Search (2 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Williams, P."
  • × theme_ss:"Suchtaktik"
  1. Nicholas, D.; Huntington, P.; Williams, P.; Dobrowolski, T.: Re-appraising information seeking behaviour in a digital environment : bouncers, checkers, returnees and the like (2004) 0.00
    0.0030444188 = product of:
      0.0060888375 = sum of:
        0.0060888375 = product of:
          0.012177675 = sum of:
            0.012177675 = weight(_text_:a in 4440) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.012177675 = score(doc=4440,freq=18.0), product of:
                0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046056706 = queryNorm
                0.22931081 = fieldWeight in 4440, product of:
                  4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
                    18.0 = termFreq=18.0
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4440)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    Collating data from a number of log and questionnaire studies conducted largely into the use of a range of consumer health digital information platforms, Centre for Information Behaviour and the Evaluation of Research (Ciber) researchers describe some new thoughts on characterising (and naming) information seeking behaviour in the digital environment, and in so doing, suggest a new typology of digital users. The characteristic behaviour found is one of bouncing in which users seldom penetrate a site to any depth, tend to visit a number of sites for any given information need and seldom return to sites they once visited. They tend to "feed" for information horizontally, and whether they search a site of not depends heavily on "digital visibility", which in turn creates all the conditions for "bouncing". The question whether this type of information seeking represents a form of "dumbing down or up", and what it all means for publishers, librarians and information providers, who might be working on other, possible outdated usage paradigms, is discussed.
    Type
    a
  2. Nicholas, D.; Williams, P.: ¬The changing information environment : the impact of the Internet on information seeking behaviour in the media (1999) 0.00
    0.0011959607 = product of:
      0.0023919214 = sum of:
        0.0023919214 = product of:
          0.0047838427 = sum of:
            0.0047838427 = weight(_text_:a in 194) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.0047838427 = score(doc=194,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046056706 = queryNorm
                0.090081796 = fieldWeight in 194, product of:
                  2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                    4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=194)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    Journalists were chosen for study because it was felt that they would be, as information seekers and packagers par excellence, in the advanced guard of Internet users and setting the pace. As it turned out this was not to be case. Despite what appear to be the considerable and direct benefits for them, after having interviewed approximately 150 journalists and observed the action in a variety of news rooms, it appears that less than one in five national journalist use the Internet and the proportion is much less than that for regional journalists. If this poor Internet take up in the workplace was unexpected, another surprise is the characteristics of those who have actually taken the Internet route. Far from being the stereotypical young and male, most are well practised journalist into their thirties/forties, which, of course, runs counter to all that we have been led to believe. Surprisingly, the study showed as much, if not more, interest in using the Internet from the supposedly `busy' senior managers and editors than in the rank and file.
    Type
    a