Search (29 results, page 1 of 2)

  • × theme_ss:"Retrievalalgorithmen"
  • × theme_ss:"Suchmaschinen"
  1. Back, J.: ¬An evaluation of relevancy ranking techniques used by Internet search engines (2000) 0.05 
    0.050999753 = product of:
  0.10199951 = sum of:
    0.10199951 = sum of:
      0.014706998 = weight(_text_:e in 3445) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.014706998 = score(doc=3445,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.06614887 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04602077 = queryNorm
          0.2223318 = fieldWeight in 3445, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
            0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=3445)
      0.08729251 = weight(_text_:22 in 3445) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08729251 = score(doc=3445,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1611569 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04602077 = 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)
    Date
    25. 8.2005 17:42:22
    Language
    e
  2. Furner, J.: ¬A unifying model of document relatedness for hybrid search engines (2003) 0.02 
    0.021857034 = product of:
  0.04371407 = sum of:
    0.04371407 = sum of:
      0.006302999 = weight(_text_:e in 2717) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.006302999 = score(doc=2717,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.06614887 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04602077 = queryNorm
          0.09528506 = fieldWeight in 2717, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2717)
      0.03741107 = weight(_text_:22 in 2717) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03741107 = score(doc=2717,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1611569 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04602077 = 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)
    Date
    11. 9.2004 17:32:22
    Language
    e
  3. Tober, M.; Hennig, L.; Furch, D.: SEO Ranking-Faktoren und Rang-Korrelationen 2014 : Google Deutschland (2014) 0.01 
    0.012470358 = product of:
  0.024940716 = sum of:
    0.024940716 = product of:
      0.049881432 = sum of:
        0.049881432 = weight(_text_:22 in 1484) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049881432 = score(doc=1484,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1611569 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04602077 = 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 
    0.010911563 = product of:
  0.021823127 = sum of:
    0.021823127 = product of:
      0.043646254 = sum of:
        0.043646254 = weight(_text_:22 in 3276) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.043646254 = score(doc=3276,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1611569 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04602077 = 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. Zhang, D.; Dong, Y.: ¬An effective algorithm to rank Web resources (2000) 0.00 
    0.0036767495 = product of:
  0.007353499 = sum of:
    0.007353499 = product of:
      0.014706998 = sum of:
        0.014706998 = weight(_text_:e in 3662) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.014706998 = score(doc=3662,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.06614887 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04602077 = queryNorm
            0.2223318 = fieldWeight in 3662, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=3662)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Language
    e
  6. Notess, G.R.: Search engine relevance : the never-ending quest (2000) 0.00 
    0.0036767495 = product of:
  0.007353499 = sum of:
    0.007353499 = product of:
      0.014706998 = sum of:
        0.014706998 = weight(_text_:e in 4797) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.014706998 = score(doc=4797,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.06614887 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04602077 = queryNorm
            0.2223318 = fieldWeight in 4797, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4797)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Language
    e
  7. Finding anything in the billion page Web : are algorithms the key? (1999) 0.00 
    0.0036767495 = product of:
  0.007353499 = sum of:
    0.007353499 = product of:
      0.014706998 = sum of:
        0.014706998 = weight(_text_:e in 6248) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.014706998 = score(doc=6248,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.06614887 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04602077 = queryNorm
            0.2223318 = fieldWeight in 6248, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6248)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Language
    e
  8. Courtois, M.P.; Berry, M.W.: Results ranking in Web search engines (1999) 0.00 
    0.0026262498 = product of:
  0.0052524996 = sum of:
    0.0052524996 = product of:
      0.010504999 = sum of:
        0.010504999 = weight(_text_:e in 3726) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010504999 = score(doc=3726,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.06614887 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04602077 = queryNorm
            0.15880844 = fieldWeight in 3726, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3726)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Language
    e
  9. Ding, Y.; Yan, E.; Frazho, A.; Caverlee, J.: PageRank for ranking authors in co-citation networks (2009) 0.00 
    0.0022284468 = product of:
  0.0044568935 = sum of:
    0.0044568935 = product of:
      0.008913787 = sum of:
        0.008913787 = weight(_text_:e in 3161) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008913787 = score(doc=3161,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.06614887 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04602077 = queryNorm
            0.13475344 = fieldWeight in 3161, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3161)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Language
    e
  10. Ding, Y.; Chowdhury, G.; Foo, S.: Organsising keywords in a Web search environment : a methodology based on co-word analysis (2000) 0.00 
    0.0015757497 = product of:
  0.0031514994 = sum of:
    0.0031514994 = product of:
      0.006302999 = sum of:
        0.006302999 = weight(_text_:e in 105) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.006302999 = score(doc=105,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.06614887 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04602077 = queryNorm
            0.09528506 = fieldWeight in 105, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=105)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Language
    e
  11. Dominich, S.; Skrop, A.: PageRank and interaction information retrieval (2005) 0.00 
    0.0015757497 = product of:
  0.0031514994 = sum of:
    0.0031514994 = product of:
      0.006302999 = sum of:
        0.006302999 = weight(_text_:e in 3268) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.006302999 = score(doc=3268,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.06614887 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04602077 = queryNorm
            0.09528506 = fieldWeight in 3268, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3268)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Language
    e
  12. Radev, D.; Fan, W.; Qu, H.; Wu, H.; Grewal, A.: Probabilistic question answering on the Web (2005) 0.00 
    0.0015757497 = product of:
  0.0031514994 = sum of:
    0.0031514994 = product of:
      0.006302999 = sum of:
        0.006302999 = weight(_text_:e in 3455) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.006302999 = score(doc=3455,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.06614887 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04602077 = queryNorm
            0.09528506 = fieldWeight in 3455, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3455)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Language
    e
  13. Thelwall, M.: Can Google's PageRank be used to find the most important academic Web pages? (2003) 0.00 
    0.0015757497 = product of:
  0.0031514994 = sum of:
    0.0031514994 = product of:
      0.006302999 = sum of:
        0.006302999 = weight(_text_:e in 4457) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.006302999 = score(doc=4457,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.06614887 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04602077 = queryNorm
            0.09528506 = fieldWeight in 4457, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4457)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Language
    e
  14. Berry, M.W.; Browne, M.: Understanding search engines : mathematical modeling and text retrieval (1999) 0.00 
    0.0015757497 = product of:
  0.0031514994 = sum of:
    0.0031514994 = product of:
      0.006302999 = sum of:
        0.006302999 = weight(_text_:e in 5777) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.006302999 = score(doc=5777,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.06614887 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04602077 = queryNorm
            0.09528506 = fieldWeight in 5777, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5777)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Language
    e
  15. Thelwall, M.; Vaughan, L.: New versions of PageRank employing alternative Web document models (2004) 0.00 
    0.0015757497 = product of:
  0.0031514994 = sum of:
    0.0031514994 = product of:
      0.006302999 = sum of:
        0.006302999 = weight(_text_:e in 674) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.006302999 = score(doc=674,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.06614887 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04602077 = queryNorm
            0.09528506 = fieldWeight in 674, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=674)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Language
    e
  16. Jindal, V.; Bawa, S.; Batra, S.: ¬A review of ranking approaches for semantic search on Web (2014) 0.00 
    0.0015757497 = product of:
  0.0031514994 = sum of:
    0.0031514994 = product of:
      0.006302999 = sum of:
        0.006302999 = weight(_text_:e in 2799) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.006302999 = score(doc=2799,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.06614887 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04602077 = queryNorm
            0.09528506 = fieldWeight in 2799, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2799)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Language
    e
  17. Lanvent, A.: Licht im Daten Chaos (2004) 0.00 
    0.0014856312 = product of:
  0.0029712624 = sum of:
    0.0029712624 = product of:
      0.005942525 = sum of:
        0.005942525 = weight(_text_:e in 2806) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.005942525 = score(doc=2806,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.06614887 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04602077 = queryNorm
            0.08983562 = fieldWeight in 2806, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2806)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Spätestens bei der Suche nach E-Mails, PDF-Dokumenten oder Bildern mit Texten kapituliert die Windows-Suche. Vier von neun Desktop-Suchtools finden dagegen beinahe jede verborgene Datei.
    Content
    "Bitte suchen Sie alle Unterlagen, die im PC zum Ibelshäuser-Vertrag in Sprockhövel gespeichert sind. Finden Sie alles, was wir haben - Dokumente, Tabellen, Präsentationen, Scans, E-Mails. Und erledigen Sie das gleich! « Wer diese Aufgabe an das Windows-eigene Suchmodul vergibt, wird zwangsläufig enttäuscht. Denn das Betriebssystem beherrscht weder die formatübergreifende Recherche noch die Kontextsuche, die für solche komplexen Aufträge nötig sind. Professionelle Desktop-Suchmaschinen erledigen Aufgaben dieser Art jedoch im Handumdrehen - genauer gesagt in einer einzigen Sekunde. Spitzenprogramme wie Global Brain benötigen dafür nicht einmal umfangreiche Abfrageformulare. Es genügt, einen Satz im Eingabefeld zu formulieren, der das Thema der gewünschten Dokumente eingrenzt. Dabei suchen die Programme über alle Laufwerke, die sich auf dem System einbinden lassen - also auch im Netzwerk-Ordner (Shared Folder), sofern dieser freigegeben wurde. Allen Testkandidaten - mit Ausnahme von Search 32 - gemeinsam ist, dass sie weitaus bessere Rechercheergebnisse abliefern als Windows, deutlich schneller arbeiten und meist auch in den Online-Postfächern stöbern. Wer schon öfter vergeblich über die Windows-Suche nach wichtigen Dokumenten gefahndet hat, kommt angesichts der Qualität der Search-Engines kaum mehr um die Anschaffung eines Desktop-Suchtools herum. Aber Microsoft will nachbessern. Für den Windows-XP-Nachfolger Longhorn wirbt der Hersteller vor allem mit dem Hinweis auf das neue Dateisystem WinFS, das sämtliche Files auf der Festplatte über Meta-Tags indiziert und dem Anwender damit lange Suchläufe erspart. So sollen sich anders als bei Windows XP alle Dateien zu bestimmten Themen in wenigen Sekunden auflisten lassen - unabhängig vom Format und vom physikalischen Speicherort der Files. Für die Recherche selbst ist dann weder der Dateiname noch das Erstelldatum ausschlaggebend. Anhand der kontextsensitiven Suche von WinFS kann der Anwender einfach einen Suchbefehl wie »Vertragsabschluss mit Firma XYZ, Neunkirchen/Saar« eingeben, der dann ohne Umwege zum Ziel führt."
  18. Wills, R.S.: Google's PageRank : the math behind the search engine (2006) 0.00 
    0.0014856312 = product of:
  0.0029712624 = sum of:
    0.0029712624 = product of:
      0.005942525 = sum of:
        0.005942525 = weight(_text_:e in 5954) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.005942525 = score(doc=5954,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.06614887 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04602077 = queryNorm
            0.08983562 = fieldWeight in 5954, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, 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.
    Language
    e
  19. Meghabghab, G.: Google's Web page ranking applied to different topological Web graph structures (2001) 0.00 
    0.0013131249 = product of:
  0.0026262498 = sum of:
    0.0026262498 = product of:
      0.0052524996 = sum of:
        0.0052524996 = weight(_text_:e in 6028) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0052524996 = score(doc=6028,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.06614887 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04602077 = queryNorm
            0.07940422 = fieldWeight in 6028, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6028)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Language
    e
  20. White, R.W.; Jose, J.M.; Ruthven, I.: Using top-ranking sentences to facilitate effective information access (2005) 0.00 
    0.0013131249 = product of:
  0.0026262498 = sum of:
    0.0026262498 = product of:
      0.0052524996 = sum of:
        0.0052524996 = weight(_text_:e in 3881) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0052524996 = score(doc=3881,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.06614887 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04602077 = queryNorm
            0.07940422 = fieldWeight in 3881, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3881)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Language
    e

Authors

Years

Languages

  • e 26
  • d 3

Types

  • a 24
  • m 3
  • el 1
  • r 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications