Search (26 results, page 1 of 2)

  • × author_ss:"Lewandowski, D."
  • × year_i:[2000 TO 2010}
  1. Lewandowski, D.: Alles nur noch Google? : Entwicklungen im Bereich der WWW-Suchmaschinen (2002) 0.03 
    0.02766634 = product of:
  0.05533268 = sum of:
    0.05533268 = sum of:
      0.0054123 = weight(_text_:a in 997) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0054123 = score(doc=997,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.10191591 = fieldWeight in 997, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=997)
      0.04992038 = weight(_text_:22 in 997) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04992038 = score(doc=997,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 997, 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=997)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    29. 9.2002 18:49:22
    Type
    a
  2. Lewandowski, D.: Abfragesprachen und erweiterte Funktionen von WWW-Suchmaschinen (2004) 0.03 
    0.02766634 = product of:
  0.05533268 = sum of:
    0.05533268 = sum of:
      0.0054123 = weight(_text_:a in 2314) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0054123 = score(doc=2314,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.10191591 = fieldWeight in 2314, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2314)
      0.04992038 = weight(_text_:22 in 2314) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04992038 = score(doc=2314,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 2314, 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=2314)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    28.11.2004 13:11:22
    Type
    a
  3. Lewandowski, D.; Mayr, P.: Exploring the academic invisible Web (2006) 0.00 
    0.0018909799 = product of:
  0.0037819599 = sum of:
    0.0037819599 = product of:
      0.0075639198 = sum of:
        0.0075639198 = weight(_text_:a in 2580) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0075639198 = score(doc=2580,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.14243183 = fieldWeight in 2580, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2580)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Purpose: To provide a critical review of Bergman's 2001 study on the deep web. In addition, we bring a new concept into the discussion, the academic invisible web (AIW). We define the academic invisible web as consisting of all databases and collections relevant to academia but not searchable by the general-purpose internet search engines. Indexing this part of the invisible web is central to scientific search engines. We provide an overview of approaches followed thus far. Design/methodology/approach: Discussion of measures and calculations, estimation based on informetric laws. Literature review on approaches for uncovering information from the invisible web. Findings: Bergman's size estimate of the invisible web is highly questionable. We demonstrate some major errors in the conceptual design of the Bergman paper. A new (raw) size estimate is given. Research limitations/implications: The precision of our estimate is limited due to a small sample size and lack of reliable data. Practical implications: We can show that no single library alone will be able to index the academic invisible web. We suggest collaboration to accomplish this task. Originality/value: Provides library managers and those interested in developing academic search engines with data on the size and attributes of the academic invisible web.
    Type
    a
  4. Lewandowski, D.: How can library materials be ranked in the OPAC? (2009) 0.00 
    0.0018909799 = product of:
  0.0037819599 = sum of:
    0.0037819599 = product of:
      0.0075639198 = sum of:
        0.0075639198 = weight(_text_:a in 2810) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0075639198 = score(doc=2810,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.14243183 = fieldWeight in 2810, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2810)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Some Online Public Access Catalogues offer a ranking component. However, ranking there is merely text-based and is doomed to fail due to limited text in bibliographic data. The main assumption for the talk is that we are in a situation where the appropriate ranking factors for OPACs should be defined, while the implementation is no major problem. We must define what we want, and not so much focus on the technical work. Some deep thinking is necessary on the "perfect results set" and how we can achieve it through ranking. The talk presents a set of potential ranking factors and clustering possibilities for further discussion. A look at commercial Web search engines could provide us with ideas how ranking can be improved with additional factors. Search engines are way beyond pure text-based ranking and apply ranking factors in the groups like popularity, freshness, personalisation, etc. The talk describes the main factors used in search engines and how derivatives of these could be used for libraries' purposes. The goal of ranking is to provide the user with the best-suitable results on top of the results list. How can this goal be achieved with the library catalogue and also concerning the library's different collections and databases? The assumption is that ranking of such materials is a complex problem and is yet nowhere near solved. Libraries should focus on ranking to improve user experience.
  5. Lewandowski, D.: Desktop-Suche, Shortcuts, SMS (2004) 0.00 
    0.0016913437 = product of:
  0.0033826875 = sum of:
    0.0033826875 = product of:
      0.006765375 = sum of:
        0.006765375 = weight(_text_:a in 3287) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.006765375 = score(doc=3287,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 3287, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3287)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Type
    a
  6. Lewandowski, D.: Neue Themen der Informationswissenschaft sind nicht zu erkennen (2004) 0.00 
    0.0016913437 = product of:
  0.0033826875 = sum of:
    0.0033826875 = product of:
      0.006765375 = sum of:
        0.006765375 = weight(_text_:a in 3292) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.006765375 = score(doc=3292,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 3292, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3292)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Type
    a
  7. Lewandowski, D.: Spezialsuche für wissenschaftliche Informationen (2004) 0.00 
    0.0016913437 = product of:
  0.0033826875 = sum of:
    0.0033826875 = product of:
      0.006765375 = sum of:
        0.006765375 = weight(_text_:a in 3298) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.006765375 = score(doc=3298,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 3298, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3298)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Type
    a
  8. Lewandowski, D.: Start der eigenen Suchmaschine als Beta-Version (2004) 0.00 
    0.0016913437 = product of:
  0.0033826875 = sum of:
    0.0033826875 = product of:
      0.006765375 = sum of:
        0.006765375 = weight(_text_:a in 3299) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.006765375 = score(doc=3299,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 3299, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3299)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Type
    a
  9. Lewandowski, D.: Freiwillige Selbstkontrolle, Stärkung "alternativer Suchmaschinen" : Suchmaschinen und Politik (2005) 0.00 
    0.0016913437 = product of:
  0.0033826875 = sum of:
    0.0033826875 = product of:
      0.006765375 = sum of:
        0.006765375 = weight(_text_:a in 3374) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.006765375 = score(doc=3374,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 3374, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3374)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Type
    a
  10. Lewandowski, D.: Neue Suchmaschinen, neue Datenbestände, Desktop-Suche, Shortcuts (2005) 0.00 
    0.0016913437 = product of:
  0.0033826875 = sum of:
    0.0033826875 = product of:
      0.006765375 = sum of:
        0.006765375 = weight(_text_:a in 3432) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.006765375 = score(doc=3432,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 3432, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3432)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Type
    a
  11. Lewandowski, D.; Mayr, P.: Exploring the academic invisible Web (2006) 0.00 
    0.0016913437 = product of:
  0.0033826875 = sum of:
    0.0033826875 = product of:
      0.006765375 = sum of:
        0.006765375 = weight(_text_:a in 3752) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.006765375 = score(doc=3752,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 3752, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3752)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Purpose: To provide a critical review of Bergman's 2001 study on the Deep Web. In addition, we bring a new concept into the discussion, the Academic Invisible Web (AIW). We define the Academic Invisible Web as consisting of all databases and collections relevant to academia but not searchable by the general-purpose internet search engines. Indexing this part of the Invisible Web is central to scien-tific search engines. We provide an overview of approaches followed thus far. Design/methodology/approach: Discussion of measures and calculations, estima-tion based on informetric laws. Literature review on approaches for uncovering information from the Invisible Web. Findings: Bergman's size estimate of the Invisible Web is highly questionable. We demonstrate some major errors in the conceptual design of the Bergman paper. A new (raw) size estimate is given. Research limitations/implications: The precision of our estimate is limited due to a small sample size and lack of reliable data. Practical implications: We can show that no single library alone will be able to index the Academic Invisible Web. We suggest collaboration to accomplish this task. Originality/value: Provides library managers and those interested in developing academic search engines with data on the size and attributes of the Academic In-visible Web.
  12. Lewandowski, D.: ¬The retrieval effectiveness of web search engines : considering results descriptions (2008) 0.00 
    0.0014647468 = product of:
  0.0029294936 = sum of:
    0.0029294936 = product of:
      0.005858987 = sum of:
        0.005858987 = weight(_text_:a in 2345) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.005858987 = score(doc=2345,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.11032722 = fieldWeight in 2345, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2345)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to compare five major web search engines (Google, Yahoo, MSN, Ask.com, and Seekport) for their retrieval effectiveness, taking into account not only the results, but also the results descriptions. Design/methodology/approach - The study uses real-life queries. Results are made anonymous and are randomized. Results are judged by the persons posing the original queries. Findings - The two major search engines, Google and Yahoo, perform best, and there are no significant differences between them. Google delivers significantly more relevant result descriptions than any other search engine. This could be one reason for users perceiving this engine as superior. Research limitations/implications - The study is based on a user model where the user takes into account a certain amount of results rather systematically. This may not be the case in real life. Practical implications - The paper implies that search engines should focus on relevant descriptions. Searchers are advised to use other search engines in addition to Google. Originality/value - This is the first major study comparing results and descriptions systematically and proposes new retrieval measures to take into account results descriptions.
    Type
    a
  13. Lewandowski, D.: Wie können sich Bibliotheken gegenüber Wissenschaftssuchmaschinen positionieren? (2007) 0.00 
    0.001353075 = product of:
  0.00270615 = sum of:
    0.00270615 = product of:
      0.0054123 = sum of:
        0.0054123 = weight(_text_:a in 5112) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0054123 = score(doc=5112,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.10191591 = fieldWeight in 5112, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5112)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Type
    a
  14. Lewandowski, D.: "Find what I mean not what I say" : Neuere Ansätze zur Qualifizierung von Suchmaschinen-Ergebnissen (2001) 0.00 
    0.001353075 = product of:
  0.00270615 = sum of:
    0.00270615 = product of:
      0.0054123 = sum of:
        0.0054123 = weight(_text_:a in 5932) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0054123 = score(doc=5932,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.10191591 = fieldWeight in 5932, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5932)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Type
    a
  15. Lewandowski, D.: Aktualität als erfolgskritischer Faktor bei Suchmaschinen (2006) 0.00 
    0.001353075 = product of:
  0.00270615 = sum of:
    0.00270615 = product of:
      0.0054123 = sum of:
        0.0054123 = weight(_text_:a in 1816) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0054123 = score(doc=1816,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.10191591 = fieldWeight in 1816, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1816)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Type
    a
  16. Lewandowski, D.: Was Google nicht kann, aber Yahoo (2004) 0.00 
    0.001353075 = product of:
  0.00270615 = sum of:
    0.00270615 = product of:
      0.0054123 = sum of:
        0.0054123 = weight(_text_:a in 3291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0054123 = score(doc=3291,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.10191591 = fieldWeight in 3291, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3291)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Type
    a
  17. Lewandowski, D.: Suchmaschinen als Konkurrenten der Bibliothekskataloge : Wie Bibliotheken ihre Angebote durch Suchmaschinentechnologie attraktiver und durch Öffnung für die allgemeinen Suchmaschinen populärer machen können (2006) 0.00 
    0.0011839407 = product of:
  0.0023678814 = sum of:
    0.0023678814 = product of:
      0.0047357627 = sum of:
        0.0047357627 = weight(_text_:a in 3449) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0047357627 = score(doc=3449,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.089176424 = fieldWeight in 3449, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3449)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Type
    a
  18. Lewandowski, D.: Nachweis deutschsprachiger bibliotheks- und informationswissenschaftlicher Aufsätze in Google Scholar (2007) 0.00 
    0.0011839407 = product of:
  0.0023678814 = sum of:
    0.0023678814 = product of:
      0.0047357627 = sum of:
        0.0047357627 = weight(_text_:a in 284) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0047357627 = score(doc=284,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.089176424 = fieldWeight in 284, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=284)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Type
    a
  19. Lewandowski, D.: Zusammenarbeit von Google, Yahoo und Microsoft (2005) 0.00 
    0.0010253227 = product of:
  0.0020506454 = sum of:
    0.0020506454 = product of:
      0.004101291 = sum of:
        0.004101291 = weight(_text_:a in 3378) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.004101291 = score(doc=3378,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.07722905 = fieldWeight in 3378, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3378)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Content
    "Alle drei Suchmaschinen werden künftig das neue "Nofollow"-Attribut unterstützen. Dieses kennzeichnet, dass der damit ausgezeichnete Link nicht von Suchmaschinen verfolgt werden soll. Der Hintergrund dafür ist die automatisierte Vermüllung von Gästebüchern, Foren und Weblogs. Bisher werden solche Links ebenso in das Ranking mit einberechnet wie jeder andere Link auch. Die Links sind für die Suchmaschinen von großer Bedeutung, da sie als eine Stimme für eine Seite gezählt werden, d.h. es wird angenommen, dass ein Link eine Empfehlung für diejenige Seite ist, auf die verlinkt wird. Vereinfacht bedeutet dies, dass Suchmaschinen oftverlinkte Seiten auf höheren Rangplätzen zeigen als weniger verlinkte Seiten. Diese Berechnung wird durch automatisch erzeugte Links ad absurdum geführt. Um die Anzahl der Links auf ihre Seiten zu erhöhen, greifen Spammer immer mehr Foren, Gästebücher und Weblogs an und hinterlassen in diesen Hinweise auf ihre Seiten. Mit dem neuen Attribut ist es möglich, sämtliche Links beispielsweise in einem Gästebuch so auszuzeichnen, dass sie von den Suchmaschinen nicht mehr beachtet werden. Die Nicht-Beachtung äußert sich auf mehreren Ebenen: - Die Links werden von den Suchmaschinen nicht mehr verfolgt. Dies bedeutet, dass diejenigen Seiten, auf die verlinkt wird, unter Umständen nicht mehr in den Index der Suchmaschinen aufgenommen werden. Allerdings dürfte dieser Fall in der Praxis nur selten auftauchen, da von nahezu allen Seiten angenommen werden kann, dass sie auch auf konventionelle Weise verlinkt sind. - Die entsprechend ausgezeichneten Links werden nicht in die Kalkulation des Rankings mit einbezogen. Dadurch soll verhindert werden, dass die entsprechend verlinkten Seiten aufgrund ihrer vermeintlichen Popularität auf den vorderen Plätzen der Trefferlisten auftauchen. - Auch die Ankertexte, also der in den meisten Web-Browsern blau unterstrichene Text, wird bei diesen Links nicht ausgewertet Die Ankertexte dienen den Suchmaschinen, den Text der indexierten Dokumente durch weitere Wörter anzureichern, die das Dokument beschreiben, aber nur in externen Dokumenten vorkommen. Letztlich bedeutet das Setzen eines "Nofollow"-Attributs also nicht, dass die Zielseite schlecht beurteilt wird. Zumindest sehen dies die Suchmaschinen-Betreiber nicht vor. Um Links mit dem "Nofollow"-Attribut anzulegen, muss folgende Syntax verwendetwerden: <a href="http://www. server.de/seite.html" rel="nofollow">Ankertext</a>. Gegenüber anderen Links unterscheiden sich diese nur durch das hier hervorgehobene Attribut. Es erscheint wenig sinnvoll, manuell solche Links anzulegen. Sobald man aber den Besuchern einer Website erlaubt, selbst Inhalte mit Links anzulegen, ist der (automatisierte) Einsatz sinnvoll. Auch diese neue Initiative der großen Suchmaschinen wird die Spam-Flut in den Trefferlisten nicht verhindern, wohl aber ein wenig mindern. Bemerkenswert ist die Tatsache, dass die drei großen Suchmaschinen diesmal an einem Strang ziehen: Dies könnte als ein erster Schritt gesehen werden, dass die Suchmaschinen sich tatsächlich als Branche begreifen und die Notwendigkeit erkannt haben, gemeinsame Regeln und Standards zu schaffen. Bleibt die Frage, wieso die vierte der größeren (US-)Suchmaschinen, Ask Jeeves, nicht mit dabei ist. Diese lässt knapp verlauten, dass man in der eigenen Suchmaschine das Problem nicht in dem Maße hätte wie Google oder Yahoo. Man werde ein anderes Verfahren einsetzen, um die Wertigkeit von Links zu berechnen."
    Type
    a
  20. Lewandowski, D.: Bewertung von linktopologischen Verfahren als bestimmender Ranking-Faktor bei WWW Suchmaschinen (2006) 0.00 
    0.0010148063 = product of:
  0.0020296127 = sum of:
    0.0020296127 = product of:
      0.0040592253 = sum of:
        0.0040592253 = weight(_text_:a in 5892) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0040592253 = score(doc=5892,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.07643694 = fieldWeight in 5892, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5892)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Type
    a

Languages

  • d 21
  • e 6

Types

Themes