-
Lewandowski, D.; Sünkler, S.: What does Google recommend when you want to compare insurance offerings? (2019)
0.03
0.028261498 = product of:
0.08478449 = sum of:
0.08478449 = sum of:
0.05284806 = weight(_text_:methodology in 5288) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05284806 = score(doc=5288,freq=2.0), product of:
0.21236731 = queryWeight, product of:
4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
0.047143444 = queryNorm
0.24885213 = fieldWeight in 5288, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5288)
0.03193643 = weight(_text_:22 in 5288) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03193643 = score(doc=5288,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16508831 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.047143444 = 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)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Abstract
- Purpose The purpose of this paper is to describe a new method to improve the analysis of search engine results by considering the provider level as well as the domain level. This approach is tested by conducting a study using queries on the topic of insurance comparisons. Design/methodology/approach The authors conducted an empirical study that analyses the results of search queries aimed at comparing insurance companies. The authors used a self-developed software system that automatically queries commercial search engines and automatically extracts the content of the returned result pages for further data analysis. The data analysis was carried out using the KNIME Analytics Platform. Findings Google's top search results are served by only a few providers that frequently appear in these results. The authors show that some providers operate several domains on the same topic and that these domains appear for the same queries in the result lists. Research limitations/implications The authors demonstrate the feasibility of this approach and draw conclusions for further investigations from the empirical study. However, the study is a limited use case based on a limited number of search queries. Originality/value The proposed method allows large-scale analysis of the composition of the top results from commercial search engines. It allows using valid empirical data to determine what users actually see on the search engine result pages.
- Date
- 20. 1.2015 18:30:22
-
Lewandowski, D.: ¬The retrieval effectiveness of search engines on navigational queries (2011)
0.01
0.00880801 = product of:
0.02642403 = sum of:
0.02642403 = product of:
0.05284806 = sum of:
0.05284806 = weight(_text_:methodology in 4537) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05284806 = score(doc=4537,freq=2.0), product of:
0.21236731 = queryWeight, product of:
4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
0.047143444 = queryNorm
0.24885213 = fieldWeight in 4537, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4537)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Abstract
- Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to test major web search engines on their performance on navigational queries, i.e. searches for homepages. Design/methodology/approach - In total, 100 user queries are posed to six search engines (Google, Yahoo!, MSN, Ask, Seekport, and Exalead). Users described the desired pages, and the results position of these was recorded. Measured success and mean reciprocal rank are calculated. Findings - The performance of the major search engines Google, Yahoo!, and MSN was found to be the best, with around 90 per cent of queries answered correctly. Ask and Exalead performed worse but received good scores as well. Research limitations/implications - All queries were in German, and the German-language interfaces of the search engines were used. Therefore, the results are only valid for German queries. Practical implications - When designing a search engine to compete with the major search engines, care should be taken on the performance on navigational queries. Users can be influenced easily in their quality ratings of search engines based on this performance. Originality/value - This study systematically compares the major search engines on navigational queries and compares the findings with studies on the retrieval effectiveness of the engines on informational queries.
-
Behnert, C.; Lewandowski, D.: ¬A framework for designing retrieval effectiveness studies of library information systems using human relevance assessments (2017)
0.01
0.00880801 = product of:
0.02642403 = sum of:
0.02642403 = product of:
0.05284806 = sum of:
0.05284806 = weight(_text_:methodology in 3700) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05284806 = score(doc=3700,freq=2.0), product of:
0.21236731 = queryWeight, product of:
4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
0.047143444 = queryNorm
0.24885213 = fieldWeight in 3700, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3700)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Abstract
- Purpose This paper demonstrates how to apply traditional information retrieval evaluation methods based on standards from the Text REtrieval Conference (TREC) and web search evaluation to all types of modern library information systems including online public access catalogs, discovery systems, and digital libraries that provide web search features to gather information from heterogeneous sources. Design/methodology/approach We apply conventional procedures from information retrieval evaluation to the library information system context considering the specific characteristics of modern library materials. Findings We introduce a framework consisting of five parts: (1) search queries, (2) search results, (3) assessors, (4) testing, and (5) data analysis. We show how to deal with comparability problems resulting from diverse document types, e.g., electronic articles vs. printed monographs and what issues need to be considered for retrieval tests in the library context. Practical implications The framework can be used as a guideline for conducting retrieval effectiveness studies in the library context. Originality/value Although a considerable amount of research has been done on information retrieval evaluation, and standards for conducting retrieval effectiveness studies do exist, to our knowledge this is the first attempt to provide a systematic framework for evaluating the retrieval effectiveness of twenty-first-century library information systems. We demonstrate which issues must be considered and what decisions must be made by researchers prior to a retrieval test.
-
Lewandowski, D.: Query understanding (2011)
0.01
0.0085163815 = product of:
0.025549144 = sum of:
0.025549144 = product of:
0.051098287 = sum of:
0.051098287 = weight(_text_:22 in 344) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.051098287 = score(doc=344,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16508831 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.047143444 = 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)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Date
- 18. 9.2018 18:22:18
-
Lewandowski, D.: ¬Die Macht der Suchmaschinen und ihr Einfluss auf unsere Entscheidungen (2014)
0.01
0.006387286 = product of:
0.019161858 = sum of:
0.019161858 = product of:
0.038323715 = sum of:
0.038323715 = weight(_text_:22 in 1491) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.038323715 = score(doc=1491,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16508831 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.047143444 = 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)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- 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
0.0053227386 = product of:
0.015968215 = sum of:
0.015968215 = product of:
0.03193643 = sum of:
0.03193643 = weight(_text_:22 in 444) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03193643 = score(doc=444,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16508831 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.047143444 = 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)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Date
- 30. 9.2012 19:27:22
