Search (5 results, page 1 of 1)

Did you mean:
lcsh's%3a%22Search engines %2f programming%22 5
lcsh's%3a%22Search engines %2f programmeng%22 5
lcshs%3a%22Search engines %2f programming%22 5
lcsh's%3a%22Search engines %2f progamming%22 5
lcshs%3a%22Search engines %2f programmeng%22 5

Brophy, J.; Bawden, D.: Is Google enough? : Comparison of an internet search engine with academic library resources (2005) 0.02
```
0.015969018 = product of:
  0.06387607 = sum of:
    0.06387607 = weight(_text_:engines in 648) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06387607 = score(doc=648,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22757743 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04479146 = queryNorm
        0.2806784 = fieldWeight in 648, 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=648)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
```
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.

Bawden, D.: Google and the universe of knowledge (2008) 0.01

0.010620093 = product of:
  0.042480372 = sum of:
    0.042480372 = product of:
      0.084960744 = sum of:
        0.084960744 = weight(_text_:22 in 844) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.084960744 = score(doc=844,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15685207 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04479146 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date: 7. 6.2008 16:22:20

Bawden, D.: Information policy or knowledge policy? (1997) 0.01

0.0053100465 = product of:
  0.021240186 = sum of:
    0.021240186 = product of:
      0.042480372 = sum of:
        0.042480372 = weight(_text_:22 in 683) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042480372 = score(doc=683,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15685207 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04479146 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 683, 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=683)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source: Understanding information policy. Proceedings of a British Library funded Information Policy Unit Workshop, Cumberland Lodge, UK, 22-24 July 1996. Ed. by Ian Rowlands

Rowlands, I.; Bawden, D.: Building the digital library on solid research foundations (1999) 0.01

0.0053100465 = product of:
  0.021240186 = sum of:
    0.021240186 = product of:
      0.042480372 = sum of:
        0.042480372 = weight(_text_:22 in 730) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042480372 = score(doc=730,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15685207 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04479146 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 730, 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=730)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date: 21. 1.2007 12:03:22

Bawden, D.: Encountering on the road to serendip? : Browsing in new information environments (2011) 0.01

0.0053100465 = product of:
  0.021240186 = sum of:
    0.021240186 = product of:
      0.042480372 = sum of:
        0.042480372 = weight(_text_:22 in 3361) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042480372 = score(doc=3361,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15685207 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04479146 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 3361, 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=3361)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Pages: S.1-22

Search (5 results, page 1 of 1)

Authors

Years