Search (24 results, page 1 of 2)

0.017620182 = product of:
  0.07048073 = sum of:
    0.07048073 = weight(_text_:social in 5170) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07048073 = score(doc=5170,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.3815443 = fieldWeight in 5170, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5170)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Meho and Tibbo show that the Ellis model of information seeking applies to a web environment by way of a replication of his study in this case using behavior of social science faculty studying stateless nations, a group diverse in skills, origins, and research specialities. Data were collected by way of e-mail interviews. Material on stateless nations was limited to papers in English on social science topics published between 1998 and 2000. Of these 251 had 212 unique authors identified as academic scholars and had sufficient information to provide e-mail addresses. Of the 139 whose addresses were located, 9 who were physically close were reserved for face to face interviews, and of the remainder 60 agreed to participate and responded to the 25 open ended question interview. Follow up questions generated a 75% response. Of the possible face to face interviews five agreed to participate and provided 26 thousand words as opposed to 69 thousand by the 45 e-mail participants. The activities of the Ellis model are confirmed but four additional activities are also identified. These are accessing, i.e. finding the material identified in indirect sources of information; networking, or the maintaining of close contacts with a wide range of colleagues and other human sources; verifying, i.e. checking the accuracy of new information; and information managing, the filing and organizing of collected information. All activities are grouped into four stages searching, accessing, processing, and ending.

0.014386819 = product of:
  0.057547275 = sum of:
    0.057547275 = weight(_text_:social in 4574) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.057547275 = score(doc=4574,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.3115296 = fieldWeight in 4574, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4574)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This study is based an earlier research by the author that employed social judgment analysis (SJA; J. SteflMabry, 2001, 2003) to identify the information judgment preferences held by professional groups. This study explores the extent to which individuals, professional groups, and subgroups are self-aware of their judgment profiles. Three specialized groups of professionals-law enforcement, medicine, and education-were chosen to determine if preference profiles cluster around professions or around demographic and other background variables. As the proliferation of data continues to increase, the need to understand users' media preference and selection decisions is of tremendous value to every industry, governmental agency, and institution of learning. In 1966, H. Menzel first raised concern about the reliability of users' to self-assess, and scientists continue to explore the issue of competency in human judgment. To understand the reliability of users' self-assessment regarding media preferences, this study examines the extent to which individuals and groups are self-aware of the empirical judgment profiles they employ in evaluating information source scenarios. This investigation explores the congruence of three groups of professionals' self-reported media preferences as compared to their empirical judgment values, as defined by social judgment analysis.

0.014386819 = product of:
  0.057547275 = sum of:
    0.057547275 = weight(_text_:social in 4577) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.057547275 = score(doc=4577,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.3115296 = fieldWeight in 4577, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4577)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

To better understand how individuals and groups derive satisfaction from information, it is important to identify the information source preferences they apply in information seeking and decision making. Four informal propositions drove the structure and underlying logic of this study, forming a preliminary outline of a theory of information source preference profiles and their influence an information satisfaction. This study employed Social Judgment Analysis (SJA) to identify the information judgment preferences held by professional groups for six selected information sources: word of mouth, expert oral advice, Internet, print news, nonfiction books, and radio/television news. The research was designed as an hypotheses-generating exploratory study employing a purposive sample (n = 90) and generated four empirically supported, testable hypotheses about user satisfaction with information sources. The SJA judgment functions revealed the influences of volume and polarity (i.e., positive versus negative information) an information satisfaction. By advancing the understanding of how information source preferences can be identified empirically and their influence an information satisfaction, this research reflects a first, small step toward understanding "satisficing." Satisficing behaviors result in early termination of information search processes when individuals, facing incomplete information, are sufficiently satisfied to assume risks and execute decisions.

0.014386819 = product of:
  0.057547275 = sum of:
    0.057547275 = weight(_text_:social in 2458) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.057547275 = score(doc=2458,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.3115296 = fieldWeight in 2458, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2458)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This paper reports on the findings from a longitudinal case study exploring Kuhlthau's information search process (ISP)-model in a group based academic setting. The research focus is on group members' activities and cognitive and emotional experiences during the task process of writing an assignment. It is investigated if group members' information behavior differ from the individual information seeker in the ISP-model and to what extent this behavior is influenced by contextual (work task) and social (group work) factors. Three groups of LIS students were followed during a 14 weeks period in 2004/2005 (10 participants). Quantitative and qualitative methods were employed, such as demographic surveys, process surveys, diaries and interviews. Similarities in behavior were found between group members and the individual in Kuhlthau's ISP-model with regard to the general stages of information seeking, the cognitive pattern associated with focus formulation and the tendency towards an increase in writing activities while searching activities decreased. Differences in behavior were also found, which were associated with contextual and social factors beyond the mere search process. It is concluded that the ISP-model does not fully comply with group members' problem solving process and the involved information seeking behavior. Further, complex academic problem solving seems to be even more complex when it is performed in a group based setting. The study contributes with a new conceptual understanding of students' behavior in small groups.

0.01220762 = product of:
  0.04883048 = sum of:
    0.04883048 = weight(_text_:social in 3821) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04883048 = score(doc=3821,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.26434162 = fieldWeight in 3821, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3821)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Key terms related to information searching and search models are defined. A historic context is provided to illustrate the evolution of the four main digital environments that users interact with in their search process to offer readers background information regarding the transition from manual information systems to computer-based information retrieval (IR) systems, as well as the transition from intermediary searching to end-user searching. Emphasis is placed on the review of different levels of information searching from search tactics/moves, search strategies, and usage patterns, to search models and associated factors in relation to task, user knowledge structure, IR system design, and social-organization context. Search models are further classified into two types, with one type illustrating information search process (ISP) and the other type emphasizing the factors that influence the process. In addition, unsolved problems and future research are discussed and suggested.

0.011509455 = product of:
  0.04603782 = sum of:
    0.04603782 = weight(_text_:social in 971) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04603782 = score(doc=971,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.24922368 = fieldWeight in 971, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=971)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Though much information behaviour takes place in collaborative settings, information behaviour processes are commonly perceived and modelled by information scientists as individual processes. The paper presents and discusses the findings from a qualitative preliminary case study exploring Kuhlthau's Information Search Process (ISP) model in a group-based educational setting. The aim of the study was to explore if members of a group behave differently from the individual modelled in the ISP model and further, if members of a group demonstrate different behaviours or they will assimilate and turn the group into 'an individual', just in another sense. During a project assignment, which lasted seven weeks, two groups of information science students filled out a questionnaire and kept diaries of their activities and information-related behaviour. Further, the students were interviewed three times each during the study. It was found that contextual and social factors seem to affect group members' physical activities and their cognitive and emotional experiences during a project assignment with relevance to information behaviour. Though group members to some extent demonstrated similar cognitive experiences as the individual in the ISP model, these experiences did not only result from information seeking activities but also from work task activities and intragroup interactions. Regarding group members' emotional experiences, no emotional 'turning point' resulting in certainty and relief by the end of the information seeking process was identified. Further, some of the group members still felt uncertain, frustrated and disappointed at the end of the project assignment, which partly was associated with a mis-match in motivations, ambitions and project focus among group members. Regarding the intragroup behaviour, group members did not demonstrate similar behaviours, meaning that 'groups' cannot be perceived or modelled as 'an individual', just in another sense. Groups consist of individuals engaged in and affected by a collaborative problem solving process involving information (seeking) behaviour. A natural extension of the ISP model in relation to group processes is suggested, addressing also the impact of social and contextual factors on the individual's information behaviour.

0.011090445 = product of:
  0.04436178 = sum of:
    0.04436178 = product of:
      0.08872356 = sum of:
        0.08872356 = weight(_text_:aspects in 3819) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08872356 = score(doc=3819,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.20938325 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.42373765 = fieldWeight in 3819, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3819)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The information search process (ISP) is a six-stage model of the users' holistic experience in the process of information seeking. The ISP model, based on two decades of empirical research, identifies three realms of experience: the affective (feelings), the cognitive (thoughts), and the physical (actions) common to each stage. These studies were among the first to investigate the affective aspects or the feelings of a person in the process of information seeking along with the cognitive and physical aspects. Central to the ISP is the notion that uncertainty, both affective and cognitive, increases and decreases in the process of information seeking. A principle of uncertainty for information seeking is proposed that states that information commonly increases uncertainty in the early stages of the search process. Increased uncertainty indicates a zone of intervention for intermediaries and system designers.

0.010983714 = product of:
  0.043934856 = sum of:
    0.043934856 = product of:
      0.08786971 = sum of:
        0.08786971 = weight(_text_:22 in 3924) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08786971 = score(doc=3924,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16222252 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 3924, 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=3924)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Library and information science research. 22(2000) no.4, S.371-382

0.007842129 = product of:
  0.031368516 = sum of:
    0.031368516 = product of:
      0.06273703 = sum of:
        0.06273703 = weight(_text_:aspects in 4288) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06273703 = score(doc=4288,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20938325 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.29962775 = fieldWeight in 4288, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4288)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The rationale for using information systems is to find information that helps us in our daily activities, be they tasks or interests. Systems are expected to support us in searching for and identifying useful information. Although the activities and tasks performed by humans generate information needs and searching, they have attracted little attention in studies of information searching. Such studies have concentrated an search tasks rather than the activities that trigger them. It is obvious that our understanding of information searching is only partial, if we are not able to connect aspects of searching to the related task. The expected contribution of information to the task is reflected in relevance assessments of the information items found, and in the search tactics and use of the system in general. Taking the task into account seems to be a necessary condition for understanding and explaining information searching, and, by extension, for effective systems design.

0.007842129 = product of:
  0.031368516 = sum of:
    0.031368516 = product of:
      0.06273703 = sum of:
        0.06273703 = weight(_text_:aspects in 5245) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06273703 = score(doc=5245,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20938325 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.29962775 = fieldWeight in 5245, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5245)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  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.

0.007842129 = product of:
  0.031368516 = sum of:
    0.031368516 = product of:
      0.06273703 = sum of:
        0.06273703 = weight(_text_:aspects in 2097) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06273703 = score(doc=2097,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20938325 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.29962775 = fieldWeight in 2097, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2097)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This article explores the effects of undergraduate students' mental models of the Web on their online searching behavior. Forty-four undergraduate students, mainly freshmen and sophomores, participated in the study. Subjects' mental models of the Web were treated as equally good styles and operationalized as drawings of their perceptions about the Web. Four types of mental models of the Web were identified based on the drawings and the associated descriptions: technical view, functional view, process view, and connection view. In the study, subjects were required to finish two search tasks. Searching behavior was measured from four aspects: navigation and performance, subjects' feelings about tasks and their own performances, query construction, and search patterns. The four mental model groups showed different navigation and querying behaviors, but the differences were not significant. Subjects' satisfaction with their own performances was found to be significantly correlated with the time to complete the task. The results also showed that the familiarity of the task to subjects had a major effect on their ways to start interaction, query construction, and search patterns.

0.0065351077 = product of:
  0.026140431 = sum of:
    0.026140431 = product of:
      0.052280862 = sum of:
        0.052280862 = weight(_text_:aspects in 200) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.052280862 = score(doc=200,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20938325 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.2496898 = fieldWeight in 200, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=200)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This article compares search effectiveness when using query-based Internet search (via the Google search engine), directory-based search (via Yahoo), and phrase-based query reformulation-assisted search (via the Hyperindex browser) by means of a controlled, user-based experimental study. The focus was to evaluate aspects of the search process. Cognitive load was measured using a secondary digit-monitoring task to quantify the effort of the user in various search states; independent relevance judgements were employed to gauge the quality of the documents accessed during the search process and time was monitored as a function of search state. Results indicated directory-based search does not offer increased relevance over the query-based search (with or without query formulation assistance), and also takes longer. Query reformulation does significantly improve the relevance of the documents through which the user must trawl, particularly when the formulation of query terms is more difficult. However, the improvement in document relevance comes at the cost of increased search time, although this difference is quite small when the search is self-terminated. In addition, the advantage of the query reformulation seems to occur as a consequence of providing more discriminating terms rather than by increasing the length of queries

0.0065351077 = product of:
  0.026140431 = sum of:
    0.026140431 = product of:
      0.052280862 = sum of:
        0.052280862 = weight(_text_:aspects in 4543) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.052280862 = score(doc=4543,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20938325 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.2496898 = fieldWeight in 4543, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4543)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The paper aims to explore the concepts of interaction and interactivity presented in different theoretical models in the fields of human-computer interaction (HCI) and information-seeking/searching behaviour, and to relate these to information retrieval (IR) research. It is suggested that interaction in HCI is primarily concerned with establishing a user/system dialogue at the user interface and does not address the interactive characteristics of IR operational tasks. A distinction is made between general informationseeking models and information-searching models for computerised systems. The former are deemed to provide a useful framework for characterising interaction at the task level, with the structural relationship between tasks as well as the dynamic transition from one task to another being key features of the interactive process. Although the latter are all concerned with how searchers interact with IR systems, each of the models examined represents user interaction at different levels of abstraction. Taken together they provide complementary views of a highly dynamic process. Three principal aspects of interaction are identified and discussed: interaction within and across tasks; the notion of interaction as task sharing; and interaction as a discourse. In conclusion the adoption of an interaction paradigm for IR research is advocated and examples of empirical work for supporting interactive searching and retrieval are provided.

0.0065351077 = product of:
  0.026140431 = sum of:
    0.026140431 = product of:
      0.052280862 = sum of:
        0.052280862 = weight(_text_:aspects in 4915) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.052280862 = score(doc=4915,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20938325 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.2496898 = fieldWeight in 4915, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4915)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

For millennia humans have sought, organized, and used information as they learned and evolved patterns of human information behaviors to resolve their human problems and survive. However, despite the current focus an living in an "information age," we have a limited evolutionary understanding of human information behavior. In this article the authors examine the current three interdisciplinary approaches to conceptualizing how humans have sought information including (a) the everyday life information seeking-sense-making approach, (b) the information foraging approach, and (c) the problem-solution perspective an information seeking approach. In addition, due to the lack of clarity regarding the rote of information use in information behavior, a fourth information approach is provided based an a theory of information use. The use theory proposed starts from an evolutionary psychology notion that humans are able to adapt to their environment and survive because of our modular cognitive architecture. Finally, the authors begin the process of conceptualizing these diverse approaches, and the various aspects or elements of these approaches, within an integrated model with consideration of information use. An initial integrated model of these different approaches with information use is proposed.

0.0065351077 = product of:
  0.026140431 = sum of:
    0.026140431 = product of:
      0.052280862 = sum of:
        0.052280862 = weight(_text_:aspects in 335) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.052280862 = score(doc=335,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20938325 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.2496898 = fieldWeight in 335, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=335)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Previous studies have examined various aspects of user behavior on the Web, including general information-seeking patterns, search engine use, and revisitation habits. Little research has been conducted to study how users navigate and interact with their Web browser across different information-seeking tasks. We have conducted a field study of 21 participants, in which we logged detailed Web usage and asked participants to provide task categorizations of their Web usage based on the following categories: Fact Finding, Information Gathering, Browsing, and Transactions. We used implicit measures logged during each task session to provide usage measures such as dwell time, number of pages viewed, and the use of specific browser navigation mechanisms. We also report on differences in how participants interacted with their Web browser across the range of information-seeking tasks. Within each type of task, we found several distinguishing characteristics. In particular, Information Gathering tasks were the most complex; participants spent more time completing this task, viewed more pages, and used the Web browser functions most heavily during this task. The results of this analysis have been used to provide implications for future support of information seeking on the Web as well as direction for future research in this area.

0.0057547274 = product of:
  0.02301891 = sum of:
    0.02301891 = weight(_text_:social in 312) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02301891 = score(doc=312,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.12461184 = fieldWeight in 312, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=312)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Footnote

Rez. in: nfd - Information Wissenschaft und Praxis 57(2006) H.3, S.177-178 (D. Lewandowski): "Wohl unbestritten ist, dass die Suche in Informationsbeständen eine immer größere Bedeutung erhält. Wir suchen nicht nur noch explizit, indem wir ein Informationssystem anwählen und dort eine Suche absetzen, sondern verwenden Suchfunktionen innerhalb von Programmen, auf Websites, innerhalb des Betriebssystems unseres Computers oder sogar ziemlich unbewusst, indem wir Informationen maßgeschneidert aufgrund einer einmal hinterlegten Suche oder eines automatisch erstellten Suchprofils erhalten. Man kann also in der Tat davon sprechen, dass wir von der Suche umgeben werden. Das ist mit dem Konzept der "Ambient Findability" gemeint. Angelehnt ist diese Bezeichnung an den Begriff der "Ambient Music" (in den 70er Jahren durch Brian Eno geprägt), die den Hörer umgibt und von ihm oft gar nicht aktiv wahrgenommen wird. Um eine Vorstellung von dieser Musik zu bekommen, eignet sich vielleicht am besten der Titel einer Platte eben von Brian Eno: "Music for Airports". Peter Morville, bekannt als Co-Autor des empfehlenswerten Buchs "Information Architecture for the World Wide Web"', hat sich nun mit der Veränderung der Suche auseinandergesetzt. Sein Buch bedient sich in ganz unterschiedlichen Disziplinen, um die Prozesse des Suchens, Stöberns und Findens aufzuzeigen. So finden sich Betrachtungen über die Orientierung des Menschen in unbekannten Umgebungen, über die Interaktion mit Informationssystemen, über das soziale Verhalten der Web-Nutzer (Stichworte: Content-Tagging, Folksonomies, Social Networking) und über technische Veränderungen durch die Verfügbarkeit von Informationssystemen in allen Lebenskontexten, vor allem auch über mobile Endgeräte. Das Buch ist in sieben Kapitel gegliedert. Das erste, "Lost and Found" betitelt, bietet auf wenigen Seiten die Definitionen der zentralen Begriffe ambient und findability, erläutert kurz das Konzept der Information Literacy und zeigt, dass die bessere Auffindbarkeit von Informationen nicht nur ein schöner Zusatznutzen ist, sondern sich für Unternehmen deutlich auszahlt.
Im Kapitel über das "Sociosemantic Web" werden die groben Grundzüge der Klassifikationslehre erläutert, um dann ausführlich auf neuere Ansätze der Web-Erschließung wie Social Tagging und Folksonomies einzugehen. Auch dieses Kapitel gibt eher einen Überblick als den schon Kundigen vertiefende Informationen zu liefern. Das letzte Kapitel widmet sich schließlich der Art, wie Entscheidungen getroffen werden, der Network Culture, dem Information Overload, um schließlich zu den "Inspired Decisions" zu gelangen - Entscheidungen, die sowohl auf "sachlichen Informationen" (also den klassischen Zutaten der "informed decisions") als auch aus aus Netzwerken stammenden Informationen wie etwa Empfehlungen durch Freunde oder Community-Mitglieder irgendeiner Art gewonnen werden. Fasst man zusammen, so ist an Morvilles Text besonders bemerkenswert, dass nach einigen Jahren, in denen die Suche im Web als ein Problem der Suche in unstrukturierten Daten angesehen wurde, nun wieder verstärkt Erschließungsansätze, die auf klassische Erschließungsinstrumente zurückgreifen, propagiert werden. Zwar sollen sie nicht in ihrer ursprünglichen Form angewandt werden, da den Nutzern nicht zuzumuten ist, sich mit den entsprechenden Regeln auseinanderzusetzen, aber auch hinter der auf den ersten Blick zumindest chaotisch wirkenden Folksonomy ist das Prinzip der Klassifikation zu erkennen. Um die modernen Ansätze erfolgreich zu machen, bedarf es aber dringend Information Professionals, die das "beste aus beiden Welten" verbinden, um moderne, für den Nutzer optimale Informationssysteme zu schaffen. Für die Gesamtbewertung des Buchs gelten die bereits zu einzelnen Kapitels angeführten Kritikpunkte: In erster Linie bleibt das Buch zu sehr an der Oberfläche und wirkt irgendwie "zusammengeschrieben" anstatt als Ergebnis der tiefgreifenden Beschäftigung mit dem Thema. Als eine Einführung in aufkommende Technologien rund um die Suche ist es aber durchaus geeignet - gut lesbar ist der Text auf jeden Fall.

0.004707306 = product of:
  0.018829225 = sum of:
    0.018829225 = product of:
      0.03765845 = sum of:
        0.03765845 = weight(_text_:22 in 3450) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03765845 = score(doc=3450,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16222252 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3450, 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=3450)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

10. 4.2005 14:52:22

0.004707306 = product of:
  0.018829225 = sum of:
    0.018829225 = product of:
      0.03765845 = sum of:
        0.03765845 = weight(_text_:22 in 3612) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03765845 = score(doc=3612,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16222252 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3612, 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=3612)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

2. 7.2005 12:22:50

0.004707306 = product of:
  0.018829225 = sum of:
    0.018829225 = product of:
      0.03765845 = sum of:
        0.03765845 = weight(_text_:22 in 5047) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03765845 = score(doc=5047,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16222252 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 5047, 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=5047)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

5. 6.2006 11:22:23

0.004707306 = product of:
  0.018829225 = sum of:
    0.018829225 = product of:
      0.03765845 = sum of:
        0.03765845 = weight(_text_:22 in 331) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03765845 = score(doc=331,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16222252 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 331, 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=331)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

27. 5.2007 13:55:22