Search (2 results, page 1 of 1)

0.0052533974 = product of:
  0.010506795 = sum of:
    0.010506795 = product of:
      0.02101359 = sum of:
        0.02101359 = weight(_text_:22 in 3037) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02101359 = score(doc=3037,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18104185 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051699217 = queryNorm
            0.116070345 = fieldWeight in 3037, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3037)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 7.2009 13:43:50

0.004673676 = product of:
  0.009347352 = sum of:
    0.009347352 = product of:
      0.018694704 = sum of:
        0.018694704 = weight(_text_:searching in 442) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018694704 = score(doc=442,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2091384 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051699217 = queryNorm
            0.08938915 = fieldWeight in 442, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
              0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=442)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Footnote

Chapter 2 examines the politics of information retrieval in the context of collaborative filtering techniques. Rogers begins by discussing the underpinnings of modern search engine design by examining medieval practices of knowledge seeking, following up with a critique of the collaborative filtering techniques. Rogers's major contention is that collaborative filtering rids us of user idiosyncrasies as search query strings, preferences, and recommendations are shared among users and without much care for the differences among them, both in terms of their innate characteristics and also their search goals. To illustrate Rogers' critiques of collaborative filtering, he describes an information searching experiment that he conducted with students at University of Vienna and University of Amsterdam. Students were asked to search for information on Viagra. As one can imagine, depending on a number of issues, not the least of which is what sources did one extract information from, a student would find different accounts of reality about Viagra, everything from a medical drug to a black-market drug ideal for underground trade. Rogers described how information on the Web differed from official accounts for certain events. The information on the Web served as an alternative reality. Chapter 3 describes the Web as a dynamic debate-mapping tool, a political instrument. Rogers introduces the "Issue Barometer," an information instrument that measures the social pressure on a topic being debated by analyzing data available from the Web. Measures used by the Issue Barometer include temperature of the issue (cold to hot), activity level of the debate (mild to intense), and territorialization (one country to many countries). The Issues Barometer is applied to an illustrative case of the public debate surrounding food safety in the Netherlands in 2001. Chapter 4 introduces "The Web Issue Index," which provides an indication of leading societal issues discussed on the Web. The empirical research on the Web Issues Index was conducted on the Genoa G8 Summit in 1999 and the anti-globalization movement. Rogers focus here was to examine the changing nature of prominent issues over time, i.e., how issues gained and lost attention and traction over time.