Search (6 results, page 1 of 1)

0.047336154 = product of:
  0.18934461 = sum of:
    0.18934461 = weight(_text_:assisted in 5245) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.18934461 = score(doc=5245,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.29897895 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.7552447 = idf(docFreq=139, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04425879 = queryNorm
        0.6333042 = fieldWeight in 5245, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          6.7552447 = idf(docFreq=139, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5245)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Given that time is money, Web searching can be a very expensive proposition. Even with the best search technology, the usefulness of search results depends on the searcher's ability to use that technology effectively. In an effort to improve this ability, our research investigates the effects of logic training, interface training, and the type of search interface on the search process. In a study with 145 participants, we found that even limited training in basic Boolean logic improved performance with a simple search interface. Surprisingly, for users of an interface that assisted them in forming syntactically correct Boolean queries, performance was negatively affected by logic training and unaffected by interface training. Use of the assisted interface itself, however, resulted in strong improvements in performance over use of the simple interface. In addition to being useful for search engine providers, these findings are important for all companies that rely heavily on search for critical aspects of their operations, in that they demonstrate simple means by which the search experience can be improved for their employees and customers.

0.012917642 = product of:
  0.051670566 = sum of:
    0.051670566 = product of:
      0.10334113 = sum of:
        0.10334113 = weight(_text_:instruction in 2131) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10334113 = score(doc=2131,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.26266864 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.934836 = idf(docFreq=317, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04425879 = queryNorm
            0.39342776 = fieldWeight in 2131, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.934836 = idf(docFreq=317, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2131)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Reports results of a study, conducted at Hawaii University, Department of Information and Computer Science, to understand the novide searchers' experience in learning to use a WWW search engine. Without prior searching instruction, undergraduate novives wrote structured self reports during their first session on a Web search engine. Users choose their own topics and followed written instructions that prompted them to describe thoughts and feelings during specified stages of the search; pre search formulation; search statement formulation; search strategy; and evaluation of the results. The sentences in the self reports were numbered and then coded according to their affective or cognitive function. The affective sentences reveal how users set goals and limit the scope of the cognitive operations. Search acts appear to be governed by an affective filter that organizes incoming information and provides criteria for ranking cognitive relevance to search goal. Content analysis identifies reasons users have for rating self confidence, stress level, satisfaction, usefulness, and success with future searches

0.004497341 = product of:
  0.017989364 = sum of:
    0.017989364 = product of:
      0.035978727 = sum of:
        0.035978727 = weight(_text_:22 in 197) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035978727 = score(doc=197,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15498674 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04425879 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

2. 6.2005 10:34:22

0.004497341 = product of:
  0.017989364 = sum of:
    0.017989364 = product of:
      0.035978727 = sum of:
        0.035978727 = weight(_text_:22 in 5228) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035978727 = score(doc=5228,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15498674 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04425879 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 5228, 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=5228)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Bilal, in this third part of her Yahooligans! study looks at children's performance with self-generated search tasks, as compared to previously assigned search tasks looking for differences in success, cognitive behavior, physical behavior, and task preference. Lotus ScreenCam was used to record interactions and post search interviews to record impressions. The subjects, the same 22 seventh grade children in the previous studies, generated topics of interest that were mediated with the researcher into more specific topics where necessary. Fifteen usable sessions form the basis of the study. Eleven children were successful in finding information, a rate of 73% compared to 69% in assigned research questions, and 50% in assigned fact-finding questions. Eighty-seven percent began using one or two keyword searches. Spelling was a problem. Successful children made fewer keyword searches and the number of search moves averaged 5.5 as compared to 2.4 on the research oriented task and 3.49 on the factual. Backtracking and looping were common. The self-generated task was preferred by 47% of the subjects.

0.0037477845 = product of:
  0.014991138 = sum of:
    0.014991138 = product of:
      0.029982276 = sum of:
        0.029982276 = weight(_text_:22 in 2117) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029982276 = score(doc=2117,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15498674 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04425879 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2117, 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=2117)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

24. 1.2004 18:27:22

0.0037477845 = product of:
  0.014991138 = sum of:
    0.014991138 = product of:
      0.029982276 = sum of:
        0.029982276 = weight(_text_:22 in 1177) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029982276 = score(doc=1177,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15498674 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04425879 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1177, 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=1177)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

26. 1.2014 18:48:22