Search (97 results, page 1 of 5)

  • × theme_ss:"Suchmaschinen"
  • × language_ss:"e"
  1. Hsieh-Yee, I.: ¬The retrieval power of selected search engines : how well do they address general reference questions and subject questions? (1998) 0.05 
    0.04654435 = product of:
  0.0930887 = sum of:
    0.0930887 = sum of:
      0.049993843 = weight(_text_:i in 2186) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.049993843 = score(doc=2186,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17138503 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045439374 = queryNorm
          0.29170483 = fieldWeight in 2186, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2186)
      0.043094855 = weight(_text_:22 in 2186) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.043094855 = score(doc=2186,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15912095 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045439374 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2186, 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=2186)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    25.12.1998 19:22:51
  2. Su, L.T.: ¬A comprehensive and systematic model of user evaluation of Web search engines : Il. An evaluation by undergraduates (2003) 0.04 
    0.040641725 = product of:
  0.08128345 = sum of:
    0.08128345 = sum of:
      0.050501406 = weight(_text_:i in 2117) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.050501406 = score(doc=2117,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.17138503 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045439374 = queryNorm
          0.29466638 = fieldWeight in 2117, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2117)
      0.03078204 = weight(_text_:22 in 2117) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03078204 = score(doc=2117,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15912095 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045439374 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2117, 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=2117)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    This paper presents an application of the model described in Part I to the evaluation of Web search engines by undergraduates. The study observed how 36 undergraduate used four major search engines to find information for their own individual problems and how they evaluated these engines based an actual interaction with the search engines. User evaluation was based an 16 performance measures representing five evaluation criteria: relevance, efficiency, utility, user satisfaction, and connectivity. Non-performance (user-related) measures were also applied. Each participant searched his/ her own topic an all four engines and provided satisfaction ratings for system features and interaction and reasons for satisfaction. Each also made relevance judgements of retrieved items in relation to his/her own information need and participated in post-search Interviews to provide reactions to the search results and overall performance. The study found significant differences in precision PR1 relative recall, user satisfaction with output display, time saving, value of search results, and overall performance among the four engines and also significant engine by discipline interactions an all these measures. In addition, the study found significant differences in user satisfaction with response time among four engines, and significant engine by discipline interaction in user satisfaction with search interface. None of the four search engines dominated in every aspect of the multidimensional evaluation. Content analysis of verbal data identified a number of user criteria and users evaluative comments based an these criteria. Results from both quantitative analysis and content analysis provide insight for system design and development, and useful feedback an strengths and weaknesses of search engines for system improvement
    Date
    24. 1.2004 18:27:22
    Footnote
    Teil I im selben Heft
  3. Huvila, I.: Affective capitalism of knowing and the society of search engine (2016) 0.04 
    0.039895155 = product of:
  0.07979031 = sum of:
    0.07979031 = sum of:
      0.042851865 = weight(_text_:i in 3246) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042851865 = score(doc=3246,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17138503 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045439374 = queryNorm
          0.25003272 = fieldWeight in 3246, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3246)
      0.036938448 = weight(_text_:22 in 3246) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.036938448 = score(doc=3246,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15912095 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045439374 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3246, 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=3246)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22
  4. Hughes, T.; Acharya, A.: ¬An interview with Anurag Acharya, Google Scholar lead engineer 0.03 
    0.02794741 = product of:
  0.05589482 = sum of:
    0.05589482 = product of:
      0.11178964 = sum of:
        0.11178964 = weight(_text_:i in 94) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11178964 = score(doc=94,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.17138503 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045439374 = queryNorm
            0.65227187 = fieldWeight in 94, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=94)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    When I interned at Google last summer after getting my MSI degree, I worked on projects for the Book Search and Google Scholar teams. I didn't know it at the time, but in completing my research over the course of the summer, I would become the resident expert on how universities were approaching Google Scholar as a research tool and how they were implementing Scholar on their library websites. Now working at an academic library, I seized a recent opportunity to sit down with Anurag Acharya, Google Scholar's founding engineer, to delve a little deeper into how Scholar features are developed and prioritized, what Scholar's scope and aims are, and where the product is headed. -Tracey Hughes, GIS Coordinator, Social Sciences & Humanities Library, University of California San Diego
  5. Li, L.; Shang, Y.; Zhang, W.: Improvement of HITS-based algorithms on Web documents 0.03 
    0.027063664 = product of:
  0.054127328 = sum of:
    0.054127328 = product of:
      0.21650931 = sum of:
        0.21650931 = weight(_text_:3a in 2514) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.21650931 = score(doc=2514,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.38523552 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045439374 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    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/.
  6. Feldman, S.: Find what I mean, not what I say : meaning-based search tools (2000) 0.03 
    0.025250703 = product of:
  0.050501406 = sum of:
    0.050501406 = product of:
      0.10100281 = sum of:
        0.10100281 = weight(_text_:i in 4799) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10100281 = score(doc=4799,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17138503 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045439374 = queryNorm
            0.58933276 = fieldWeight in 4799, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4799)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
  7. From 'storage and retrieval systems' to 'search engines' : text retrieval in evolution (1998) 0.02 
    0.024996921 = product of:
  0.049993843 = sum of:
    0.049993843 = product of:
      0.099987686 = sum of:
        0.099987686 = weight(_text_:i in 7016) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.099987686 = score(doc=7016,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17138503 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045439374 = queryNorm
            0.58340967 = fieldWeight in 7016, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=7016)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Editor
    Travis, I.
  8. Gossen, T.: Search engines for children : search user interfaces and information-seeking behaviour (2016) 0.02 
    0.023272175 = product of:
  0.04654435 = sum of:
    0.04654435 = sum of:
      0.024996921 = weight(_text_:i in 2752) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.024996921 = score(doc=2752,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17138503 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045439374 = queryNorm
          0.14585242 = fieldWeight in 2752, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
            0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=2752)
      0.021547427 = weight(_text_:22 in 2752) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.021547427 = score(doc=2752,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15912095 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045439374 = queryNorm
          0.1354154 = fieldWeight in 2752, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=2752)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Content
    Inhalt: Acknowledgments; Abstract; Zusammenfassung; Contents; List of Figures; List of Tables; List of Acronyms; Chapter 1 Introduction ; 1.1 Research Questions; 1.2 Thesis Outline; Part I Fundamentals ; Chapter 2 Information Retrieval for Young Users ; 2.1 Basics of Information Retrieval; 2.1.1 Architecture of an IR System; 2.1.2 Relevance Ranking; 2.1.3 Search User Interfaces; 2.1.4 Targeted Search Engines; 2.2 Aspects of Child Development Relevant for Information Retrieval Tasks; 2.2.1 Human Cognitive Development; 2.2.2 Information Processing Theory; 2.2.3 Psychosocial Development 2.3 User Studies and Evaluation2.3.1 Methods in User Studies; 2.3.2 Types of Evaluation; 2.3.3 Evaluation with Children; 2.4 Discussion; Chapter 3 State of the Art ; 3.1 Children's Information-Seeking Behaviour; 3.1.1 Querying Behaviour; 3.1.2 Search Strategy; 3.1.3 Navigation Style; 3.1.4 User Interface; 3.1.5 Relevance Judgement; 3.2 Existing Algorithms and User Interface Concepts for Children; 3.2.1 Query; 3.2.2 Content; 3.2.3 Ranking; 3.2.4 Search Result Visualisation; 3.3 Existing Information Retrieval Systems for Children; 3.3.1 Digital Book Libraries; 3.3.2 Web Search Engines 3.4 Summary and DiscussionPart II Studying Open Issues ; Chapter 4 Usability of Existing Search Engines for Young Users ; 4.1 Assessment Criteria; 4.1.1 Criteria for Matching the Motor Skills; 4.1.2 Criteria for Matching the Cognitive Skills; 4.2 Results; 4.2.1 Conformance with Motor Skills; 4.2.2 Conformance with the Cognitive Skills; 4.2.3 Presentation of Search Results; 4.2.4 Browsing versus Searching; 4.2.5 Navigational Style; 4.3 Summary and Discussion; Chapter 5 Large-scale Analysis of Children's Queries and Search Interactions; 5.1 Dataset; 5.2 Results; 5.3 Summary and Discussion Chapter 6 Differences in Usability and Perception of Targeted Web Search Engines between Children and Adults 6.1 Related Work; 6.2 User Study; 6.3 Study Results; 6.4 Summary and Discussion; Part III Tackling the Challenges ; Chapter 7 Search User Interface Design for Children ; 7.1 Conceptual Challenges and Possible Solutions; 7.2 Knowledge Journey Design; 7.3 Evaluation; 7.3.1 Study Design; 7.3.2 Study Results; 7.4 Voice-Controlled Search: Initial Study; 7.4.1 User Study; 7.5 Summary and Discussion; Chapter 8 Addressing User Diversity ; 8.1 Evolving Search User Interface 8.1.1 Mapping Function8.1.2 Evolving Skills; 8.1.3 Detection of User Abilities; 8.1.4 Design Concepts; 8.2 Adaptation of a Search User Interface towards User Needs; 8.2.1 Design & Implementation; 8.2.2 Search Input; 8.2.3 Result Output; 8.2.4 General Properties; 8.2.5 Configuration and Further Details; 8.3 Evaluation; 8.3.1 Study Design; 8.3.2 Study Results; 8.3.3 Preferred UI Settings; 8.3.4 User satisfaction; 8.4 Knowledge Journey Exhibit; 8.4.1 Hardware; 8.4.2 Frontend; 8.4.3 Backend; 8.5 Summary and Discussion; Chapter 9 Supporting Visual Searchers in Processing Search Results 9.1 Related Work
    Date
    1. 2.2016 18:25:22
  9. MacLeod, R.: Promoting a subject gateway : a case study from EEVL (Edinburgh Engineering Virtual Library) (2000) 0.02 
    0.02176619 = product of:
  0.04353238 = sum of:
    0.04353238 = product of:
      0.08706476 = sum of:
        0.08706476 = weight(_text_:22 in 4872) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08706476 = score(doc=4872,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15912095 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045439374 = queryNorm
            0.54716086 = fieldWeight in 4872, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4872)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    22. 6.2002 19:40:22
  10. Vidmar, D.J.: Darwin on the Web : the evolution of search tools (1999) 0.02 
    0.021547427 = product of:
  0.043094855 = sum of:
    0.043094855 = product of:
      0.08618971 = sum of:
        0.08618971 = weight(_text_:22 in 3175) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08618971 = score(doc=3175,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15912095 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045439374 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 3175, 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=3175)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Source
    Computers in libraries. 19(1999) no.5, S.22-28
  11. 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
  12. Dunning, A.: Do we still need search engines? (1999) 0.02 
    0.021547427 = product of:
  0.043094855 = sum of:
    0.043094855 = product of:
      0.08618971 = sum of:
        0.08618971 = weight(_text_:22 in 6021) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08618971 = score(doc=6021,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15912095 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045439374 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 6021, 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=6021)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Source
    Ariadne. 1999, no.22
  13. Bawden, D.: Google and the universe of knowledge (2008) 0.02 
    0.021547427 = product of:
  0.043094855 = sum of:
    0.043094855 = product of:
      0.08618971 = sum of:
        0.08618971 = weight(_text_:22 in 844) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08618971 = score(doc=844,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15912095 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045439374 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 844, 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=844)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    7. 6.2008 16:22:20
  14. Bar-Ilan, J.: ¬The use of Web search engines in information science research (2003) 0.02 
    0.021425933 = product of:
  0.042851865 = sum of:
    0.042851865 = product of:
      0.08570373 = sum of:
        0.08570373 = weight(_text_:i in 4271) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08570373 = score(doc=4271,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.17138503 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045439374 = queryNorm
            0.50006545 = fieldWeight in 4271, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4271)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    The World Wide Web was created in 1989, but it has already become a major information channel and source, influencing our everyday lives, commercial transactions, and scientific communication, to mention just a few areas. The seventeenth-century philosopher Descartes proclaimed, "I think, therefore I am" (cogito, ergo sum). Today the Web is such an integral part of our lives that we could rephrase Descartes' statement as "I have a Web presence, therefore I am." Because many people, companies, and organizations take this notion seriously, in addition to more substantial reasons for publishing information an the Web, the number of Web pages is in the billions and growing constantly. However, it is not sufficient to have a Web presence; tools that enable users to locate Web pages are needed as well. The major tools for discovering and locating information an the Web are search engines. This review discusses the use of Web search engines in information science research. Before going into detail, we should define the terms "information science," "Web search engine," and "use" in the context of this review.
  15. 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.
  16. Bates, M.E.: Quick answers to odd questions (2004) 0.02 
    0.019313077 = product of:
  0.038626153 = sum of:
    0.038626153 = product of:
      0.077252306 = sum of:
        0.077252306 = weight(_text_:i in 3071) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.077252306 = score(doc=3071,freq=26.0), product of:
            0.17138503 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045439374 = queryNorm
            0.4507529 = fieldWeight in 3071, product of:
              5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
                26.0 = termFreq=26.0
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3071)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Content
    "One of the things I enjoyed the most when I was a reference librarian was the wide range of questions my clients sent my way. What was the original title of the first Godzilla movie? (Gojira, released in 1954) Who said 'I'm as pure as the driven slush'? (Tallulah Bankhead) What percentage of adults have gone to a jazz performance in the last year? (11%) I have found that librarians, speech writers and journalists have one thing in common - we all need to find information on all kinds of topics, and we usually need the answers right now. The following are a few of my favorite sites for finding answers to those there-must-be-an-answer-out-there questions. - For the electronic equivalent to the "ready reference" shelf of resources that most librarians keep hidden behind their desks, check out RefDesk . It is particularly good for answering factual questions - Where do I get the new Windows XP Service Pack? Where is the 386 area code? How do I contact my member of Congress? - Another resource for lots of those quick-fact questions is InfoPlease, the publishers of the Information Please almanac .- Right now, it's full of Olympics data, but it also has links to facts and factoids that you would look up in an almanac, atlas, or encyclopedia. - If you want numbers, start with the Statistical Abstract of the US. This source, produced by the U.S. Census Bureau, gives you everything from the divorce rate by state to airline cost indexes going back to 1980. It is many librarians' secret weapon for pulling numbers together quickly. - My favorite question is "how does that work?" Haven't you ever wondered how they get that Olympic torch to continue to burn while it is being carried by runners from one city to the next? Or how solar sails manage to propel a spacecraft? For answers, check out the appropriately-named How Stuff Works. - For questions about movies, my first resource is the Internet Movie Database. It is easy to search, is such a popular site that mistakes are corrected quickly, and is a fun place to catch trailers of both upcoming movies and those dating back to the 30s. - When I need to figure out who said what, I still tend to rely on the print sources such as Bartlett's Familiar Quotations . No, the current edition is not available on the web, but - and this is the librarian in me - I really appreciate the fact that I not only get the attribution but I also see the source of the quote. There are far too many quotes being attributed to a celebrity, but with no indication of the publication in which the quote appeared. Take, for example, the much-cited quote of Margaret Meade, "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful committed people can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has!" Then see the page on the Institute for Intercultural Studies site, founded by Meade, and read its statement that it has never been able to verify this alleged quote from Meade. While there are lots of web-based sources of quotes (see QuotationsPage.com and Bartleby, for example), unless the site provides the original source for the quotation, I wouldn't rely on the citation. Of course, if you have a hunch as to the source of a quote, and it was published prior to 1923, head over to Project Gutenberg , which includes the full text of over 12,000 books that are in the public domain. When I needed to confirm a quotation of the Red Queen in "Through the Looking Glass", this is where I started. - And if you are stumped as to where to go to find information, instead of Googling it, try the Librarians' Index to the Internet. While it is somewhat US-centric, it is a great directory of web resources."
  17. Birmingham, J.: Internet search engines (1996) 0.02 
    0.018469224 = product of:
  0.036938448 = sum of:
    0.036938448 = product of:
      0.073876895 = sum of:
        0.073876895 = weight(_text_:22 in 5664) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.073876895 = score(doc=5664,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15912095 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045439374 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 5664, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=5664)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    10.11.1996 16:36:22
  18. Watson, I.: Searching the WWW : a quick comparison of Infoseek, Lycos, Yahoo, InfoMarket and Webcrawler (1996) 0.02 
    0.017854942 = product of:
  0.035709884 = sum of:
    0.035709884 = product of:
      0.07141977 = sum of:
        0.07141977 = weight(_text_:i in 4483) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07141977 = score(doc=4483,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17138503 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045439374 = queryNorm
            0.41672117 = fieldWeight in 4483, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4483)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
  19. Rogers, I.: ¬The Google Pagerank algorithm and how it works (2002) 0.02 
    0.017854942 = product of:
  0.035709884 = sum of:
    0.035709884 = product of:
      0.07141977 = sum of:
        0.07141977 = weight(_text_:i in 2548) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07141977 = score(doc=2548,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.17138503 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045439374 = queryNorm
            0.41672117 = fieldWeight in 2548, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2548)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Page Rank is a topic much discussed by Search Engine Optimisation (SEO) experts. At the heart of PageRank is a mathematical formula that seems scary to look at but is actually fairly simple to understand. Despite this many people seem to get it wrong! In particular "Chris Ridings of www.searchenginesystems.net" has written a paper entitled "PageRank Explained: Everything you've always wanted to know about PageRank", pointed to by many people, that contains a fundamental mistake early on in the explanation! Unfortunately this means some of the recommendations in the paper are not quite accurate. By showing code to correctly calculate real PageRank I hope to achieve several things in this response: - Clearly explain how PageRank is calculated. - Go through every example in Chris' paper, and add some more of my own, showing the correct PageRank for each diagram. By showing the code used to calculate each diagram I've opened myself up to peer review - mostly in an effort to make sure the examples are correct, but also because the code can help explain the PageRank calculations. - Describe some principles and observations on website design based on these correctly calculated examples. Any good web designer should take the time to fully understand how PageRank really works - if you don't then your site's layout could be seriously hurting your Google listings! [Note: I have nothing in particular against Chris. If I find any other papers on the subject I'll try to comment evenly]
  20. Hock, R.E.: How to do field searching in Web search engines : a field trip (1998) 0.02 
    0.017412951 = product of:
  0.034825902 = sum of:
    0.034825902 = product of:
      0.069651805 = sum of:
        0.069651805 = weight(_text_:22 in 3601) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.069651805 = score(doc=3601,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15912095 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045439374 = queryNorm
            0.4377287 = fieldWeight in 3601, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3601)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Source
    Online. 22(1998) no.3, S.18-22

Authors

Years

Types

  • a 82
  • el 12
  • m 7
  • s 4
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications