = weight(_text_:22 in 1484) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.049251262 = score(doc=1484,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.15912095 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.045439374 = queryNorm
                0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 1484, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1484)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Date
    13. 9.2014 14:45:22
  4. Kanaeva, Z.: Ranking: Google und CiteSeer (2005) 0.01
    0.010773714 = product of:
      0.021547427 = sum of:
        0.021547427 = product of:
          0.043094855 = sum of:
            0.043094855 = weight(_text_:22 in 3276) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.043094855 = score(doc=3276,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.15912095 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.045439374 = queryNorm
                0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 3276, 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=3276)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Date
    20. 3.2005 16:23:22
  5. Furner, J.: ¬A unifying model of document relatedness for hybrid search engines (2003) 0.01
    0.009234612 = product of:
      0.018469224 = sum of:
        0.018469224 = product of:
          0.036938448 = sum of:
            0.036938448 = weight(_text_:22 in 2717) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.036938448 = score(doc=2717,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.15912095 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.045439374 = queryNorm
                0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2717, 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=2717)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Date
    11. 9.2004 17:32:22
  6. White, R.W.; Jose, J.M.; Ruthven, I.: Using top-ranking sentences to facilitate effective information access (2005) 0.01
    0.008927471 = product of:
      0.017854942 = sum of:
        0.017854942 = product of:
          0.035709884 = sum of:
            0.035709884 = weight(_text_:i in 3881) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.035709884 = score(doc=3881,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17138503 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.045439374 = queryNorm
                0.20836058 = fieldWeight in 3881, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3881)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
  7. Langville, A.N.; Meyer, C.D.: Google's PageRank and beyond : the science of search engine rankings (2006) 0.01
    0.0075752116 = product of:
      0.015150423 = sum of:
        0.015150423 = product of:
          0.030300846 = sum of:
            0.030300846 = weight(_text_:i in 6) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.030300846 = score(doc=6,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.17138503 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.045439374 = queryNorm
                0.17679983 = fieldWeight in 6, product of:
                  2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                    4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                  3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=6)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Content
    Inhalt: Chapter 1. Introduction to Web Search Engines: 1.1 A Short History of Information Retrieval - 1.2 An Overview of Traditional Information Retrieval - 1.3 Web Information Retrieval Chapter 2. Crawling, Indexing, and Query Processing: 2.1 Crawling - 2.2 The Content Index - 2.3 Query Processing Chapter 3. Ranking Webpages by Popularity: 3.1 The Scene in 1998 - 3.2 Two Theses - 3.3 Query-Independence Chapter 4. The Mathematics of Google's PageRank: 4.1 The Original Summation Formula for PageRank - 4.2 Matrix Representation of the Summation Equations - 4.3 Problems with the Iterative Process - 4.4 A Little Markov Chain Theory - 4.5 Early Adjustments to the Basic Model - 4.6 Computation of the PageRank Vector - 4.7 Theorem and Proof for Spectrum of the Google Matrix Chapter 5. Parameters in the PageRank Model: 5.1 The a Factor - 5.2 The Hyperlink Matrix H - 5.3 The Teleportation Matrix E Chapter 6. The Sensitivity of PageRank; 6.1 Sensitivity with respect to alpha - 6.2 Sensitivity with respect to H - 6.3 Sensitivity with respect to vT - 6.4 Other Analyses of Sensitivity - 6.5 Sensitivity Theorems and Proofs Chapter 7. The PageRank Problem as a Linear System: 7.1 Properties of (I - alphaS) - 7.2 Properties of (I - alphaH) - 7.3 Proof of the PageRank Sparse Linear System Chapter 8. Issues in Large-Scale Implementation of PageRank: 8.1 Storage Issues - 8.2 Convergence Criterion - 8.3 Accuracy - 8.4 Dangling Nodes - 8.5 Back Button Modeling