-
Gossen, T.: Search engines for children : search user interfaces and information-seeking behaviour (2016)
0.04
0.041943457 = product of:
0.083886914 = sum of:
0.083886914 = sum of:
0.059820894 = weight(_text_:assessment in 2752) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.059820894 = score(doc=2752,freq=2.0), product of:
0.2801951 = queryWeight, product of:
5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
0.050750602 = queryNorm
0.2134973 = fieldWeight in 2752, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=2752)
0.024066022 = weight(_text_:22 in 2752) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.024066022 = score(doc=2752,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17771997 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050750602 = queryNorm
0.1354154 = fieldWeight in 2752, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=2752)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Content
- Inhalt: Acknowledgments; Abstract; Zusammenfassung; Contents; List of Figures; List of Tables; List of Acronyms; Chapter 1 Introduction ; 1.1 Research Questions; 1.2 Thesis Outline; Part I Fundamentals ; Chapter 2 Information Retrieval for Young Users ; 2.1 Basics of Information Retrieval; 2.1.1 Architecture of an IR System; 2.1.2 Relevance Ranking; 2.1.3 Search User Interfaces; 2.1.4 Targeted Search Engines; 2.2 Aspects of Child Development Relevant for Information Retrieval Tasks; 2.2.1 Human Cognitive Development; 2.2.2 Information Processing Theory; 2.2.3 Psychosocial Development 2.3 User Studies and Evaluation2.3.1 Methods in User Studies; 2.3.2 Types of Evaluation; 2.3.3 Evaluation with Children; 2.4 Discussion; Chapter 3 State of the Art ; 3.1 Children's Information-Seeking Behaviour; 3.1.1 Querying Behaviour; 3.1.2 Search Strategy; 3.1.3 Navigation Style; 3.1.4 User Interface; 3.1.5 Relevance Judgement; 3.2 Existing Algorithms and User Interface Concepts for Children; 3.2.1 Query; 3.2.2 Content; 3.2.3 Ranking; 3.2.4 Search Result Visualisation; 3.3 Existing Information Retrieval Systems for Children; 3.3.1 Digital Book Libraries; 3.3.2 Web Search Engines 3.4 Summary and DiscussionPart II Studying Open Issues ; Chapter 4 Usability of Existing Search Engines for Young Users ; 4.1 Assessment Criteria; 4.1.1 Criteria for Matching the Motor Skills; 4.1.2 Criteria for Matching the Cognitive Skills; 4.2 Results; 4.2.1 Conformance with Motor Skills; 4.2.2 Conformance with the Cognitive Skills; 4.2.3 Presentation of Search Results; 4.2.4 Browsing versus Searching; 4.2.5 Navigational Style; 4.3 Summary and Discussion; Chapter 5 Large-scale Analysis of Children's Queries and Search Interactions; 5.1 Dataset; 5.2 Results; 5.3 Summary and Discussion Chapter 6 Differences in Usability and Perception of Targeted Web Search Engines between Children and Adults 6.1 Related Work; 6.2 User Study; 6.3 Study Results; 6.4 Summary and Discussion; Part III Tackling the Challenges ; Chapter 7 Search User Interface Design for Children ; 7.1 Conceptual Challenges and Possible Solutions; 7.2 Knowledge Journey Design; 7.3 Evaluation; 7.3.1 Study Design; 7.3.2 Study Results; 7.4 Voice-Controlled Search: Initial Study; 7.4.1 User Study; 7.5 Summary and Discussion; Chapter 8 Addressing User Diversity ; 8.1 Evolving Search User Interface 8.1.1 Mapping Function8.1.2 Evolving Skills; 8.1.3 Detection of User Abilities; 8.1.4 Design Concepts; 8.2 Adaptation of a Search User Interface towards User Needs; 8.2.1 Design & Implementation; 8.2.2 Search Input; 8.2.3 Result Output; 8.2.4 General Properties; 8.2.5 Configuration and Further Details; 8.3 Evaluation; 8.3.1 Study Design; 8.3.2 Study Results; 8.3.3 Preferred UI Settings; 8.3.4 User satisfaction; 8.4 Knowledge Journey Exhibit; 8.4.1 Hardware; 8.4.2 Frontend; 8.4.3 Backend; 8.5 Summary and Discussion; Chapter 9 Supporting Visual Searchers in Processing Search Results 9.1 Related Work
- Date
- 1. 2.2016 18:25:22
-
Li, L.; Shang, Y.; Zhang, W.: Improvement of HITS-based algorithms on Web documents
0.04
0.040302705 = product of:
0.08060541 = sum of:
0.08060541 = product of:
0.24181622 = sum of:
0.24181622 = weight(_text_:3a in 2514) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.24181622 = score(doc=2514,freq=2.0), product of:
0.43026417 = queryWeight, product of:
8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
0.050750602 = queryNorm
0.56201804 = fieldWeight in 2514, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2514)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Content
- Vgl.: http%3A%2F%2Fdelab.csd.auth.gr%2F~dimitris%2Fcourses%2Fir_spring06%2Fpage_rank_computing%2Fp527-li.pdf. Vgl. auch: http://www2002.org/CDROM/refereed/643/.
-
Tomaiuolo, N.G.; Packer, J.G.: ¬An analysis of Internet search engines : assessment of over 200 search queries (1996)
0.03
0.034183368 = product of:
0.068366736 = sum of:
0.068366736 = product of:
0.13673347 = sum of:
0.13673347 = weight(_text_:assessment in 5816) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.13673347 = score(doc=5816,freq=2.0), product of:
0.2801951 = queryWeight, product of:
5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
0.050750602 = queryNorm
0.4879938 = fieldWeight in 5816, 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=5816)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
-
Brophy, J.; Bawden, D.: Is Google enough? : Comparison of an internet search engine with academic library resources (2005)
0.03
0.030214114 = product of:
0.06042823 = sum of:
0.06042823 = product of:
0.12085646 = sum of:
0.12085646 = weight(_text_:assessment in 648) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.12085646 = score(doc=648,freq=4.0), product of:
0.2801951 = queryWeight, product of:
5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
0.050750602 = queryNorm
0.43132967 = fieldWeight in 648, 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=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.
-
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.
-
Zhitomirsky-Geffet, M.; Bar-Ilan, J.; Levene, M.: Analysis of change in users' assessment of search results over time (2017)
0.03
0.030214114 = product of:
0.06042823 = sum of:
0.06042823 = product of:
0.12085646 = sum of:
0.12085646 = weight(_text_:assessment in 3593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.12085646 = score(doc=3593,freq=4.0), product of:
0.2801951 = queryWeight, product of:
5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
0.050750602 = queryNorm
0.43132967 = fieldWeight in 3593, 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=3593)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- We present the first systematic study of the influence of time on user judgements for rankings and relevance grades of web search engine results. The goal of this study is to evaluate the change in user assessment of search results and explore how users' judgements change. To this end, we conducted a large-scale user study with 86 participants who evaluated 2 different queries and 4 diverse result sets twice with an interval of 2 months. To analyze the results we investigate whether 2 types of patterns of user behavior from the theory of categorical thinking hold for the case of evaluation of search results: (a) coarseness and (b) locality. To quantify these patterns we devised 2 new measures of change in user judgements and distinguish between local (when users swap between close ranks and relevance values) and nonlocal changes. Two types of judgements were considered in this study: (a) relevance on a 4-point scale, and (b) ranking on a 10-point scale without ties. We found that users tend to change their judgements of the results over time in about 50% of cases for relevance and in 85% of cases for ranking. However, the majority of these changes were local.
-
Thelwall, M.; Stuart, D.: Web crawling ethics revisited : cost, privacy, and denial of service (2006)
0.03
0.029910447 = product of:
0.059820894 = sum of:
0.059820894 = product of:
0.11964179 = sum of:
0.11964179 = weight(_text_:assessment in 6098) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.11964179 = score(doc=6098,freq=2.0), product of:
0.2801951 = queryWeight, product of:
5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
0.050750602 = queryNorm
0.4269946 = fieldWeight in 6098, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6098)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Ethical aspects of the employment of Web crawlers for information science research and other contexts are reviewed. The difference between legal and ethical uses of communications technologies is emphasized as well as the changing boundary between ethical and unethical conduct. A review of the potential impacts on Web site owners is used to underpin a new framework for ethical crawling, and it is argued that delicate human judgment is required for each individual case, with verdicts likely to change over time. Decisions can be based upon an approximate cost-benefit analysis, but it is crucial that crawler owners find out about the technological issues affecting the owners of the sites being crawled in order to produce an informed assessment.
-
Can, F.; Nuray, R.; Sevdik, A.B.: Automatic performance evaluation of Web search engines (2004)
0.03
0.025637524 = product of:
0.05127505 = sum of:
0.05127505 = product of:
0.1025501 = sum of:
0.1025501 = weight(_text_:assessment in 2570) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.1025501 = score(doc=2570,freq=2.0), product of:
0.2801951 = queryWeight, product of:
5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
0.050750602 = queryNorm
0.36599535 = fieldWeight in 2570, 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=2570)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Measuring the information retrieval effectiveness of World Wide Web search engines is costly because of human relevance judgments involved. However, both for business enterprises and people it is important to know the most effective Web search engines, since such search engines help their users find higher number of relevant Web pages with less effort. Furthermore, this information can be used for several practical purposes. In this study we introduce automatic Web search engine evaluation method as an efficient and effective assessment tool of such systems. The experiments based on eight Web search engines, 25 queries, and binary user relevance judgments show that our method provides results consistent with human-based evaluations. It is shown that the observed consistencies are statistically significant. This indicates that the new method can be successfully used in the evaluation of Web search engines.
-
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.
-
MacLeod, R.: Promoting a subject gateway : a case study from EEVL (Edinburgh Engineering Virtual Library) (2000)
0.02
0.024310352 = product of:
0.048620705 = sum of:
0.048620705 = product of:
0.09724141 = sum of:
0.09724141 = weight(_text_:22 in 4872) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.09724141 = score(doc=4872,freq=4.0), product of:
0.17771997 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050750602 = 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
-
Vidmar, D.J.: Darwin on the Web : the evolution of search tools (1999)
0.02
0.024066022 = product of:
0.048132043 = sum of:
0.048132043 = product of:
0.09626409 = sum of:
0.09626409 = weight(_text_:22 in 3175) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.09626409 = score(doc=3175,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17771997 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050750602 = queryNorm
0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 3175, 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=3175)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Source
- Computers in libraries. 19(1999) no.5, S.22-28
-
Back, J.: ¬An evaluation of relevancy ranking techniques used by Internet search engines (2000)
0.02
0.024066022 = product of:
0.048132043 = sum of:
0.048132043 = product of:
0.09626409 = sum of:
0.09626409 = weight(_text_:22 in 3445) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.09626409 = score(doc=3445,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17771997 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050750602 = 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
-
Dunning, A.: Do we still need search engines? (1999)
0.02
0.024066022 = product of:
0.048132043 = sum of:
0.048132043 = product of:
0.09626409 = sum of:
0.09626409 = weight(_text_:22 in 6021) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.09626409 = score(doc=6021,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17771997 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050750602 = queryNorm
0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 6021, 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=6021)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Source
- Ariadne. 1999, no.22
-
Bawden, D.: Google and the universe of knowledge (2008)
0.02
0.024066022 = product of:
0.048132043 = sum of:
0.048132043 = product of:
0.09626409 = sum of:
0.09626409 = weight(_text_:22 in 844) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.09626409 = score(doc=844,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17771997 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050750602 = 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
-
Toms, E.G.; Taves, A.R.: Measuring user perceptions of Web site reputation (2004)
0.02
0.021364605 = product of:
0.04272921 = sum of:
0.04272921 = product of:
0.08545842 = sum of:
0.08545842 = weight(_text_:assessment in 2565) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08545842 = score(doc=2565,freq=2.0), product of:
0.2801951 = queryWeight, product of:
5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
0.050750602 = queryNorm
0.30499613 = fieldWeight in 2565, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2565)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- In this study, we compare a search tool, TOPIC, with three other widely used tools that retrieve information from the Web: AltaVista, Google, and Lycos. These tools use different techniques for outputting and ranking Web sites: external link structure (TOPIC and Google) and semantic content analysis (AltaVista and Lycos). TOPIC purports to output, and highly rank within its hit list, reputable Web sites for searched topics. In this study, 80 participants reviewed the output (i.e., highly ranked sites) from each tool and assessed the quality of retrieved sites. The 4800 individual assessments of 240 sites that represent 12 topics indicated that Google tends to identify and highly rank significantly more reputable Web sites than TOPIC, which, in turn, outputs more than AltaVista and Lycos, but this was not consistent from topic to topic. Metrics derived from reputation research were used in the assessment and a factor analysis was employed to identify a key factor, which we call 'repute'. The results of this research include insight into the factors that Web users consider in formulating perceptions of Web site reputation, and insight into which search tools are outputting reputable sites for Web users. Our findings, we believe, have implications for Web users and suggest the need for future research to assess the relationship between Web page characteristics and their perceived reputation.
-
Birmingham, J.: Internet search engines (1996)
0.02
0.020628018 = product of:
0.041256037 = sum of:
0.041256037 = product of:
0.08251207 = sum of:
0.08251207 = weight(_text_:22 in 5664) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08251207 = score(doc=5664,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17771997 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050750602 = queryNorm
0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 5664, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=5664)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 10.11.1996 16:36:22
-
Hock, R.E.: How to do field searching in Web search engines : a field trip (1998)
0.02
0.019448282 = product of:
0.038896564 = sum of:
0.038896564 = product of:
0.07779313 = sum of:
0.07779313 = weight(_text_:22 in 3601) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07779313 = score(doc=3601,freq=4.0), product of:
0.17771997 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050750602 = queryNorm
0.4377287 = fieldWeight in 3601, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3601)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Source
- Online. 22(1998) no.3, S.18-22
-
Price, A.: Five new Danish subject gateways under development (2000)
0.02
0.017190015 = product of:
0.03438003 = sum of:
0.03438003 = product of:
0.06876006 = sum of:
0.06876006 = weight(_text_:22 in 4878) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06876006 = score(doc=4878,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17771997 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050750602 = 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
-
Conhaim, W.W.: Search tools (1996)
0.01
0.0137520125 = product of:
0.027504025 = sum of:
0.027504025 = product of:
0.05500805 = sum of:
0.05500805 = weight(_text_:22 in 4738) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05500805 = score(doc=4738,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17771997 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050750602 = queryNorm
0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 4738, 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=4738)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 1. 8.1996 22:39:31
-
Fong, W.W.: Searching the World Wide Web (1996)
0.01
0.0137520125 = product of:
0.027504025 = sum of:
0.027504025 = product of:
0.05500805 = sum of:
0.05500805 = weight(_text_:22 in 6597) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05500805 = score(doc=6597,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17771997 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050750602 = queryNorm
0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 6597, 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=6597)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Source
- Journal of library and information science. 22(1996) no.1, S.15-36
