Search (116 results, page 1 of 6)

0.044312872 = product of:
  0.088625744 = sum of:
    0.088625744 = sum of:
      0.04620442 = weight(_text_:systems in 2717) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04620442 = score(doc=2717,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052184064 = queryNorm
          0.28811008 = fieldWeight in 2717, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2717)
      0.042421322 = weight(_text_:22 in 2717) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042421322 = score(doc=2717,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052184064 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2717, 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=2717)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Previous work an search-engine design has indicated that information-seekers may benefit from being given the opportunity to exploit multiple sources of evidence of document relatedness. Few existing systems, however, give users more than minimal control over the selections that may be made among methods of exploitation. By applying the methods of "document network analysis" (DNA), a unifying, graph-theoretic model of content-, collaboration-, and context-based systems (CCC) may be developed in which the nature of the similarities between types of document relatedness and document ranking are clarified. The usefulness of the approach to system design suggested by this model may be tested by constructing and evaluating a prototype system (UCXtra) that allows searchers to maintain control over the multiple ways in which document collections may be ranked and re-ranked.

Date

11. 9.2004 17:32:22

0.043804124 = product of:
  0.08760825 = sum of:
    0.08760825 = sum of:
      0.038116705 = weight(_text_:systems in 3276) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.038116705 = score(doc=3276,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052184064 = queryNorm
          0.23767869 = fieldWeight in 3276, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3276)
      0.049491543 = weight(_text_:22 in 3276) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.049491543 = score(doc=3276,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052184064 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 3276, 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=3276)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Im Rahmen des klassischen Information Retrieval wurden verschiedene Verfahren für das Ranking sowie die Suche in einer homogenen strukturlosen Dokumentenmenge entwickelt. Die Erfolge der Suchmaschine Google haben gezeigt dass die Suche in einer zwar inhomogenen aber zusammenhängenden Dokumentenmenge wie dem Internet unter Berücksichtigung der Dokumentenverbindungen (Links) sehr effektiv sein kann. Unter den von der Suchmaschine Google realisierten Konzepten ist ein Verfahren zum Ranking von Suchergebnissen (PageRank), das in diesem Artikel kurz erklärt wird. Darüber hinaus wird auf die Konzepte eines Systems namens CiteSeer eingegangen, welches automatisch bibliographische Angaben indexiert (engl. Autonomous Citation Indexing, ACI). Letzteres erzeugt aus einer Menge von nicht vernetzten wissenschaftlichen Dokumenten eine zusammenhängende Dokumentenmenge und ermöglicht den Einsatz von Banking-Verfahren, die auf den von Google genutzten Verfahren basieren.

Date

20. 3.2005 16:23:22

0.036927395 = product of:
  0.07385479 = sum of:
    0.07385479 = sum of:
      0.038503684 = weight(_text_:systems in 5288) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.038503684 = score(doc=5288,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052184064 = queryNorm
          0.24009174 = fieldWeight in 5288, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5288)
      0.0353511 = weight(_text_:22 in 5288) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0353511 = score(doc=5288,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052184064 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5288, 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=5288)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 7.2006 17:14:12

0.03300332 = product of:
  0.06600664 = sum of:
    0.06600664 = sum of:
      0.037725754 = weight(_text_:systems in 1188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.037725754 = score(doc=1188,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052184064 = queryNorm
          0.2352409 = fieldWeight in 1188, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1188)
      0.028280882 = weight(_text_:22 in 1188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.028280882 = score(doc=1188,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052184064 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 1188, 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=1188)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Surfing the World Wide Web used to be cool, dude, real cool. But things have gotten hot - so hot that finding something useful an the Web is no longer cool. It is suffocating Web searchers in the smoke and debris of mountain-sized lists of hits, decisions about which search engines they should use, whether they will get lost in the dizzying maze of a subject directory, use the right syntax for the search engine at hand, enter keywords that are likely to retrieve hits an the topics they have in mind, or enlist a browser that has sufficient functionality to display the most promising hits. When it comes to Web searching, in a few short years we have gone from the cool image of surfing the Web into the frying pan of searching the Web. We can turn down the heat by rethinking what Web searchers are doing and introduce some order into the chaos. Web search strategies that are tool-based-oriented to specific Web searching tools such as search en gines, subject directories, and meta search engines-have been widely promoted, and these strategies are just not working. It is time to dissect what Web searching tools expect from searchers and adjust our search strategies to these new tools. This discussion offers Web searchers help in the form of search strategies that are based an strategies that librarians have been using for a long time to search commercial information retrieval systems like Dialog, NEXIS, Wilsonline, FirstSearch, and Data-Star.

Content

"Web searching is different from searching commercial IR systems. We can learn from search strategies recommended for searching IR systems, but most won't be effective for Web searching. Web searchers need strate gies that let search engines do the job they were designed to do. This article presents six new Web searching strategies that do just that."

Date

22. 9.1997 19:16:05

0.029541915 = product of:
  0.05908383 = sum of:
    0.05908383 = sum of:
      0.030802948 = weight(_text_:systems in 5285) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.030802948 = score(doc=5285,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052184064 = queryNorm
          0.19207339 = fieldWeight in 5285, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5285)
      0.028280882 = weight(_text_:22 in 5285) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.028280882 = score(doc=5285,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052184064 = 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)

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

0.028280882 = product of:
  0.056561764 = sum of:
    0.056561764 = product of:
      0.11312353 = sum of:
        0.11312353 = weight(_text_:22 in 4686) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11312353 = score(doc=4686,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 4686, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=4686)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

27.11.2005 18:04:22

0.024997003 = product of:
  0.049994007 = sum of:
    0.049994007 = product of:
      0.09998801 = sum of:
        0.09998801 = weight(_text_:22 in 4872) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09998801 = score(doc=4872,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = 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(1/2)

Date

22. 6.2002 19:40:22

0.024745772 = product of:
  0.049491543 = sum of:
    0.049491543 = product of:
      0.09898309 = sum of:
        0.09898309 = weight(_text_:22 in 3445) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09898309 = score(doc=3445,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 3445, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=3445)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

25. 8.2005 17:42:22

0.024745772 = product of:
  0.049491543 = sum of:
    0.049491543 = product of:
      0.09898309 = sum of:
        0.09898309 = weight(_text_:22 in 844) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09898309 = score(doc=844,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 844, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=844)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

7. 6.2008 16:22:20

0.019305056 = product of:
  0.038610112 = sum of:
    0.038610112 = sum of:
      0.013613109 = weight(_text_:systems in 2324) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.013613109 = score(doc=2324,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052184064 = queryNorm
          0.08488525 = fieldWeight in 2324, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
            0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=2324)
      0.024997003 = weight(_text_:22 in 2324) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.024997003 = score(doc=2324,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052184064 = queryNorm
          0.13679022 = fieldWeight in 2324, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=2324)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

In ihrer Garage also bauten die zwei ihre ersten Rechner auf, gebrauchte, die sie bei Frys, dem großen ElektronikDiscounter im Silicon Valley, billig gekauft hatten. Und sie luden die Maschinen mit kostenloser Software wie dem Betriebssystem Linux. Hinzu kam die von Page und Brins ausgetüftelte Google-Suchtechnik. Ihr zugrunde liegt die Überlegung, dass gute und wichtige Webseiten die sind, auf die oft verwiesen wird. Also schaffen es nur solche unter die Top Ten, die von möglichst vielen Links empfohlen worden sind (siehe Stichwort Suchmethode). Natürlich lädt auch dieses Systems zu Tricksereien ein. Allein in Deutschland, so schätzen Kenner der Szene, gibt es rund 100 Profis, die sich darauf spezialisiert haben, die Google-Ergebnisse zu fälschen: Suchmaschinenoptimierer nennen sie sich. Schon wenn 50 Internetseiten sich gezenseitig empfehlen, so heißt es, steige man bei den Google-Suchlisten weit nach oben. Die Garagen-Zeiten sind bei Google längst vorbei, der lässig studentische Charme soll geblieben sein, berichten Besucher von Mountain View, dem Gewerbegebiet eine Autostunde von San Francisco entfernt, besser bekannt als Silicon Valley. Dort, hinter der hellgelben Fassade eines zweitstöckigen Fabrikgebäudes, arbeiten mittlerweile 1000 Mitarbeiter aus 34 Ländern. Darunter auch Informatiker, die ausschließlich versuchen, den Suchmaschinenoptimierern immer neue Hürden zu bauen. Die beiden Zentralrechner allerdings, zusammengesetzt aus 10 000 Einzelrechnern, befinden sich woanders. Einer an der Ost-, derandere an der Westküste der USA. Die genauen Standorte werden nicht verraten. Aus Angst vor Sabotageakten. Einen dritten soll es demnächstin Irland geben. Alles schön und gut. Aber an Kreativltät hatte es Internet-Firmen meist nicht gefehlt, sondern an Einnahmen. Auch bei Google lief es zunächst schleppend. Doch Brin und Page konnten wenigstens ihre Suchtechnik verkaufen. Dann verfielen sie auf eine weitere Idee. Statt irgendwelcher Werbebotschaften, bemüht sich Google die zum Inhalt der Seite passenden zu platzieren. Wer also "Neuwagen" eintippt, soll eben auch Neuwagenwerbung auf seinem Schirm finden. Klickt er die auch noch an, verdient Google Geld. Die meisten Anzeigen bringen pro Klick zwar zuweilen nur 0,05 Cent, doch das läppert sich.

Date

3. 5.1997 8:44:22
13. 6.2004 14:34:22

0.01767555 = product of:
  0.0353511 = sum of:
    0.0353511 = product of:
      0.0707022 = sum of:
        0.0707022 = weight(_text_:22 in 4878) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0707022 = score(doc=4878,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 4878, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4878)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 6.2002 19:41:31

0.01767555 = product of:
  0.0353511 = sum of:
    0.0353511 = product of:
      0.0707022 = sum of:
        0.0707022 = weight(_text_:22 in 4884) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0707022 = score(doc=4884,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 4884, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4884)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

9. 7.2000 14:06:22

0.01767555 = product of:
  0.0353511 = sum of:
    0.0353511 = product of:
      0.0707022 = sum of:
        0.0707022 = weight(_text_:22 in 5541) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0707022 = score(doc=5541,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 5541, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=5541)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

18. 1.1997 12:15:22

0.01767555 = product of:
  0.0353511 = sum of:
    0.0353511 = product of:
      0.0707022 = sum of:
        0.0707022 = weight(_text_:22 in 6835) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0707022 = score(doc=6835,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 6835, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=6835)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

11.11.2001 17:25:22

0.01767555 = product of:
  0.0353511 = sum of:
    0.0353511 = product of:
      0.0707022 = sum of:
        0.0707022 = weight(_text_:22 in 568) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0707022 = score(doc=568,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 568, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=568)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

9. 5.2002 21:21:22

0.016672583 = product of:
  0.033345167 = sum of:
    0.033345167 = product of:
      0.06669033 = sum of:
        0.06669033 = weight(_text_:systems in 648) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06669033 = score(doc=648,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.41585106 = fieldWeight in 648, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=648)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of the study was to compare an internet search engine, Google, with appropriate library databases and systems, in order to assess the relative value, strengths and weaknesses of the two sorts of system. Design/methodology/approach - A case study approach was used, with detailed analysis and failure checking of results. The performance of the two systems was assessed in terms of coverage, unique records, precision, and quality and accessibility of results. A novel form of relevance assessment, based on the work of Saracevic and others was devised. Findings - Google is superior for coverage and accessibility. Library systems are superior for quality of results. Precision is similar for both systems. Good coverage requires use of both, as both have many unique items. Improving the skills of the searcher is likely to give better results from the library systems, but not from Google. Research limitations/implications - Only four case studies were included. These were limited to the kind of queries likely to be searched by university students. Library resources were limited to those in two UK academic libraries. Only the basic Google web search functionality was used, and only the top ten records examined. Practical implications - The results offer guidance for those providing support and training for use of these retrieval systems, and also provide evidence for debates on the "Google phenomenon". Originality/value - This is one of the few studies which provide evidence on the relative performance of internet search engines and library databases, and the only one to conduct such in-depth case studies. The method for the assessment of relevance is novel.

0.01633573 = product of:
  0.03267146 = sum of:
    0.03267146 = product of:
      0.06534292 = sum of:
        0.06534292 = weight(_text_:systems in 484) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06534292 = score(doc=484,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.4074492 = fieldWeight in 484, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=484)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

LCSH

Business Information Systems
Information Systems Applications (incl.Internet)

Subject

Business Information Systems
Information Systems Applications (incl.Internet)

0.014147157 = product of:
  0.028294314 = sum of:
    0.028294314 = product of:
      0.056588627 = sum of:
        0.056588627 = weight(_text_:systems in 1005) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.056588627 = score(doc=1005,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.35286134 = fieldWeight in 1005, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1005)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The dominant method currently used to improve the quality of Internet search systems is often called "digital democracy." Such an approach implies the utilization of the majority opinion of Internet users to determine the most relevant documents: for example, citation index usage for sorting of search results (google.com) or an enrichment of a query with terms that are asked frequently in relation with the query's theme. "Digital democracy" is an effective instrument in many cases, but it has an unavoidable shortcoming, which is a matter of principle: the average intellectual and cultural level of Internet users is very low- everyone knows what kind of information is dominant in Internet query statistics. Therefore, when one searches the Internet by means of "digital democracy" systems, one gets answers that reflect an underlying assumption that the user's mind potential is very low, and that his cultural interests are not demanding. Thus, it is more correct to use the term "digital ochlocracy" to refer to Internet search systems with "digital democracy." Based an the well-known mathematical mechanism of linear programming, we propose a method to solve the indicated problem.

0.014140441 = product of:
  0.028280882 = sum of:
    0.028280882 = product of:
      0.056561764 = sum of:
        0.056561764 = weight(_text_:22 in 4867) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.056561764 = score(doc=4867,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 4867, 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=4867)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 6.2002 19:38:24

0.014140441 = product of:
  0.028280882 = sum of:
    0.028280882 = product of:
      0.056561764 = sum of:
        0.056561764 = weight(_text_:22 in 4869) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.056561764 = score(doc=4869,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 4869, 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=4869)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 6.2002 19:39:23