Search (9 results, page 1 of 1)

0.047584746 = product of:
  0.19033898 = sum of:
    0.19033898 = product of:
      0.38067797 = sum of:
        0.38067797 = weight(_text_:blogs in 193) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.38067797 = score(doc=193,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.31091204 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.926203 = idf(docFreq=117, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04488925 = queryNorm
            1.2243912 = fieldWeight in 193, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.926203 = idf(docFreq=117, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=193)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

0.025756003 = product of:
  0.10302401 = sum of:
    0.10302401 = product of:
      0.20604803 = sum of:
        0.20604803 = weight(_text_:blogs in 1863) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.20604803 = score(doc=1863,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.31091204 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.926203 = idf(docFreq=117, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04488925 = queryNorm
            0.6627213 = fieldWeight in 1863, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              6.926203 = idf(docFreq=117, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1863)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Blogs that cite academic articles have emerged as a potential source of alternative impact metrics for the visibility of the blogged articles. Nevertheless, to evaluate more fully the value of blog citations, it is necessary to investigate whether research blogs focus on particular types of articles or give new perspectives on scientific discourse. Therefore, we studied the characteristics of peer-reviewed references in blogs and the typical content of blog posts to gain insight into bloggers' motivations. The sample consisted of 391 blog posts from 2010 to 2012 in Researchblogging.org's health category. The bloggers mostly cited recent research articles or reviews from top multidisciplinary and general medical journals. Using content analysis methods, we created a general classification scheme for blog post content with 10 major topic categories, each with several subcategories. The results suggest that health research bloggers rarely self-cite and that the vast majority of their blog posts (90%) include a general discussion of the issue covered in the article, with more than one quarter providing health-related advice based on the article(s) covered. These factors suggest a genuine attempt to engage with a wider, nonacademic audience. Nevertheless, almost 30% of the posts included some criticism of the issues being discussed.

0.025235623 = product of:
  0.10094249 = sum of:
    0.10094249 = product of:
      0.20188498 = sum of:
        0.20188498 = weight(_text_:blogs in 1258) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.20188498 = score(doc=1258,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.31091204 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.926203 = idf(docFreq=117, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04488925 = queryNorm
            0.6493315 = fieldWeight in 1258, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              6.926203 = idf(docFreq=117, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1258)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Journal-based citations are an important source of data for impact indices. However, the impact of journal articles extends beyond formal scholarly discourse. Measuring online scholarly impact calls for new indices, complementary to the older ones. This article examines a possible alternative metric source, blog posts aggregated at ResearchBlogging.org, which discuss peer-reviewed articles and provide full bibliographic references. Articles reviewed in these blogs therefore receive "blog citations." We hypothesized that articles receiving blog citations close to their publication time receive more journal citations later than the articles in the same journal published in the same year that did not receive such blog citations. Statistically significant evidence for articles published in 2009 and 2010 support this hypothesis for seven of 12 journals (58%) in 2009 and 13 of 19 journals (68%) in 2010. We suggest, based on these results, that blog citations can be used as an alternative metric source.

0.014870233 = product of:
  0.05948093 = sum of:
    0.05948093 = product of:
      0.11896186 = sum of:
        0.11896186 = weight(_text_:blogs in 6104) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11896186 = score(doc=6104,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.31091204 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.926203 = idf(docFreq=117, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04488925 = queryNorm
            0.38262224 = fieldWeight in 6104, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.926203 = idf(docFreq=117, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6104)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The World Wide Web has become one of our more important information sources, and commercial search engines are the major tools for locating information; however, it is not enough for a Web page to be indexed by the search engines-it also must rank high on relevant queries. One of the parameters involved in ranking is the number and quality of links pointing to the page, based on the assumption that links convey appreciation for a page. This article presents the results of a content analysis of the links to two top pages retrieved by Google for the query "jew" as of July 2004: the "jew" entry on the free online encyclopedia Wikipedia, and the home page of "Jew Watch," a highly anti-Semitic site. The top results for the query "jew" gained public attention in April 2004, when it was noticed that the "Jew Watch" homepage ranked number 1. From this point on, both sides engaged in "Googlebombing" (i.e., increasing the number of links pointing to these pages). The results of the study show that most of the links to these pages come from blogs and discussion links, and the number of links pointing to these pages in appreciation of their content is extremely small. These findings have implications for ranking algorithms based on link counts, and emphasize the huge difference between Web links and citations in the scientific community.

0.0138701 = product of:
  0.0554804 = sum of:
    0.0554804 = weight(_text_:communication in 4271) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0554804 = score(doc=4271,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19382635 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.317879 = idf(docFreq=1601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04488925 = queryNorm
        0.28623766 = fieldWeight in 4271, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.317879 = idf(docFreq=1601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4271)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The World Wide Web was created in 1989, but it has already become a major information channel and source, influencing our everyday lives, commercial transactions, and scientific communication, to mention just a few areas. The seventeenth-century philosopher Descartes proclaimed, "I think, therefore I am" (cogito, ergo sum). Today the Web is such an integral part of our lives that we could rephrase Descartes' statement as "I have a Web presence, therefore I am." Because many people, companies, and organizations take this notion seriously, in addition to more substantial reasons for publishing information an the Web, the number of Web pages is in the billions and growing constantly. However, it is not sufficient to have a Web presence; tools that enable users to locate Web pages are needed as well. The major tools for discovering and locating information an the Web are search engines. This review discusses the use of Web search engines in information science research. Before going into detail, we should define the terms "information science," "Web search engine," and "use" in the context of this review.

0.011558416 = product of:
  0.046233665 = sum of:
    0.046233665 = weight(_text_:communication in 3089) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.046233665 = score(doc=3089,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19382635 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.317879 = idf(docFreq=1601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04488925 = queryNorm
        0.23853138 = fieldWeight in 3089, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.317879 = idf(docFreq=1601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3089)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The universe of information has been enriched by the creation of the World Wide Web, which has become an indispensible source for research. Since this source is growing at an enormous speed, an in-depth look of its performance to create a method for its evaluation has become necessary; however, growth is not the only process that influences the evolution of the Web. During their lifetime, Web pages may change their content and links to/from other Web pages, be duplicated or moved to a different URL, be removed from the Web either temporarily or permanently, and be temporarily inaccessible due to server and/or communication failures. To obtain a better understanding of these processes, we developed a method for tracking topics on the Web for long periods of time, without the need to employ a crawler and relying only on publicly available resources. The multiple data-collection methods used allow us to discover new pages related to the topic, to identify changes to existing pages, and to detect previously existing pages that have been removed or whose content is not relevant anymore to the specified topic. The method is demonstrated through monitoring Web pages that contain the term informetrics for a period of 8 years. The data-collection method also allowed us to analyze the dynamic changes in search engine coverage, illustrated here on Google - the search engine used for the longest period of time for data collection in this project.

0.003801171 = product of:
  0.015204684 = sum of:
    0.015204684 = product of:
      0.030409368 = sum of:
        0.030409368 = weight(_text_:22 in 3364) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030409368 = score(doc=3364,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1571945 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04488925 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 3364, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3364)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.0030409365 = product of:
  0.012163746 = sum of:
    0.012163746 = product of:
      0.024327492 = sum of:
        0.024327492 = weight(_text_:22 in 1634) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024327492 = score(doc=1634,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1571945 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04488925 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 1634, 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=1634)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.0030409365 = product of:
  0.012163746 = sum of:
    0.012163746 = product of:
      0.024327492 = sum of:
        0.024327492 = weight(_text_:22 in 3071) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024327492 = score(doc=3071,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1571945 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04488925 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 3071, 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=3071)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22