Search (529 results, page 1 of 27)

0.1460354 = product of:
  0.19471388 = sum of:
    0.012757615 = weight(_text_:for in 5285) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012757615 = score(doc=5285,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.08876751 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047278564 = queryNorm
        0.14371942 = fieldWeight in 5285, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5285)
    0.16914508 = weight(_text_:computing in 5285) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.16914508 = score(doc=5285,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.26151994 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.5314693 = idf(docFreq=475, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047278564 = queryNorm
        0.646777 = fieldWeight in 5285, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          5.5314693 = idf(docFreq=475, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5285)
    0.012811186 = product of:
      0.025622372 = sum of:
        0.025622372 = weight(_text_:22 in 5285) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025622372 = score(doc=5285,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16556148 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047278564 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 5285, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5285)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)

Abstract

The World Wide Web is a popular and interactive medium used to collect, disseminate, and access an increasingly huge amount of information, which constitutes the mainstay of the so-called information and knowledge society. Because of its spectacular growth, related to both Web resources (pages, sites, and services) and number of users, the Web is nowadays the main information repository and provides some automatic systems for locating, accessing, and retrieving information. However, an open and crucial question remains: how to provide fast and effective retrieval of the information relevant to specific users' needs. This is a very hard and complex task, since it is pervaded with subjectivity, vagueness, and uncertainty. The expression soft computing refers to techniques and methodologies that work synergistically with the aim of providing flexible information processing tolerant of imprecision, vagueness, partial truth, and approximation. So, soft computing represents a good candidate to design effective systems for information access and retrieval on the Web. One of the most representative tools of soft computing is fuzzy set theory. This special topic section collects research articles witnessing some recent advances in improving the processes of information access and retrieval on the Web by using soft computing tools, and in particular, by using fuzzy sets and/or integrating them with other soft computing tools. In this introductory article, we first review the problem of Web retrieval and the concept of soft computing technology. We then briefly introduce the articles in this section and conclude by highlighting some future research directions that could benefit from the use of soft computing technologies.

Date

22. 7.2006 16:59:33

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 57(2006) no.4, S.511-514

0.06256381 = product of:
  0.12512761 = sum of:
    0.029231368 = weight(_text_:for in 2566) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029231368 = score(doc=2566,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.08876751 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047278564 = queryNorm
        0.32930255 = fieldWeight in 2566, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2566)
    0.095896244 = weight(_text_:computing in 2566) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.095896244 = score(doc=2566,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.26151994 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.5314693 = idf(docFreq=475, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047278564 = queryNorm
        0.36668807 = fieldWeight in 2566, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.5314693 = idf(docFreq=475, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2566)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

We determine analytically the modulus of the second eigenvalue for the web hyperlink matrix used by Google for computing PageRank. Specifically, we prove the following statement: "For any matrix A=(cP + (1-c)E)**T, where P is an nxn row-stochasticmatrix, E is a nonnegative nxn rank-one row-stochastic matrix, and 0<=c<=1, the second eigenvalue of A has modulus Betrag (Lambda_sub2)<=c. Furthermore, if P has at least two irreducible closed subsets, the second eigenvalue Lambda_sub2 = c." This statement has implications for the convergence rate of the standard PageRank algorithm as the web scales, for the stability of PageRank to perturbations to the link structure of the web, for the detection of Google spammers, and for the design of algorithms to speed up PageRank.

0.05899654 = product of:
  0.11799308 = sum of:
    0.022096837 = weight(_text_:for in 2574) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022096837 = score(doc=2574,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.08876751 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047278564 = queryNorm
        0.24892932 = fieldWeight in 2574, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2574)
    0.095896244 = weight(_text_:computing in 2574) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.095896244 = score(doc=2574,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.26151994 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.5314693 = idf(docFreq=475, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047278564 = queryNorm
        0.36668807 = fieldWeight in 2574, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.5314693 = idf(docFreq=475, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2574)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

This paper deals with the measurement of bias in search engines on the World Wide Web. Bias is taken to mean the balance and representativeness of items in a collection retrieved from a database for a set of queries. This calls for assessing the degree to which the distribution of items in a collection deviates from the ideal. Ascertaining this ideal poses problems similar to those associated with determining relevance in the measurement of recall and precision. Instead of enlisting subject experts or users to determine such an ideal, a family of comparable search engines is used to approximate it for a set of queries. The distribution is obtained by computing the frequencies of occurrence of the uniform resource locators (URLs) in the collection retrieved by several search engines for the given queries. Bias is assessed by measuring the deviation from the ideal of the distribution produced by a particular search engine.

0.05899654 = product of:
  0.11799308 = sum of:
    0.022096837 = weight(_text_:for in 5100) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022096837 = score(doc=5100,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.08876751 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047278564 = queryNorm
        0.24892932 = fieldWeight in 5100, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5100)
    0.095896244 = weight(_text_:computing in 5100) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.095896244 = score(doc=5100,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.26151994 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.5314693 = idf(docFreq=475, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047278564 = queryNorm
        0.36668807 = fieldWeight in 5100, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.5314693 = idf(docFreq=475, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5100)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

A commonly used technique for improving search engine performance is result caching. In result caching, precomputed results (e.g., URLs and snippets of best matching pages) of certain queries are stored in a fast-access storage. The future occurrences of a query whose results are already stored in the cache can be directly served by the result cache, eliminating the need to process the query using costly computing resources. Although other performance metrics are possible, the main performance metric for evaluating the success of a result cache is hit rate. In this work, we present a machine learning approach to improve the hit rate of a result cache by facilitating a large number of features extracted from search engine query logs. We then apply the proposed machine learning approach to static, dynamic, and static-dynamic caching. Compared to the previous methods in the literature, the proposed approach improves the hit rate of the result cache up to 0.66%, which corresponds to 9.60% of the potential room for improvement.

0.057516333 = product of:
  0.115032665 = sum of:
    0.019136423 = weight(_text_:for in 1284) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019136423 = score(doc=1284,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.08876751 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047278564 = queryNorm
        0.21557912 = fieldWeight in 1284, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1284)
    0.095896244 = weight(_text_:computing in 1284) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.095896244 = score(doc=1284,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.26151994 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.5314693 = idf(docFreq=475, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047278564 = queryNorm
        0.36668807 = fieldWeight in 1284, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.5314693 = idf(docFreq=475, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1284)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

This article offers a comparative analysis of the personal profiling capabilities of the two most important free citation-based academic search engines, namely, Microsoft Academic Search (MAS) and Google Scholar Citations (GSC). Author profiles can be useful for evaluation purposes once the advantages and the shortcomings of these services are described and taken into consideration. In total, 771 personal profiles appearing in both the MAS and the GSC databases were analyzed. Results show that the GSC profiles include more documents and citations than those in MAS but with a strong bias toward the information and computing sciences, whereas the MAS profiles are disciplinarily better balanced. MAS shows technical problems such as a higher number of duplicated profiles and a lower updating rate than GSC. It is concluded that both services could be used for evaluation proposes only if they are applied along with other citation indices as a way to supplement that information.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 65(2014) no.6, S.1149-1156

0.04916378 = product of:
  0.09832756 = sum of:
    0.01841403 = weight(_text_:for in 498) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01841403 = score(doc=498,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.08876751 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047278564 = queryNorm
        0.20744109 = fieldWeight in 498, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=498)
    0.079913534 = weight(_text_:computing in 498) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.079913534 = score(doc=498,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.26151994 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.5314693 = idf(docFreq=475, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047278564 = queryNorm
        0.3055734 = fieldWeight in 498, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.5314693 = idf(docFreq=475, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=498)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Search engines are essential tools for web users today. They rely on a large number of features to compute the rank of search results for each given query. The estimated reputation of pages is among the effective features available for search engine designers, probably being adopted by most current commercial search engines. Page reputation is estimated by analyzing the linkage relationships between pages. This information is used by link analysis algorithms as a query-independent feature, to be taken into account when computing the rank of the results. Unfortunately, several types of links found on the web may damage the estimated page reputation and thus cause a negative effect on the quality of search results. This work studies alternatives to reduce the negative impact of such noisy links. More specifically, the authors propose and evaluate new methods that deal with noisy links, considering scenarios where the reputation of pages is computed using the PageRank algorithm. They show, through experiments with real web content, that their methods achieve significant improvements when compared to previous solutions proposed in the literature.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 63(2012) no.11, S.2294-2312

0.047930278 = product of:
  0.095860556 = sum of:
    0.01594702 = weight(_text_:for in 2390) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01594702 = score(doc=2390,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.08876751 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047278564 = queryNorm
        0.17964928 = fieldWeight in 2390, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2390)
    0.079913534 = weight(_text_:computing in 2390) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.079913534 = score(doc=2390,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.26151994 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.5314693 = idf(docFreq=475, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047278564 = queryNorm
        0.3055734 = fieldWeight in 2390, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.5314693 = idf(docFreq=475, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2390)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Peer-to-Peer (P2P) networks provide a new distributed computing paradigm an the Internet for file sharing. The decentralized nature of P2P networks fosters cooperative and non-cooperative behaviors in sharing resources. Searching is a major component of P2P file sharing. Several studies have been reported an the nature of queries of World Wide Web (WWW) search engines, but studies an queries of P2P networks have not been reported yet. In this report, we present our study an the Gnutella network, a decentralized and unstructured P2P network. We found that the majority of Gnutella users are located in the United States. Most queries are repeated. This may be because the hosts of the target files connect or disconnect from the network any time, so clients resubmit their queries. Queries are also forwarded from peers to peers. Findings are compared with the data from two other studies of Web queries. The length of queries in the Gnutella network is longer than those reported in the studies of WWW search engines. Queries with the highest frequency are mostly related to the names of movies, songs, artists, singers, and directors. Terms with the highest frequency are related to file formats, entertainment, and sexuality. This study is important for the future design of applications, architecture, and services of P2P networks.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 55(2004) no.9, S.783-793

0.047930278 = product of:
  0.095860556 = sum of:
    0.01594702 = weight(_text_:for in 3612) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01594702 = score(doc=3612,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.08876751 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047278564 = queryNorm
        0.17964928 = fieldWeight in 3612, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3612)
    0.079913534 = weight(_text_:computing in 3612) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.079913534 = score(doc=3612,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.26151994 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.5314693 = idf(docFreq=475, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047278564 = queryNorm
        0.3055734 = fieldWeight in 3612, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.5314693 = idf(docFreq=475, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3612)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Information seeking is a fundamental human activity. In the modern world, it is frequently conducted through interactions with search systems. The retrieval and comprehension of information returned by these systems is a key part of decision making and action in a broad range of settings. Advances in data availability coupled with new interaction paradigms, and mobile and cloud computing capabilities, have created a broad range of new opportunities for information access and use. In this comprehensive book for professionals, researchers, and students involved in search system design and evaluation, search expert Ryen White discusses how search systems can capitalize on new capabilities and how next-generation systems must support higher order search activities such as task completion, learning, and decision making. He outlines the implications of these changes for the evolution of search evaluation, as well as challenges that extend beyond search systems in areas such as privacy and societal benefit.

0.039956767 = product of:
  0.15982707 = sum of:
    0.15982707 = weight(_text_:computing in 4917) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.15982707 = score(doc=4917,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.26151994 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.5314693 = idf(docFreq=475, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047278564 = queryNorm
        0.6111468 = fieldWeight in 4917, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.5314693 = idf(docFreq=475, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4917)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Series

Galileo Computing

0.039956767 = product of:
  0.15982707 = sum of:
    0.15982707 = weight(_text_:computing in 5670) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.15982707 = score(doc=5670,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.26151994 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.5314693 = idf(docFreq=475, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047278564 = queryNorm
        0.6111468 = fieldWeight in 5670, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.5314693 = idf(docFreq=475, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=5670)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

PC computing. 1996, Oct., S. -

0.038344223 = product of:
  0.076688446 = sum of:
    0.012757615 = weight(_text_:for in 616) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012757615 = score(doc=616,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.08876751 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047278564 = queryNorm
        0.14371942 = fieldWeight in 616, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=616)
    0.06393083 = weight(_text_:computing in 616) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06393083 = score(doc=616,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.26151994 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.5314693 = idf(docFreq=475, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047278564 = queryNorm
        0.24445872 = fieldWeight in 616, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.5314693 = idf(docFreq=475, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=616)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Purpose - The objective of this paper is to characterize the changes in the rankings of the top ten results of major search engines over time and to compare the rankings between these engines. Design/methodology/approach - The papers compare rankings of the top-ten results of the search engines Google and AlltheWeb on ten identical queries over a period of three weeks. Only the top-ten results were considered, since users do not normally inspect more than the first results page returned by a search engine. The experiment was repeated twice, in October 2003 and in January 2004, in order to assess changes to the top-ten results of some of the queries during the three months interval. In order to assess the changes in the rankings, three measures were computed for each data collection point and each search engine. Findings - The findings in this paper show that the rankings of AlltheWeb were highly stable over each period, while the rankings of Google underwent constant yet minor changes, with occasional major ones. Changes over time can be explained by the dynamic nature of the web or by fluctuations in the search engines' indexes. The top-ten results of the two search engines had surprisingly low overlap. With such small overlap, the task of comparing the rankings of the two engines becomes extremely challenging. Originality/value - The paper shows that because of the abundance of information on the web, ranking search results is of extreme importance. The paper compares several measures for computing the similarity between rankings of search tools, and shows that none of the measures is fully satisfactory as a standalone measure. It also demonstrates the apparent differences in the ranking algorithms of two widely used search engines.

0.03441465 = product of:
  0.0688293 = sum of:
    0.012889821 = weight(_text_:for in 9) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012889821 = score(doc=9,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.08876751 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047278564 = queryNorm
        0.14520876 = fieldWeight in 9, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=9)
    0.055939477 = weight(_text_:computing in 9) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.055939477 = score(doc=9,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.26151994 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.5314693 = idf(docFreq=475, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047278564 = queryNorm
        0.21390139 = fieldWeight in 9, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.5314693 = idf(docFreq=475, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=9)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Few companies in history have ever been as successful and as admired as Google, the company that has transformed the Internet and become an indispensable part of our lives. How has Google done it? Veteran technology reporter Steven Levy was granted unprecedented access to the company, and in this revelatory book he takes readers inside Google headquarters-the Googleplex-to show how Google works. While they were still students at Stanford, Google cofounders Larry Page and Sergey Brin revolutionized Internet search. They followed this brilliant innovation with another, as two of Google's earliest employees found a way to do what no one else had: make billions of dollars from Internet advertising. With this cash cow (until Google's IPO nobody other than Google management had any idea how lucrative the company's ad business was), Google was able to expand dramatically and take on other transformative projects: more efficient data centers, open-source cell phones, free Internet video (YouTube), cloud computing, digitizing books, and much more. The key to Google's success in all these businesses, Levy reveals, is its engineering mind-set and adoption of such Internet values as speed, openness, experimentation, and risk taking. After its unapologetically elitist approach to hiring, Google pampers its engineers-free food and dry cleaning, on-site doctors and masseuses-and gives them all the resources they need to succeed. Even today, with a workforce of more than 23,000, Larry Page signs off on every hire. But has Google lost its innovative edge? It stumbled badly in China-Levy discloses what went wrong and how Brin disagreed with his peers on the China strategy-and now with its newest initiative, social networking, Google is chasing a successful competitor for the first time. Some employees are leaving the company for smaller, nimbler start-ups. Can the company that famously decided not to be evil still compete? No other book has ever turned Google inside out as Levy does with In the Plex.

Content

The world according to Google: biography of a search engine -- Googlenomics: cracking the code on internet profits -- Don't be evil: how Google built its culture -- Google's cloud: how Google built data centers and killed the hard drive -- Outside the box: the Google phone company. and the Google t.v. company -- Guge: Google moral dilemma in China -- Google.gov: is what's good for Google, good for government or the public? -- Epilogue: chasing tail lights: trying to crack the social code.

0.031965416 = product of:
  0.12786166 = sum of:
    0.12786166 = weight(_text_:computing in 2150) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12786166 = score(doc=2150,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.26151994 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.5314693 = idf(docFreq=475, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047278564 = queryNorm
        0.48891744 = fieldWeight in 2150, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.5314693 = idf(docFreq=475, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2150)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Series

Galileo Computing

0.031854205 = product of:
  0.06370841 = sum of:
    0.01841403 = weight(_text_:for in 4872) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01841403 = score(doc=4872,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08876751 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047278564 = queryNorm
        0.20744109 = fieldWeight in 4872, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4872)
    0.04529438 = product of:
      0.09058876 = sum of:
        0.09058876 = weight(_text_:22 in 4872) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09058876 = score(doc=4872,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16556148 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047278564 = 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(2/4)

Abstract

Describes the development of EEVL and outlines the services offered. The potential market for EEVL is discussed, and a case study of promotional activities is presented

Date

22. 6.2002 19:40:22

0.027113458 = product of:
  0.054226916 = sum of:
    0.009020995 = weight(_text_:for in 312) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009020995 = score(doc=312,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.08876751 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047278564 = queryNorm
        0.101624966 = fieldWeight in 312, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
          0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=312)
    0.04520592 = weight(_text_:computing in 312) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04520592 = score(doc=312,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.26151994 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.5314693 = idf(docFreq=475, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047278564 = queryNorm
        0.17285842 = fieldWeight in 312, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.5314693 = idf(docFreq=475, maxDocs=44218)
          0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=312)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

How do you find your way in an age of information overload? How can you filter streams of complex information to pull out only what you want? Why does it matter how information is structured when Google seems to magically bring up the right answer to your questions? What does it mean to be "findable" in this day and age? This eye-opening new book examines the convergence of information and connectivity. Written by Peter Morville, author of the groundbreakin Information Architecture for the World Wide Web, the book defines our current age as a state of unlimited findability. In other words, anyone can find anything at any time. Complete navigability. Morville discusses the Internet, GIS, and other network technologies that are coming together to make unlimited findability possible. He explores how the melding of these innovations impacts society, since Web access is now a standard requirement for successful people and businesses. But before he does that, Morville looks back at the history of wayfinding and human evolution, suggesting that our fear of being lost has driven us to create maps, charts, and now, the mobile Internet.

Footnote

Rez. in: nfd - Information Wissenschaft und Praxis 57(2006) H.3, S.177-178 (D. Lewandowski): "Wohl unbestritten ist, dass die Suche in Informationsbeständen eine immer größere Bedeutung erhält. Wir suchen nicht nur noch explizit, indem wir ein Informationssystem anwählen und dort eine Suche absetzen, sondern verwenden Suchfunktionen innerhalb von Programmen, auf Websites, innerhalb des Betriebssystems unseres Computers oder sogar ziemlich unbewusst, indem wir Informationen maßgeschneidert aufgrund einer einmal hinterlegten Suche oder eines automatisch erstellten Suchprofils erhalten. Man kann also in der Tat davon sprechen, dass wir von der Suche umgeben werden. Das ist mit dem Konzept der "Ambient Findability" gemeint. Angelehnt ist diese Bezeichnung an den Begriff der "Ambient Music" (in den 70er Jahren durch Brian Eno geprägt), die den Hörer umgibt und von ihm oft gar nicht aktiv wahrgenommen wird. Um eine Vorstellung von dieser Musik zu bekommen, eignet sich vielleicht am besten der Titel einer Platte eben von Brian Eno: "Music for Airports". Peter Morville, bekannt als Co-Autor des empfehlenswerten Buchs "Information Architecture for the World Wide Web"', hat sich nun mit der Veränderung der Suche auseinandergesetzt. Sein Buch bedient sich in ganz unterschiedlichen Disziplinen, um die Prozesse des Suchens, Stöberns und Findens aufzuzeigen. So finden sich Betrachtungen über die Orientierung des Menschen in unbekannten Umgebungen, über die Interaktion mit Informationssystemen, über das soziale Verhalten der Web-Nutzer (Stichworte: Content-Tagging, Folksonomies, Social Networking) und über technische Veränderungen durch die Verfügbarkeit von Informationssystemen in allen Lebenskontexten, vor allem auch über mobile Endgeräte. Das Buch ist in sieben Kapitel gegliedert. Das erste, "Lost and Found" betitelt, bietet auf wenigen Seiten die Definitionen der zentralen Begriffe ambient und findability, erläutert kurz das Konzept der Information Literacy und zeigt, dass die bessere Auffindbarkeit von Informationen nicht nur ein schöner Zusatznutzen ist, sondern sich für Unternehmen deutlich auszahlt.
Das zweite Kapitel ("A Brief History of Wayfinding") beschreibt, wie Menschen sich in Umgebungen zurechtfinden. Dies ist insofern interessant, als hier nicht erst bei Informationssystemen oder dem WWW begonnen wird, sondern allgemeine Erkenntnisse beispielsweise über die Orientierung in natürlichen Umgebungen präsentiert werden. Viele typische Verhaltensweisen der Nutzer von Informationssystemen können so erklärt werden. So interessant dieses Thema allerdings ist, wirkt das Kapitel leider doch nur wie eine Zusammenstellung von Informationen aus zweiter Hand. Offensichtlich ist, dass Morville nicht selbst an diesen Themen geforscht hat, sondern die Ergebnisse (wenn auch auf ansprechende Weise) zusammengeschrieben hat. Dieser Eindruck bestätigt sich auch in weiteren Kapiteln: Ein flüssig geschriebener Text, der es jedoch an einigen Stellen an Substanz fehlen lässt. Kapitel drei, "Information Interaction" beginnt mit einem Rückgriff auf Calvin Mooers zentrale Aussage aus dem Jahre 1959: "An information retrieval system will tend not to be used whenever it is more painful and troublesome for a customer to have information than for him not to have it." In der Tat sollte man sich dies bei der Erstellung von Informationssystemen immer vergegenwärtigen; die Reihe der Systeme, die gerade an dieser Hürde gescheitert sind, ist lang. Das weitere Kapitel führt in einige zentrale Konzepte der Informationswissenschaft (Definition des Begriffs Information, Erläuterung des Information Retrieval, Wissensrepräsentation, Information Seeking Behaviour) ein, allerdings ohne jeden Anspruch auf Vollständigkeit. Es wirkt vielmehr so, dass der Autor sich die gerade für sein Anliegen passenden Konzepte auswählt und konkurrierende Ansätze beiseite lässt. Nur ein Beispiel: Im Abschnitt "Information Interaction" wird relativ ausführlich das Konzept des Berrypicking nach Marcia J. Bates präsentiert, allerdings wird es geradezu als exklusiv verkauft, was es natürlich bei weitem nicht ist. Natürlich kann es nicht Aufgabe dieses Buchs sein, einen vollständigen Überblick über alle Theorien des menschlichen Suchverhaltens zu geben (dies ist an anderer Stelle vorbildlich geleistet worden'), aber doch wenigstens der Hinweis auf einige zentrale Ansätze wäre angebracht gewesen. Spätestens in diesem Kapitel wird klar, dass das Buch sich definitiv nicht an Informationswissenschaftler wendet, die auf der einen Seite mit den grundlegenden Themen vertraut sein dürften, andererseits ein wenig mehr Tiefgang erwarten würden. Also stellt sich die Frage - und diese ist zentral für die Bewertung des gesamten Werks.

RSWK

Information Retrieval / Ubiquitous Computing (GBV)

Subject

Information Retrieval / Ubiquitous Computing (GBV)

0.025568802 = product of:
  0.051137604 = sum of:
    0.02551523 = weight(_text_:for in 3595) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02551523 = score(doc=3595,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.08876751 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047278564 = queryNorm
        0.28743884 = fieldWeight in 3595, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3595)
    0.025622372 = product of:
      0.051244743 = sum of:
        0.051244743 = weight(_text_:22 in 3595) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.051244743 = score(doc=3595,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16556148 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047278564 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 3595, 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=3595)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Gives an overview of image search engines on the Web. They work by: looking for graphics files; looking for a caption; looking for Web sites whose titles indicate the presence of picturres on a certain subject; or employing human intervention. Describes the image search capabilities of: AltaVista; Amazing Picture Machine (Http://www.ncrtec.org/picture.htm); HotBot; ImageSurfer (http://ipix.yahoo.com); Lycos; Web Clip Art Search Engine and WebSEEK. The search engines employing human intervention provide the best results

Source

Online. 22(1998) no.3, S.37-38,40-42

0.025233213 = product of:
  0.050466426 = sum of:
    0.031249646 = weight(_text_:for in 197) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.031249646 = score(doc=197,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.08876751 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047278564 = queryNorm
        0.35203922 = fieldWeight in 197, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=197)
    0.019216778 = product of:
      0.038433556 = sum of:
        0.038433556 = weight(_text_:22 in 197) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.038433556 = score(doc=197,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16556148 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047278564 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 197, 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=197)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Four focus groups were held with young Web users (10 to 13 years of age) to explore design criteria for Web portals. The focus group participants commented upon four existing portals designed with young users in mind: Ask Jeeves for Kids, KidsClick, Lycos Zone, and Yahooligans! This article reports their first impressions on using these portals, their likes and dislikes, and their suggestions for improvements. Design criteria for children's Web portals are elaborated based upon these comments under four headings: portal goals, visual design, information architecture, and personalization. An ideal portal should cater for both educational and entertainment needs, use attractive screen designs based especially on effective use of color, graphics, and animation, provide both keyword search facilities and browsable subject categories, and allow individual user personalization in areas such as color and graphics

Date

2. 6.2005 10:34:22

Object

AskJeeves for Kids

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 53(2002) no.2, S.79-94

0.024099609 = product of:
  0.048199218 = sum of:
    0.025779642 = weight(_text_:for in 2186) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025779642 = score(doc=2186,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.08876751 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047278564 = queryNorm
        0.29041752 = fieldWeight in 2186, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2186)
    0.022419576 = product of:
      0.04483915 = sum of:
        0.04483915 = weight(_text_:22 in 2186) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04483915 = score(doc=2186,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16556148 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047278564 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Evaluates the performance of 8 major Internet search engines in answering 21 real reference questions and 5 made up subject questions. Reports on the retrieval and relevancy ranking abilities of the search engines. Concludes that the search engines did not produce good results for the reference questions unlike for the subject questions. The best engines are identified by type of questions, with Infoseek best for the subject questions, and OpenText best for refrence questions

Date

25.12.1998 19:22:51

0.024099609 = product of:
  0.048199218 = sum of:
    0.025779642 = weight(_text_:for in 5296) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025779642 = score(doc=5296,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.08876751 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047278564 = queryNorm
        0.29041752 = fieldWeight in 5296, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5296)
    0.022419576 = product of:
      0.04483915 = sum of:
        0.04483915 = weight(_text_:22 in 5296) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04483915 = score(doc=5296,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16556148 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047278564 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 5296, 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=5296)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

User interfaces of Web search engines reflect attributes of the underlying tools used to create them, rather than what we know about how people look for information. In this article, the author examines several characteristics of user search behavior: the variety of information-seeking goals, the cultural and situational context of search, and the iterative nature of the search task. An analysis of these characteristics suggests ways that interfaces can be redesigned to make searching more effective for users.

Date

22. 7.2006 17:58:06

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 57(2006) no.6, S.797-799

0.023227734 = product of:
  0.04645547 = sum of:
    0.020833097 = weight(_text_:for in 4738) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020833097 = score(doc=4738,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08876751 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047278564 = queryNorm
        0.23469281 = fieldWeight in 4738, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4738)
    0.025622372 = product of:
      0.051244743 = sum of:
        0.051244743 = weight(_text_:22 in 4738) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.051244743 = score(doc=4738,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16556148 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047278564 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 4738, 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=4738)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Describes the 3 most popular searching tools for the WWW: InfoSeek, Yahoo and Lycos. Searching Internet directories can also be a useful search technique. Lists other searching engines. Points out a number of evaluations of these search engines published on the WWW. A number of search tools are available for specialized areas. Sites are available that enable parallel searching using several tools at once. Describes WWW pages with information about search engines

Date

1. 8.1996 22:39:31