-
Lewandowski, D.; Sünkler, S.: ¬Das Relevance Assessment Tool : eine modulare Software zur Unterstützung bei der Durchführung vielfältiger Studien mit Suchmaschinen (2019)
0.04
0.03625694 = product of:
0.07251388 = sum of:
0.07251388 = product of:
0.14502776 = sum of:
0.14502776 = weight(_text_:assessment in 5026) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.14502776 = score(doc=5026,freq=4.0), product of:
0.2801951 = queryWeight, product of:
5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
0.050750602 = queryNorm
0.51759565 = fieldWeight in 5026, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5026)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- In diesem Artikel stellen wir eine Software vor, mit der sich Studien zu Such- und Informationssystemen realisieren lassen. Das Relevance Assessment Tool (RAT) soll umfangreiche Untersuchungen mit Daten von kommerziellen Suchmaschinen unterstützen. Die Software ist modular und webbasiert. Es lassen sich damit automatisiert Daten von Suchmaschinen erfassen. Dazu können Studien mit Fragen und Skalen flexibel gestaltet und die Informationsobjekte anhand der Fragen durch Juroren bewertet werden. Durch die Modularität lassen sich die einzelnen Komponenten für eine Vielzahl von Studien nutzen, die sich auf Web-Inhalte beziehen. So kann die Software auch für qualitative Inhaltsanalysen eingesetzt werden oder durch das automatisierte Scraping eine große Datenbasis an Web-Dokumenten liefern, die sich quantitativ in empirischen Studien analysieren lassen.
-
Haring, M.; Rudaev, A.; Lewandowski, D.: Google & Co. : wie die "Search Studies" an der HAW Hamburg unserem Nutzungsverhalten auf den Zahn fühlen: Blickpunkt angewandte Forschung (2022)
0.03
0.034183368 = product of:
0.068366736 = sum of:
0.068366736 = product of:
0.13673347 = sum of:
0.13673347 = weight(_text_:assessment in 630) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.13673347 = score(doc=630,freq=2.0), product of:
0.2801951 = queryWeight, product of:
5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
0.050750602 = queryNorm
0.4879938 = fieldWeight in 630, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=630)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Die Forschungsgruppe Search Studies forscht an der HAW Hamburg zur Nutzung kommerzieller Suchmaschinen, zur Suchmaschinenoptimierung und zum Relevance Assessment von Suchmaschinen. Der Leiter der Forschungsgruppe, Prof. Dr. Dirk Lewandowski, stand für ein Interview zu seiner Tätigkeit und der seines Teams, sowie seiner Lehre an der HAW Hamburg zur Verfügung. Sollten wir Informationen aus dem Internet vertrauen oder ist Vorsicht angebracht?
-
Schaer, P.; Mayr, P.; Sünkler, S.; Lewandowski, D.: How relevant is the long tail? : a relevance assessment study on million short (2016)
0.03
0.030214114 = product of:
0.06042823 = sum of:
0.06042823 = product of:
0.12085646 = sum of:
0.12085646 = weight(_text_:assessment in 3144) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.12085646 = score(doc=3144,freq=4.0), product of:
0.2801951 = queryWeight, product of:
5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
0.050750602 = queryNorm
0.43132967 = fieldWeight in 3144, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3144)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Users of web search engines are known to mostly focus on the top ranked results of the search engine result page. While many studies support this well known information seeking pattern only few studies concentrate on the question what users are missing by neglecting lower ranked results. To learn more about the relevance distributions in the so-called long tail we conducted a relevance assessment study with the Million Short long-tail web search engine. While we see a clear difference in the content between the head and the tail of the search engine result list we see no statistical significant differences in the binary relevance judgments and weak significant differences when using graded relevance. The tail contains different but still valuable results. We argue that the long tail can be a rich source for the diversification of web search engine result lists but it needs more evaluation to clearly describe the differences.
-
Lewandowski, D.: Evaluating the retrieval effectiveness of web search engines using a representative query sample (2015)
0.03
0.025637524 = product of:
0.05127505 = sum of:
0.05127505 = product of:
0.1025501 = sum of:
0.1025501 = weight(_text_:assessment in 2157) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.1025501 = score(doc=2157,freq=2.0), product of:
0.2801951 = queryWeight, product of:
5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
0.050750602 = queryNorm
0.36599535 = fieldWeight in 2157, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2157)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Search engine retrieval effectiveness studies are usually small scale, using only limited query samples. Furthermore, queries are selected by the researchers. We address these issues by taking a random representative sample of 1,000 informational and 1,000 navigational queries from a major German search engine and comparing Google's and Bing's results based on this sample. Jurors were found through crowdsourcing, and data were collected using specialized software, the Relevance Assessment Tool (RAT). We found that although Google outperforms Bing in both query types, the difference in the performance for informational queries was rather low. However, for navigational queries, Google found the correct answer in 95.3% of cases, whereas Bing only found the correct answer 76.6% of the time. We conclude that search engine performance on navigational queries is of great importance, because users in this case can clearly identify queries that have returned correct results. So, performance on this query type may contribute to explaining user satisfaction with search engines.
-
Lewandowski, D.: Alles nur noch Google? : Entwicklungen im Bereich der WWW-Suchmaschinen (2002)
0.01
0.0137520125 = product of:
0.027504025 = sum of:
0.027504025 = product of:
0.05500805 = sum of:
0.05500805 = weight(_text_:22 in 997) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05500805 = score(doc=997,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17771997 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050750602 = queryNorm
0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 997, 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=997)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 29. 9.2002 18:49:22
-
Lewandowski, D.: Abfragesprachen und erweiterte Funktionen von WWW-Suchmaschinen (2004)
0.01
0.0137520125 = product of:
0.027504025 = sum of:
0.027504025 = product of:
0.05500805 = sum of:
0.05500805 = weight(_text_:22 in 2314) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05500805 = score(doc=2314,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17771997 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050750602 = queryNorm
0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 2314, 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=2314)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 28.11.2004 13:11:22
-
Lewandowski, D.: Query understanding (2011)
0.01
0.0137520125 = product of:
0.027504025 = sum of:
0.027504025 = product of:
0.05500805 = sum of:
0.05500805 = weight(_text_:22 in 344) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05500805 = score(doc=344,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17771997 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050750602 = queryNorm
0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 344, 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=344)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 18. 9.2018 18:22:18
-
Lewandowski, D.: ¬Die Macht der Suchmaschinen und ihr Einfluss auf unsere Entscheidungen (2014)
0.01
0.010314009 = product of:
0.020628018 = sum of:
0.020628018 = product of:
0.041256037 = sum of:
0.041256037 = weight(_text_:22 in 1491) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.041256037 = score(doc=1491,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17771997 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050750602 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1491, 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=1491)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 22. 9.2014 18:54:11
-
Lewandowski, D.; Spree, U.: Ranking of Wikipedia articles in search engines revisited : fair ranking for reasonable quality? (2011)
0.01
0.0085950075 = product of:
0.017190015 = sum of:
0.017190015 = product of:
0.03438003 = sum of:
0.03438003 = weight(_text_:22 in 444) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03438003 = score(doc=444,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17771997 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050750602 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 444, 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=444)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 30. 9.2012 19:27:22
-
Lewandowski, D.; Sünkler, S.: What does Google recommend when you want to compare insurance offerings? (2019)
0.01
0.0085950075 = product of:
0.017190015 = sum of:
0.017190015 = product of:
0.03438003 = sum of:
0.03438003 = weight(_text_:22 in 5288) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03438003 = score(doc=5288,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17771997 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050750602 = 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)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 20. 1.2015 18:30:22
