Search (3 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × theme_ss:"OPAC"
  • × theme_ss:"Suchmaschinen"
  1. Jansen, B.J.; Pooch , U.: ¬A review of Web searching studies and a framework for future research (2001) 0.01 
    0.014941454 = product of:
  0.11953163 = sum of:
    0.11953163 = weight(_text_:studies in 5186) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11953163 = score(doc=5186,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.75592977 = fieldWeight in 5186, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5186)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)
    Abstract
    Jansen and Pooch review three major search engine studies and compare them to three traditional search system studies and three OPAC search studies, to determine if user search characteristics differ. The web search engine studies indicate that most searchers use two, two search term queries per session, no boolean operators, and look only at the top ten items returned, while reporting the location of relevant information. In traditional search systems we find seven to 16 queries of six to nine terms, while about ten documents per session were viewed. The OPAC studies indicated two to five queries per session of two or less terms, with Boolean search about 1% and less than 50 documents viewed.
  2. Golderman, G.M.; Connolly, B.: Between the book covers : going beyond OPAC keyword searching with the deep linking capabilities of Google Scholar and Google Book Search (2004/05) 0.01 
    0.011708075 = product of:
  0.0468323 = sum of:
    0.033409793 = weight(_text_:libraries in 731) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033409793 = score(doc=731,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13017908 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.25664487 = fieldWeight in 731, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=731)
    0.013422508 = product of:
      0.026845016 = sum of:
        0.026845016 = weight(_text_:22 in 731) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026845016 = score(doc=731,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13876937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03962768 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 731, 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=731)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)
    Abstract
    One finding of the 2006 OCLC study of College Students' Perceptions of Libraries and Information Resources was that students expressed equal levels of trust in libraries and search engines when it came to meeting their information needs in a way that they felt was authoritative. Seeking to incorporate this insight into our own instructional methodology, Schaffer Library at Union College has attempted to engineer a shift from Google to Google Scholar among our student users by representing Scholar as a viable adjunct to the catalog and to snore traditional electronic resources. By attempting to engage student researchers on their own terms, we have discovered that most of them react enthusiastically to the revelation that the Google they think they know so well is, it turns out, a multifaceted resource that is capable of delivering the sort of scholarly information that will meet with their professors' approval. Specifically, this article focuses on the fact that many Google Scholar searches link hack to our own Web catalog where they identify useful book titles that direct OPAC keyword searches have missed.
    Date
    2.12.2007 19:39:22
  3. Markey, K.: Twenty-five years of end-user searching : part 2: future research directions (2007) 0.00 
    0.0043570166 = product of:
  0.034856133 = sum of:
    0.034856133 = weight(_text_:studies in 443) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.034856133 = score(doc=443,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.22043361 = fieldWeight in 443, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=443)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)
    Abstract
    This is the second part of a two-part article that examines 25 years of published research findings on end-user searching of online information retrieval (IR) systems. In Part 1, it was learned that people enter a few short search statements into online IR systems. Their searches do not resemble the systematic approach of expert searchers who use the full range of IR-system functionality. Part 2 picks up the discussion of research findings about end-user searching in the context of current information retrieval models. These models demonstrate that information retrieval is a complex event, involving changes in cognition, feelings, and/or events during the information seeking process. The author challenges IR researchers to design new studies of end-user searching, collecting data not only on system-feature use, but on multiple search sessions and controlling for variables such as domain knowledge expertise and expert system knowledge. Because future IR systems designers are likely to improve the functionality of online IR systems in response to answers to the new research questions posed here, the author concludes with advice to these designers about retaining the simplicity of online IR system interfaces.

Authors