Search (8 results, page 1 of 1)

0.035707813 = product of:
  0.14283125 = sum of:
    0.14283125 = weight(_text_:engines in 2345) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14283125 = score(doc=2345,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.22757743 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04479146 = queryNorm
        0.62761605 = fieldWeight in 2345, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2345)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to compare five major web search engines (Google, Yahoo, MSN, Ask.com, and Seekport) for their retrieval effectiveness, taking into account not only the results, but also the results descriptions. Design/methodology/approach - The study uses real-life queries. Results are made anonymous and are randomized. Results are judged by the persons posing the original queries. Findings - The two major search engines, Google and Yahoo, perform best, and there are no significant differences between them. Google delivers significantly more relevant result descriptions than any other search engine. This could be one reason for users perceiving this engine as superior. Research limitations/implications - The study is based on a user model where the user takes into account a certain amount of results rather systematically. This may not be the case in real life. Practical implications - The paper implies that search engines should focus on relevant descriptions. Searchers are advised to use other search engines in addition to Google. Originality/value - This is the first major study comparing results and descriptions systematically and proposes new retrieval measures to take into account results descriptions.

0.027659154 = product of:
  0.110636614 = sum of:
    0.110636614 = weight(_text_:engines in 3752) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.110636614 = score(doc=3752,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.22757743 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04479146 = queryNorm
        0.4861493 = fieldWeight in 3752, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3752)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Purpose: To provide a critical review of Bergman's 2001 study on the Deep Web. In addition, we bring a new concept into the discussion, the Academic Invisible Web (AIW). We define the Academic Invisible Web as consisting of all databases and collections relevant to academia but not searchable by the general-purpose internet search engines. Indexing this part of the Invisible Web is central to scien-tific search engines. We provide an overview of approaches followed thus far. Design/methodology/approach: Discussion of measures and calculations, estima-tion based on informetric laws. Literature review on approaches for uncovering information from the Invisible Web. Findings: Bergman's size estimate of the Invisible Web is highly questionable. We demonstrate some major errors in the conceptual design of the Bergman paper. A new (raw) size estimate is given. Research limitations/implications: The precision of our estimate is limited due to a small sample size and lack of reliable data. Practical implications: We can show that no single library alone will be able to index the Academic Invisible Web. We suggest collaboration to accomplish this task. Originality/value: Provides library managers and those interested in developing academic search engines with data on the size and attributes of the Academic In-visible Web.

0.027659154 = product of:
  0.110636614 = sum of:
    0.110636614 = weight(_text_:engines in 2580) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.110636614 = score(doc=2580,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.22757743 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04479146 = queryNorm
        0.4861493 = fieldWeight in 2580, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2580)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Purpose: To provide a critical review of Bergman's 2001 study on the deep web. In addition, we bring a new concept into the discussion, the academic invisible web (AIW). We define the academic invisible web as consisting of all databases and collections relevant to academia but not searchable by the general-purpose internet search engines. Indexing this part of the invisible web is central to scientific search engines. We provide an overview of approaches followed thus far. Design/methodology/approach: Discussion of measures and calculations, estimation based on informetric laws. Literature review on approaches for uncovering information from the invisible web. Findings: Bergman's size estimate of the invisible web is highly questionable. We demonstrate some major errors in the conceptual design of the Bergman paper. A new (raw) size estimate is given. Research limitations/implications: The precision of our estimate is limited due to a small sample size and lack of reliable data. Practical implications: We can show that no single library alone will be able to index the academic invisible web. We suggest collaboration to accomplish this task. Originality/value: Provides library managers and those interested in developing academic search engines with data on the size and attributes of the academic invisible web.

0.027659154 = product of:
  0.110636614 = sum of:
    0.110636614 = weight(_text_:engines in 2810) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.110636614 = score(doc=2810,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.22757743 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04479146 = queryNorm
        0.4861493 = fieldWeight in 2810, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2810)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Some Online Public Access Catalogues offer a ranking component. However, ranking there is merely text-based and is doomed to fail due to limited text in bibliographic data. The main assumption for the talk is that we are in a situation where the appropriate ranking factors for OPACs should be defined, while the implementation is no major problem. We must define what we want, and not so much focus on the technical work. Some deep thinking is necessary on the "perfect results set" and how we can achieve it through ranking. The talk presents a set of potential ranking factors and clustering possibilities for further discussion. A look at commercial Web search engines could provide us with ideas how ranking can be improved with additional factors. Search engines are way beyond pure text-based ranking and apply ranking factors in the groups like popularity, freshness, personalisation, etc. The talk describes the main factors used in search engines and how derivatives of these could be used for libraries' purposes. The goal of ranking is to provide the user with the best-suitable results on top of the results list. How can this goal be achieved with the library catalogue and also concerning the library's different collections and databases? The assumption is that ranking of such materials is a complex problem and is yet nowhere near solved. Libraries should focus on ranking to improve user experience.

0.01916282 = product of:
  0.07665128 = sum of:
    0.07665128 = weight(_text_:engines in 378) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07665128 = score(doc=378,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22757743 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04479146 = queryNorm
        0.33681408 = fieldWeight in 378, 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=378)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Macht der Suchmaschinen: The Power of Search Engines. Hrsg.: Machill, M. u. M. Beiler

0.007974556 = product of:
  0.031898223 = sum of:
    0.031898223 = product of:
      0.063796446 = sum of:
        0.063796446 = weight(_text_:programming in 3183) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.063796446 = score(doc=3183,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.29361802 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.5552235 = idf(docFreq=170, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04479146 = queryNorm
            0.21727702 = fieldWeight in 3183, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.5552235 = idf(docFreq=170, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3183)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Content

Neben den "harten Faktoren" der Oualität der Suchergebnisse spielt auch die Gestaltung von Suchinterfaces eine wichtige Rolle für die Akzeptanz bzw. Nicht-Akzeptanz von Suchwerkzeugen. Die Untersuchung von Jens Fauldrath und Arne Kunisch vergleicht die Interfaces der wichtigsten in Deutschland vertretenen Suchmaschinen und Portale und gibt Empfehlungen für deren Gestaltung und Funktionsumfang. Neue Wege in der Gestaltung von Ergebnismengen beschreibt der Beitrag von Fridolin Wild. Anhand des Vergleichs von bestehenden Visualisierungslösungen werden best practices für die Ergebnispräsentation herausgearbeitet. Für die Zukunft rechnet Wild mit einem zunehmenden Einsatz solcher Systeme, da er in ihnen die Möglichkeit sieht, nicht nur die Benutzeroberflächen zu verändern, sondern auch das Retrivalverfahren an sich zu verbessern. Die Internationalität des Web hat es mit sich gebracht, dass Suchmaschinen in der Regel für den weltweiten Markt entwickelt werden. Wie sie mit einzelnen Sprachen umgehen, ist bisher weitgehend un geklärt. Eine Untersuchung über den Umgang von Suchmaschinen mit den Eigenheiten der deutschen Sprache legen Esther Guggenheim und Judith Bar-Ilan vor. Sie kommen zu dem Schluss, dass die populären Suchmaschinen zunehmend besser mit deutschsprachigen Anfragen umgehen können, sehen allerdings weitere Verbesserungsmöglichkeiten. Dem noch relativ neuen Forschungsgebiet der Webometrie ist der Beitrag von Philipp Mayr und Fabio Tosques zuzuordnen. Webometrie wendet die aus der Bibliometrie bzw. Informetrie bekannten Verfahren auf den Web-Korpus an. Im vorliegenden Beitrag wird das Application Programming Interface (API) von Google auf seine Tauglichkeit für webometrische Untersuchungen getestet. Die Autoren kommen zu dem Schluss, dass kleinere Einschränkungen und Probleme nicht die zahlreichen Möglichkeiten, die das API bietet, mindern. Ein Beispiel für den Einsatz von Suchmaschinen-Technologie in der Praxis beschreibt schließlich der letzte Beitrag des Hefts. Friedrich Summann und Sebastian Wolf stellen eine Suchmaschine für wissenschaftliche Inhalte vor, die die Oualität von Fachdatenbanken mit der Benutzerfreundlichkeit von Web-Suchmaschinen verbinden soll. Im Aufsatz werden die eingesetzten Technologien und die möglichen Einsatzgebiete beschrieben. Der Gastherausgeber wünscht sich von diesem Themenheft, dass es Anregungen für weitere Forschungs- und Anwendungsprojekte geben möge, sei dies an Hochschulen oder in Unternehmen."

0.0060686246 = product of:
  0.024274498 = sum of:
    0.024274498 = product of:
      0.048548996 = sum of:
        0.048548996 = weight(_text_:22 in 997) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.048548996 = score(doc=997,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15685207 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04479146 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

29. 9.2002 18:49:22

0.0060686246 = product of:
  0.024274498 = sum of:
    0.024274498 = product of:
      0.048548996 = sum of:
        0.048548996 = weight(_text_:22 in 2314) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.048548996 = score(doc=2314,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15685207 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04479146 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

28.11.2004 13:11:22