Search (15 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Saracevic, T."
  1. Brenner, E.H.; Saracevic, T.: Indexing and searching in perspective (1985) 0.05
    0.048570268 = product of:
      0.097140536 = sum of:
        0.097140536 = product of:
          0.19428107 = sum of:
            0.19428107 = weight(_text_:searching in 8129) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.19428107 = score(doc=8129,freq=6.0), product of:
                0.2091384 = queryWeight, product of:
                  4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.051699217 = queryNorm
                0.92895937 = fieldWeight in 8129, product of:
                  2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                    6.0 = termFreq=6.0
                  4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=8129)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    LCSH
    Online bibliographic searching
    Subject
    Online bibliographic searching
  2. Saracevic, T.; Kantor, P.: Online searching : still an imprecise art (1991) 0.03
    0.03304788 = product of:
      0.06609576 = sum of:
        0.06609576 = product of:
          0.13219152 = sum of:
            0.13219152 = weight(_text_:searching in 4843) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.13219152 = score(doc=4843,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.2091384 = queryWeight, product of:
                  4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.051699217 = queryNorm
                0.6320768 = fieldWeight in 4843, product of:
                  2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                    4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                  4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4843)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    Summarises the results of a research project which investigated the human decision making and user-system interactions which take place during online searching. Searches were carried out by professional searchers using DIALOG databases, and rated for relevance, precision and recall
  3. Saracevic, T.: Information retrieval (1985) 0.03
    0.03271573 = product of:
      0.06543146 = sum of:
        0.06543146 = product of:
          0.13086292 = sum of:
            0.13086292 = weight(_text_:searching in 3302) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.13086292 = score(doc=3302,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.2091384 = queryWeight, product of:
                  4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.051699217 = queryNorm
                0.6257241 = fieldWeight in 3302, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=3302)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Source
    Indexing and searching in perspective. Ed.: E.H. Brenner u. T. Saracevic
  4. Wolfram, D.; Spink, A.; Jansen, B.J.; Saracevic, T.: Vox populi : the public searching of the Web (2001) 0.03
    0.028042056 = product of:
      0.05608411 = sum of:
        0.05608411 = product of:
          0.11216822 = sum of:
            0.11216822 = weight(_text_:searching in 6949) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.11216822 = score(doc=6949,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.2091384 = queryWeight, product of:
                  4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.051699217 = queryNorm
                0.53633493 = fieldWeight in 6949, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6949)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
  5. Saracevic, T.: Individual differences in organizing, searching and retrieving information (1991) 0.03
    0.026438305 = product of:
      0.05287661 = sum of:
        0.05287661 = product of:
          0.10575322 = sum of:
            0.10575322 = weight(_text_:searching in 3692) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.10575322 = score(doc=3692,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.2091384 = queryWeight, product of:
                  4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.051699217 = queryNorm
                0.5056614 = fieldWeight in 3692, product of:
                  2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                    4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                  4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3692)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    Synthesises the major findings of several decades of research into the magnitude of individual deffirences in information retrieval related tasks and suggests implications for practice and design. The study is related to a series of studies of human aspects and cognitive decision making in information seeking, searching and retrieving
  6. Saracevic, T.: Indexing, searching, and relevance (1989) 0.03
    0.026438305 = product of:
      0.05287661 = sum of:
        0.05287661 = product of:
          0.10575322 = sum of:
            0.10575322 = weight(_text_:searching in 3615) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.10575322 = score(doc=3615,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.2091384 = queryWeight, product of:
                  4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.051699217 = queryNorm
                0.5056614 = fieldWeight in 3615, product of:
                  2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                    4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                  4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3615)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Footnote
    "As noted by many critics, the present design of online subject access, be it through library catalogs or online retrieval systems, does not accomodate human variability in searching (or indexing). This calls for radically different design principles and inplementations ir order to accomodate the observed patterns, interactions,and differences in human information behavior, of which the overlap findings are one of the important manifestations" (S.107)
  7. Spink, A.; Wolfram, D.; Jansen, B.J.; Saracevic, T.: Searching the Web : the public and their queries (2001) 0.03
    0.026438305 = product of:
      0.05287661 = sum of:
        0.05287661 = product of:
          0.10575322 = sum of:
            0.10575322 = weight(_text_:searching in 6980) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.10575322 = score(doc=6980,freq=16.0), product of:
                0.2091384 = queryWeight, product of:
                  4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.051699217 = queryNorm
                0.5056614 = fieldWeight in 6980, product of:
                  4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                    16.0 = termFreq=16.0
                  4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=6980)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    In previous articles, we reported the state of Web searching in 1997 (Jansen, Spink, & Saracevic, 2000) and in 1999 (Spink, Wolfram, Jansen, & Saracevic, 2001). Such snapshot studies and statistics on Web use appear regularly (OCLC, 1999), but provide little information about Web searching trends. In this article, we compare and contrast results from our two previous studies of Excite queries' data sets, each containing over 1 million queries submitted by over 200,000 Excite users collected on 16 September 1997 and 20 December 1999. We examine how public Web searching changing during that 2-year time period. As Table 1 shows, the overall structure of Web queries in some areas did not change, while in others we see change from 1997 to 1999. Our comparison shows how Web searching changed incrementally and also dramatically. We see some moves toward greater simplicity, including shorter queries (i.e., fewer terms) and shorter sessions (i.e., fewer queries per user), with little modification (addition or deletion) of terms in subsequent queries. The trend toward shorter queries suggests that Web information content should target specific terms in order to reach Web users. Another trend was to view fewer pages of results per query. Most Excite users examined only one page of results per query, since an Excite results page contains ten ranked Web sites. Were users satisfied with the results and did not need to view more pages? It appears that the public continues to have a low tolerance of wading through retrieved sites. This decline in interactivity levels is a disturbing finding for the future of Web searching. Queries that included Boolean operators were in the minority, but the percentage increased between the two time periods. Most Boolean use involved the AND operator with many mistakes. The use of relevance feedback almost doubled from 1997 to 1999, but overall use was still small. An unusually large number of terms were used with low frequency, such as personal names, spelling errors, non-English words, and Web-specific terms, such as URLs. Web query vocabulary contains more words than found in large English texts in general. The public language of Web queries has its own and unique characteristics. How did Web searching topics change from 1997 to 1999? We classified a random sample of 2,414 queries from 1997 and 2,539 queries from 1999 into 11 categories (Table 2). From 1997 to 1999, Web searching shifted from entertainment, recreation and sex, and pornography, preferences to e-commerce-related topics under commerce, travel, employment, and economy. This shift coincided with changes in information distribution on the publicly indexed Web.
  8. Spink, A.; Saracevic, T.: Sources and use of search terms in online searching (1992) 0.02
    0.023133516 = product of:
      0.046267033 = sum of:
        0.046267033 = product of:
          0.092534065 = sum of:
            0.092534065 = weight(_text_:searching in 4523) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.092534065 = score(doc=4523,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.2091384 = queryWeight, product of:
                  4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.051699217 = queryNorm
                0.44245374 = fieldWeight in 4523, product of:
                  2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                    4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                  4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4523)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    Reports selected results from a larger study whose objectives are to observe, under real life conditions, the nature and patterns of interaction between users, intermediaries, and computer sysrtems in the context of online information searching and retrieval. Reports various analyses on the relation of search term sources and the retrieval of items judges as to their relevance. While the users generated the largest proportion of search terms (61%) which were responsible for 68% of retrieved items judges relevant, other sources in the interaction process played an important role
  9. Spink, A.; Saracevic, T.: Search term selection during mediated online searching (1993) 0.02
    0.023133516 = product of:
      0.046267033 = sum of:
        0.046267033 = product of:
          0.092534065 = sum of:
            0.092534065 = weight(_text_:searching in 7824) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.092534065 = score(doc=7824,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.2091384 = queryWeight, product of:
                  4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.051699217 = queryNorm
                0.44245374 = fieldWeight in 7824, product of:
                  2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                    4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                  4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=7824)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    Reports selected results from a large study, conducted at Rutgers University, NJ, which observed, under real life conditions the interactions between users, intermediaries and information retrieval systems before and during online searching. Examines the stages of the search process at which search terms from different sources were selected and how the search terms selected at different stages of the search process contributed to the retrieval of relevant items as judged by users. Notes the sequences in which terms were selected and analyzes the sequences to determine the types and frequencies of changes that occur in such sequences. Results indicate that there are regular patterns in search term selection during the online search process. Discusses the implications of these findings
  10. Saracevic, T.; Mokros, H.; Su, L.: Nature of interaction between users and intermediaries in online searching : a qualitative analysis (1990) 0.02
    0.019828727 = product of:
      0.039657455 = sum of:
        0.039657455 = product of:
          0.07931491 = sum of:
            0.07931491 = weight(_text_:searching in 4894) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.07931491 = score(doc=4894,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.2091384 = queryWeight, product of:
                  4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.051699217 = queryNorm
                0.37924606 = fieldWeight in 4894, product of:
                  2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                    4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                  4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4894)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    Reports preliminary results from a study, conducted at Rutgers Univ., School of Communication, Information and Library Studies, to conduct observations and experiments under real-life conditions on the nature, effects and patterns in the discourse between users and intermediary searchers and in the related computer commands in the context of online searching and responses. The study involved videotaping interactions between users and intermediaries and recording the search logs for 40 questions. Users judged the relevance of output and completed a number of other measures. Data is analysed both quantitatively, using standard and innovative statistical techniques, and qualitatively, through a grounded theory approach using microanalytic and observational methods
  11. Spink, A.; Saracevic, T.: Interaction in information retrieval : selection and effectiveness of search terms (1997) 0.02
    0.019828727 = product of:
      0.039657455 = sum of:
        0.039657455 = product of:
          0.07931491 = sum of:
            0.07931491 = weight(_text_:searching in 206) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.07931491 = score(doc=206,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.2091384 = queryWeight, product of:
                  4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.051699217 = queryNorm
                0.37924606 = fieldWeight in 206, product of:
                  2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                    4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                  4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=206)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    We investigated the sources and effectiveness of search terms used during mediated on-line searching under real-life (as opposed to laboratory) circumstances. A stratified model of information retrieval (IR) interaction served as a framework for the analysis. For the analysis, we used the on-line transaction logs, videotapes, and transcribed dialogue of the presearch and on-line interaction between 40 users and 4 professional intermediaries. Each user provided one question and interacted with one of the four intermediaries. Searching was done using DIALOG. Five sources of search terms were identified: (1) the users' written question statements, (2) terms derived from users' domain knowledge during the interaction, (3) terms extracted from retrieved items as relevance feedback, (4) database thesaurus, and (5) terms derived by intermediaries during the interaction. Distribution, retrieval effectiveness, transition sequences, and correlation of search terms from different sources were investigated. Search terms from users' written question statements and term relevance feedback were the most productive sources of terms contributing to the retrieval of items judged relevant by users. Implications of the findings are discussed
  12. Spink, A.; Saracevic, T.: Where do the search terms come from? (1992) 0.02
    0.018694704 = product of:
      0.03738941 = sum of:
        0.03738941 = product of:
          0.07477882 = sum of:
            0.07477882 = weight(_text_:searching in 4032) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.07477882 = score(doc=4032,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.2091384 = queryWeight, product of:
                  4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.051699217 = queryNorm
                0.3575566 = fieldWeight in 4032, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4032)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    Presents selected results from a large study which observed under real-life conditions the interaction between users, intermediaries and computers before and during online searching. Concentrates on the sources of search terms and the relation between given search terms and retrieval of relevant and nonrelevant items as answers. Users provided the largest proportion of search terms (61%), followed by the thesuaurs (19%), relevance feedback (11%), and intermediary (9%). Only 4% of search terms resulted in retrieval of relevant items only; 60% retrieved relevant and nonrelevant items; 25% retrieved nonrelevant items only; and 11% retrieved nothing.
  13. Saracevic, T.: On a method for studying the structure and nature of requests in information retrieval (1983) 0.02
    0.017511327 = product of:
      0.035022654 = sum of:
        0.035022654 = product of:
          0.07004531 = sum of:
            0.07004531 = weight(_text_:22 in 2417) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.07004531 = score(doc=2417,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.18104185 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.051699217 = queryNorm
                0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 2417, 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=2417)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Pages
    S.22-25
  14. Spink, A.; Saracevic, T.: Dynamics of search term selection during mediated online searching (1993) 0.01
    0.014021028 = product of:
      0.028042056 = sum of:
        0.028042056 = product of:
          0.05608411 = sum of:
            0.05608411 = weight(_text_:searching in 7968) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.05608411 = score(doc=7968,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.2091384 = queryWeight, product of:
                  4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.051699217 = queryNorm
                0.26816747 = fieldWeight in 7968, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=7968)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
  15. Bellardo, T.; Saracevic, T.: Online searching and search output : relationships between overlap, relevance, recall and precision (1987) 0.01
    0.014021028 = product of:
      0.028042056 = sum of:
        0.028042056 = product of:
          0.05608411 = sum of:
            0.05608411 = weight(_text_:searching in 4150) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.05608411 = score(doc=4150,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.2091384 = queryWeight, product of:
                  4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.051699217 = queryNorm
                0.26816747 = fieldWeight in 4150, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4150)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)