Search (4 results, page 1 of 1)

0.011084656 = product of:
  0.08867725 = sum of:
    0.08867725 = weight(_text_:property in 3620) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08867725 = score(doc=3620,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.25336683 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.335595 = idf(docFreq=212, maxDocs=44218)
          0.039991006 = queryNorm
        0.3499955 = fieldWeight in 3620, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.335595 = idf(docFreq=212, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3620)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to elaborate how source preference criteria are defined in the context of everyday projects that require the seeking of problem-specific information. More specifically, to find out how information seekers explain their preference criteria by characterizing the perceived strengths and weaknesses of diverse sources. Design/methodology/approach - The approach takes the form of qualitative content analysis of empirical data gathered by semi-structured interviews with 16 prospective home buyers in 2008. The source preference criteria were elicited by making use of the construct of information source horizon. Findings - Networked sources were favoured most strongly, followed by printed media, human sources and organizational sources. Content of information was the primary source preference criterion. Availability of information was a fairly important criterion, while user characteristics, usability of information and situational factors were fairly marginal in this regard. In the definition of the preference criteria, more emphasis was placed on the perceived strengths than weaknesses of sources. Positive qualities such as "provides updated information" were referred to particularly while judging the relevance of the networked sources. Negative qualities like "outdated information" were primarily associated with printed media and organizational sources. Research limitations/implications - The study is exploratory, drawing on a relatively small sample recruited through a web-based service. Thus, the findings cannot be generalized to prospective home buyers. Practical implications - Prospective home buyers tend to favour web-based information sources and services. They should provide the customers with detailed information about the property, including photos. Originality/value - The paper specifies the picture of user-defined relevance judgment in the context of everyday life information seeking.

0.0029504993 = product of:
  0.023603994 = sum of:
    0.023603994 = weight(_text_:computer in 2319) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023603994 = score(doc=2319,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1461475 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.039991006 = queryNorm
        0.16150802 = fieldWeight in 2319, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2319)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to specify the role of emotions played in information seeking and sharing taking place in online discussion forum. To this end, an explorative study was made that focussed on consumer awareness. Design/methodology/approach - The study is based on the analysis of a sample of 30 discussion threads containing altogether 1,630 messages available in Canadian Content - a major online platform. The expression of emotions was examined by using the categories of the interaction process analysis (IPA) model. Two research questions were addressed: first, what kind of emotions are expressed in the four functional areas of the IPA model when discussing online about consumer awareness? and second, what is the role of positive and negative emotions in information seeking and sharing about the above topic? The data were analyzed by means of descriptive statistics and qualitative content analysis. Findings - Of the emotional expressions, 42 percent were positive and 58 percent negative. The most frequent emotions were amusement, contempt, worry, irritation and pleasure. The frequencies of positive and emotional expressions varied in the context of 12 IPA categories. Positive emotions predominated when participants showed solidarity or agreed, while negative emotions were particularly prevalent when indicating antagonism. The repertoire of positive and negative emotions was broadest while providing opinions or sharing information with others. In contrast, emotions were expressed rarely in the context of information seeking. Research limitations/implications - The study is explorative in nature and the findings are based on the examination of an online discussion group focussed on the issues of consumer awareness. Originality/value - The study contributes to the study of affective factors in computer-mediated interaction by empirically specifying the repertoire of positive and negative emotions expressed in online discussion.

0.0016931967 = product of:
  0.013545574 = sum of:
    0.013545574 = product of:
      0.027091147 = sum of:
        0.027091147 = weight(_text_:22 in 3713) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027091147 = score(doc=3713,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1400417 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.039991006 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 3713, 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=3713)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.0016931967 = product of:
  0.013545574 = sum of:
    0.013545574 = product of:
      0.027091147 = sum of:
        0.027091147 = weight(_text_:22 in 5498) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027091147 = score(doc=5498,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1400417 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.039991006 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5498, 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=5498)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22