Search (1607 results, page 1 of 81)

0.15036245 = product of:
  0.3007249 = sum of:
    0.3007249 = sum of:
      0.20387699 = weight(_text_:engines in 3445) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.20387699 = score(doc=3445,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.25941864 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051058397 = queryNorm
          0.7858995 = fieldWeight in 3445, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
            0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=3445)
      0.096847914 = weight(_text_:22 in 3445) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.096847914 = score(doc=3445,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17879781 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051058397 = 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)

Date

25. 8.2005 17:42:22

0.13242207 = product of:
  0.26484415 = sum of:
    0.26484415 = sum of:
      0.2302556 = weight(_text_:engines in 2117) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.2302556 = score(doc=2117,freq=20.0), product of:
          0.25941864 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051058397 = queryNorm
          0.88758314 = fieldWeight in 2117, product of:
            4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
              20.0 = termFreq=20.0
            5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2117)
      0.03458854 = weight(_text_:22 in 2117) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03458854 = score(doc=2117,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17879781 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051058397 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2117, 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=2117)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This paper presents an application of the model described in Part I to the evaluation of Web search engines by undergraduates. The study observed how 36 undergraduate used four major search engines to find information for their own individual problems and how they evaluated these engines based an actual interaction with the search engines. User evaluation was based an 16 performance measures representing five evaluation criteria: relevance, efficiency, utility, user satisfaction, and connectivity. Non-performance (user-related) measures were also applied. Each participant searched his/ her own topic an all four engines and provided satisfaction ratings for system features and interaction and reasons for satisfaction. Each also made relevance judgements of retrieved items in relation to his/her own information need and participated in post-search Interviews to provide reactions to the search results and overall performance. The study found significant differences in precision PR1 relative recall, user satisfaction with output display, time saving, value of search results, and overall performance among the four engines and also significant engine by discipline interactions an all these measures. In addition, the study found significant differences in user satisfaction with response time among four engines, and significant engine by discipline interaction in user satisfaction with search interface. None of the four search engines dominated in every aspect of the multidimensional evaluation. Content analysis of verbal data identified a number of user criteria and users evaluative comments based an these criteria. Results from both quantitative analysis and content analysis provide insight for system design and development, and useful feedback an strengths and weaknesses of search engines for system improvement

Date

24. 1.2004 18:27:22

0.101847395 = sum of:
  0.08109427 = product of:
    0.24328281 = sum of:
      0.24328281 = weight(_text_:3a in 562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.24328281 = score(doc=562,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.43287367 = queryWeight, product of:
            8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051058397 = queryNorm
          0.56201804 = fieldWeight in 562, 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=562)
    0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.020753123 = product of:
    0.041506246 = sum of:
      0.041506246 = weight(_text_:22 in 562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.041506246 = score(doc=562,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17879781 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051058397 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 562, 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=562)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

Vgl.: http://www.google.de/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CEAQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fciteseerx.ist.psu.edu%2Fviewdoc%2Fdownload%3Fdoi%3D10.1.1.91.4940%26rep%3Drep1%26type%3Dpdf&ei=dOXrUMeIDYHDtQahsIGACg&usg=AFQjCNHFWVh6gNPvnOrOS9R3rkrXCNVD-A&sig2=5I2F5evRfMnsttSgFF9g7Q&bvm=bv.1357316858,d.Yms.

Date

8. 1.2013 10:22:32

0.096422836 = product of:
  0.19284567 = sum of:
    0.19284567 = sum of:
      0.15133943 = weight(_text_:engines in 2109) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.15133943 = score(doc=2109,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.25941864 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051058397 = queryNorm
          0.58337915 = fieldWeight in 2109, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2109)
      0.041506246 = weight(_text_:22 in 2109) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.041506246 = score(doc=2109,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17879781 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051058397 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2109, 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=2109)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Many Web sites have begun allowing users to submit items to a collection and tag them with keywords. The folksonomies built from these tags are an interesting topic that has seen little empirical research. This study compared the search information retrieval (IR) performance of folksonomies from social bookmarking Web sites against search engines and subject directories. Thirty-four participants created 103 queries for various information needs. Results from each IR system were collected and participants judged relevance. Folksonomy search results overlapped with those from the other systems, and documents found by both search engines and folksonomies were significantly more likely to be judged relevant than those returned by any single IR system type. The search engines in the study had the highest precision and recall, but the folksonomies fared surprisingly well. Del.icio.us was statistically indistinguishable from the directories in many cases. Overall the directories were more precise than the folksonomies but they had similar recall scores. Better query handling may enhance folksonomy IR performance further. The folksonomies studied were promising, and may be able to improve Web search performance.

Date

1. 8.2008 12:39:22

0.0859214 = product of:
  0.1718428 = sum of:
    0.1718428 = sum of:
      0.11650113 = weight(_text_:engines in 5937) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.11650113 = score(doc=5937,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.25941864 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051058397 = queryNorm
          0.44908544 = fieldWeight in 5937, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5937)
      0.055341665 = weight(_text_:22 in 5937) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.055341665 = score(doc=5937,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17879781 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051058397 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 5937, 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=5937)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

14. 6.2001 12:22:31

0.0859214 = product of:
  0.1718428 = sum of:
    0.1718428 = sum of:
      0.11650113 = weight(_text_:engines in 2289) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.11650113 = score(doc=2289,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.25941864 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051058397 = queryNorm
          0.44908544 = fieldWeight in 2289, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2289)
      0.055341665 = weight(_text_:22 in 2289) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.055341665 = score(doc=2289,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17879781 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051058397 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 2289, 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=2289)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This paper looks at current trends in knowledge organization research, concentrating an universal systems, mapping vocabularies and interoperability concerns, problems of blas, the Internet and search engines, resource discovery, thesauri and visual presentation. Some Problems facing researchers at the present time are discussed. It is accompanied by a bibliography of recent work in the field.

Date

10. 6.2004 19:22:56

0.080589466 = product of:
  0.16117893 = sum of:
    0.16117893 = product of:
      0.32235786 = sum of:
        0.32235786 = weight(_text_:engines in 3876) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.32235786 = score(doc=3876,freq=20.0), product of:
            0.25941864 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051058397 = queryNorm
            1.2426164 = fieldWeight in 3876, product of:
              4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
                20.0 = termFreq=20.0
              5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3876)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This entry provides an overview of Web search engines, looking at the definition, components, leading engines, searching capabilities, and types of engines. It examines the components that make up a search engine and briefly discusses the process involved in identifying content for the engines' databases and the indexing of that content. Typical search options are reviewed and the major Web search engines are identified and described. Also identified and described are various specialty search engines, such as those for special content such as video and images, and engines that take significantly different approaches to the search problem, such as visualization engines and metasearch engines.

0.07518122 = product of:
  0.15036245 = sum of:
    0.15036245 = sum of:
      0.10193849 = weight(_text_:engines in 5296) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.10193849 = score(doc=5296,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.25941864 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051058397 = queryNorm
          0.39294976 = fieldWeight in 5296, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5296)
      0.048423957 = weight(_text_:22 in 5296) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.048423957 = score(doc=5296,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17879781 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051058397 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 5296, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5296)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

User interfaces of Web search engines reflect attributes of the underlying tools used to create them, rather than what we know about how people look for information. In this article, the author examines several characteristics of user search behavior: the variety of information-seeking goals, the cultural and situational context of search, and the iterative nature of the search task. An analysis of these characteristics suggests ways that interfaces can be redesigned to make searching more effective for users.

Date

22. 7.2006 17:58:06

0.072085984 = product of:
  0.14417197 = sum of:
    0.14417197 = sum of:
      0.11650113 = weight(_text_:engines in 2741) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.11650113 = score(doc=2741,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.25941864 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051058397 = queryNorm
          0.44908544 = fieldWeight in 2741, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2741)
      0.027670832 = weight(_text_:22 in 2741) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.027670832 = score(doc=2741,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17879781 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051058397 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 2741, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2741)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This study seeks to find out how human beings cluster Web pages naturally. Twenty Web pages retrieved by the Northem Light search engine for each of 10 queries were sorted by 3 subjects into categories that were natural or meaningful to them. lt was found that different subjects clustered the same set of Web pages quite differently and created different categories. The average inter-subject similarity of the clusters created was a low 0.27. Subjects created an average of 5.4 clusters for each sorting. The categories constructed can be divided into 10 types. About 1/3 of the categories created were topical. Another 20% of the categories relate to the degree of relevance or usefulness. The rest of the categories were subject-independent categories such as format, purpose, authoritativeness and direction to other sources. The authors plan to develop automatic methods for categorizing Web pages using the common categories created by the subjects. lt is hoped that the techniques developed can be used by Web search engines to automatically organize Web pages retrieved into categories that are natural to users. 1. Introduction The World Wide Web is an increasingly important source of information for people globally because of its ease of access, the ease of publishing, its ability to transcend geographic and national boundaries, its flexibility and heterogeneity and its dynamic nature. However, Web users also find it increasingly difficult to locate relevant and useful information in this vast information storehouse. Web search engines, despite their scope and power, appear to be quite ineffective. They retrieve too many pages, and though they attempt to rank retrieved pages in order of probable relevance, often the relevant documents do not appear in the top-ranked 10 or 20 documents displayed. Several studies have found that users do not know how to use the advanced features of Web search engines, and do not know how to formulate and re-formulate queries. Users also typically exert minimal effort in performing, evaluating and refining their searches, and are unwilling to scan more than 10 or 20 items retrieved (Jansen, Spink, Bateman & Saracevic, 1998). This suggests that the conventional ranked-list display of search results does not satisfy user requirements, and that better ways of presenting and summarizing search results have to be developed. One promising approach is to group retrieved pages into clusters or categories to allow users to navigate immediately to the "promising" clusters where the most useful Web pages are likely to be located. This approach has been adopted by a number of search engines (notably Northem Light) and search agents.

Date

12. 9.2004 9:56:22

0.06878099 = product of:
  0.13756198 = sum of:
    0.13756198 = sum of:
      0.10297343 = weight(_text_:engines in 2456) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.10297343 = score(doc=2456,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.25941864 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051058397 = queryNorm
          0.39693922 = fieldWeight in 2456, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2456)
      0.03458854 = weight(_text_:22 in 2456) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03458854 = score(doc=2456,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17879781 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051058397 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2456, 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=2456)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The use of non-English Web search engines has been prevalent. Given the popularity of Chinese Web searching and the unique characteristics of Chinese language, it is imperative to conduct studies with focuses on the analysis of Chinese Web search queries. In this paper, we report our research on the character usage of Chinese search logs from a Web search engine in Hong Kong. By examining the distribution of search query terms, we found that users tended to use more diversified terms and that the usage of characters in search queries was quite different from the character usage of general online information in Chinese. After studying the Zipf distribution of n-grams with different values of n, we found that the curve of unigram is the most curved one of all while the bigram curve follows the Zipf distribution best, and that the curves of n-grams with larger n (n = 3-6) had similar structures with ?-values in the range of 0.66-0.86. The distribution of combined n-grams was also studied. All the analyses are performed on the data both before and after the removal of function terms and incomplete terms and similar findings are revealed. We believe the findings from this study have provided some insights into further research in non-English Web searching and will assist in the design of more effective Chinese Web search engines.

Date

22.11.2008 17:57:22

0.06444105 = product of:
  0.1288821 = sum of:
    0.1288821 = sum of:
      0.08737585 = weight(_text_:engines in 2717) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08737585 = score(doc=2717,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.25941864 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051058397 = queryNorm
          0.33681408 = fieldWeight in 2717, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2717)
      0.041506246 = weight(_text_:22 in 2717) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.041506246 = score(doc=2717,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17879781 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051058397 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2717, 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=2717)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

11. 9.2004 17:32:22

0.06444105 = product of:
  0.1288821 = sum of:
    0.1288821 = sum of:
      0.08737585 = weight(_text_:engines in 5271) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08737585 = score(doc=5271,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.25941864 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051058397 = queryNorm
          0.33681408 = fieldWeight in 5271, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5271)
      0.041506246 = weight(_text_:22 in 5271) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.041506246 = score(doc=5271,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17879781 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051058397 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 5271, 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=5271)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Federated search and distributed information retrieval systems provide a single user interface for searching multiple full-text search engines. They have been an active area of research for more than a decade, but in spite of their success as a research topic, they are still rare in operational environments. This article discusses a prototype federated search system developed for the U.S. government's FedStats Web portal, and the issues addressed in adapting research solutions to this operational environment. A series of experiments explore how well prior research results, parameter settings, and heuristics apply in the FedStats environment. The article concludes with a set of lessons learned from this technology transfer effort, including observations about search engine quality in the real world.

Date

22. 7.2006 16:02:07

0.064281896 = product of:
  0.12856379 = sum of:
    0.12856379 = sum of:
      0.10089295 = weight(_text_:engines in 1188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.10089295 = score(doc=1188,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.25941864 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051058397 = queryNorm
          0.38891944 = fieldWeight in 1188, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1188)
      0.027670832 = weight(_text_:22 in 1188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.027670832 = score(doc=1188,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17879781 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051058397 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 1188, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1188)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Surfing the World Wide Web used to be cool, dude, real cool. But things have gotten hot - so hot that finding something useful an the Web is no longer cool. It is suffocating Web searchers in the smoke and debris of mountain-sized lists of hits, decisions about which search engines they should use, whether they will get lost in the dizzying maze of a subject directory, use the right syntax for the search engine at hand, enter keywords that are likely to retrieve hits an the topics they have in mind, or enlist a browser that has sufficient functionality to display the most promising hits. When it comes to Web searching, in a few short years we have gone from the cool image of surfing the Web into the frying pan of searching the Web. We can turn down the heat by rethinking what Web searchers are doing and introduce some order into the chaos. Web search strategies that are tool-based-oriented to specific Web searching tools such as search en gines, subject directories, and meta search engines-have been widely promoted, and these strategies are just not working. It is time to dissect what Web searching tools expect from searchers and adjust our search strategies to these new tools. This discussion offers Web searchers help in the form of search strategies that are based an strategies that librarians have been using for a long time to search commercial information retrieval systems like Dialog, NEXIS, Wilsonline, FirstSearch, and Data-Star.

Content

"Web searching is different from searching commercial IR systems. We can learn from search strategies recommended for searching IR systems, but most won't be effective for Web searching. Web searchers need strate gies that let search engines do the job they were designed to do. This article presents six new Web searching strategies that do just that."

Date

22. 9.1997 19:16:05

0.06305809 = product of:
  0.12611619 = sum of:
    0.12611619 = product of:
      0.25223237 = sum of:
        0.25223237 = weight(_text_:engines in 6757) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.25223237 = score(doc=6757,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.25941864 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051058397 = queryNorm
            0.9722986 = fieldWeight in 6757, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=6757)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Replacing an earlier review, TASI's report outlines the different types of image search engines available and suggests the things to look out for when using one to find images. It includes TASI's own critical evaluation of the most popular engines.

0.060864396 = product of:
  0.12172879 = sum of:
    0.12172879 = sum of:
      0.072813205 = weight(_text_:engines in 2541) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.072813205 = score(doc=2541,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.25941864 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051058397 = queryNorm
          0.2806784 = fieldWeight in 2541, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2541)
      0.048915584 = weight(_text_:22 in 2541) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.048915584 = score(doc=2541,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.17879781 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051058397 = queryNorm
          0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 2541, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2541)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The Specialized Information Services Division (SIS) of the National Library of Medicine (NLM) provides Web access to more than a dozen scientific databases on toxicology and the environment on TOXNET . Search queries on TOXNET often include misspelled or variant English words, medical and scientific jargon and chemical names. Following the example of search engines like Google and ClinicalTrials.gov, we set out to develop a spelling "suggestion" system for increased recall and precision in TOXNET searching. This paper describes development of dictionary technology that can be used in a variety of applications such as orthographic verification, writing aid, natural language processing, and information storage and retrieval. The design of the technology allows building complex applications using the components developed in the earlier phases of the work in a modular fashion without extensive rewriting of computer code. Since many of the potential applications envisioned for this work have on-line or web-based interfaces, the dictionaries and other computer components must have fast response, and must be adaptable to open-ended database vocabularies, including chemical nomenclature. The dictionary vocabulary for this work was derived from SIS and other databases and specialized resources, such as NLM's Unified Medical Language Systems (UMLS) . The resulting technology, A-Z Dictionary (AZdict), has three major constituents: 1) the vocabulary list, 2) the word attributes that define part of speech and morphological relationships between words in the list, and 3) a set of programs that implements the retrieval of words and their attributes, and determines similarity between words (ChemSpell). These three components can be used in various applications such as spelling verification, spelling aid, part-of-speech tagging, paraphrasing, and many other natural language processing functions.

Date

14. 8.2004 17:22:56

Source

Online. 28(2004) no.3, S.22-29

0.058250565 = product of:
  0.11650113 = sum of:
    0.11650113 = product of:
      0.23300226 = sum of:
        0.23300226 = weight(_text_:engines in 8164) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.23300226 = score(doc=8164,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.25941864 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051058397 = queryNorm
            0.8981709 = fieldWeight in 8164, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=8164)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.058250565 = product of:
  0.11650113 = sum of:
    0.11650113 = product of:
      0.23300226 = sum of:
        0.23300226 = weight(_text_:engines in 6052) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.23300226 = score(doc=6052,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.25941864 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051058397 = queryNorm
            0.8981709 = fieldWeight in 6052, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6052)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Enthält neben allgemeinen Kapiteln (Serach engines in general - Common search options) eine Besprechung der einzelnen Suchmaschinen und ihrer Charakteristika

LCSH

Web search engines

Subject

Web search engines

0.0577937 = product of:
  0.1155874 = sum of:
    0.1155874 = product of:
      0.2311748 = sum of:
        0.2311748 = weight(_text_:engines in 2038) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.2311748 = score(doc=2038,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.25941864 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051058397 = queryNorm
            0.8911264 = fieldWeight in 2038, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2038)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Web search engines are beginning to offer access to multimedia searching, including audio, video and image searching. In this paper we report findings from a study examining the state of multimedia search functionality on major general and specialized Web search engines. We investigated 102 Web search engines to examine: (1) how many Web search engines offer multimedia searching, (2) the type of multimedia search functionality and methods offered, such as "query by example", and (3) the supports for personalization or customization which are accessible as advanced search. Findings include: (1) few major Web search engines offer multimedia searching and (2) multimedia Web search functionality is generally limited. Our findings show that despite the increasing level of interest in multimedia Web search, those few Web search engines offering multimedia Web search, provide limited multimedia search functionality. Keywords are still the only means of multimedia retrieval, while other methods such as "query by example" are offered by less than 1% of Web search engines examined.

0.056400873 = product of:
  0.112801746 = sum of:
    0.112801746 = product of:
      0.22560349 = sum of:
        0.22560349 = weight(_text_:engines in 993) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.22560349 = score(doc=993,freq=30.0), product of:
            0.25941864 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051058397 = queryNorm
            0.8696503 = fieldWeight in 993, product of:
              5.477226 = tf(freq=30.0), with freq of:
                30.0 = termFreq=30.0
              5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=993)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The performance and capabilities of Web search engines is an important and significant area of research. Millions of people world wide use Web search engines very day. This paper reports the results of a major study examining the overlap among results retrieved by multiple Web search engines for a large set of more than 10,000 queries. Previous smaller studies have discussed a lack of overlap in results returned by Web search engines for the same queries. The goal of the current study was to conduct a large-scale study to measure the overlap of search results on the first result page (both non-sponsored and sponsored) across the four most popular Web search engines, at specific points in time using a large number of queries. The Web search engines included in the study were MSN Search, Google, Yahoo! and Ask Jeeves. Our study then compares these results with the first page results retrieved for the same queries by the metasearch engine Dogpile.com. Two sets of randomly selected user-entered queries, one set was 10,316 queries and the other 12,570 queries, from Infospace's Dogpile.com search engine (the first set was from Dogpile, the second was from across the Infospace Network of search properties were submitted to the four single Web search engines). Findings show that the percent of total results unique to only one of the four Web search engines was 84.9%, shared by two of the three Web search engines was 11.4%, shared by three of the Web search engines was 2.6%, and shared by all four Web search engines was 1.1%. This small degree of overlap shows the significant difference in the way major Web search engines retrieve and rank results in response to given queries. Results point to the value of metasearch engines in Web retrieval to overcome the biases of individual search engines.

0.055024788 = product of:
  0.110049576 = sum of:
    0.110049576 = sum of:
      0.082378745 = weight(_text_:engines in 2663) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.082378745 = score(doc=2663,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.25941864 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051058397 = queryNorm
          0.31755137 = fieldWeight in 2663, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2663)
      0.027670832 = weight(_text_:22 in 2663) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.027670832 = score(doc=2663,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17879781 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051058397 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 2663, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2663)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

A large number of scholarly works is self-archived at the university's Open Access repositories. Researchers can search these materials using general web search engines such as Google, as well as with OAI-PMH-based search engines such as OAIster (http://www.oaister.org/). The archives can also be accessed using federated search services such as MetaLib by setting the repositories as a search target. However, it remains difficult for researchers to access materials in these repositories using standard academic databases such as Thomson Reuters' Web of Science. The National Institute of Informatics (NII) in Japan has developed a DC application profile called junii2 (http://ju.nii.ac.jp/oai/junii2.xsd) for scholarly works. The AIRway Project (Access path to Institutional Resources via link resolvers) has used this profile to develop a new way of connecting university repositories with academic databases via link resolvers. junii2 is designed as an OpenURL-compliant schema (info:ofi/fmt:xml:xsd:journal), and has now been widely adopted by more than 70 university repositories in Japan. A particular feature is its ability to describe variant self-archived materials with a version description function (specifying whether it is an author's draft or the final published version) and information on the availability of the full text in the repository. AIRway is an internet server that harvests metadata from university repositories. After harvesting metadata, AIRway separates the metadata of materials whose full texts are available in the repositories from others. A link resolver sends an OpenURL request to the AIRway server before creating its navigation window. If metadata of the requested material are found in the AIRway server and the material's full text is available in a repository, the AIRway server provides the xml for the metadata of the material to the link resolver. Rather than being a new service system for end users, it is a back-end knowledgebase for existing link resolvers. 1CATE (OCLC's link resolver) and some installations of SFX (Ex Libris' link resolver) now use AIRway as one of their knowledgebases. In this way, junii2 and AIRway make Open Access scholarly works in university repositories accessible through general academic databases. This will be particularly effective if, for example, someone without a license to access an electronic journal finds a research paper on the journal in the search results of an academic database. The AIRway Project is funded by the NII Institutional Repositories Program (http://www.nii.ac.jp/irp/en/).

Source

Metadata for semantic and social applications : proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications, Berlin, 22 - 26 September 2008, DC 2008: Berlin, Germany / ed. by Jane Greenberg and Wolfgang Klas