Search (3 results, page 1 of 1)

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.

0.022583602 = product of:
  0.09033441 = sum of:
    0.09033441 = weight(_text_:engines in 5882) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09033441 = score(doc=5882,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.22757743 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04479146 = queryNorm
        0.39693922 = fieldWeight in 5882, 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=5882)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Due to the advances in information retrieval in the past decades, search engines have become extremely efficient at acquiring useful sources in response to a user's query. However, for more prolonged and complex information seeking tasks, these search engines are not as well suited. During complex information seeking tasks, various stages may occur, which imply varying support needs for users. However, the implications of theoretical information seeking models for concrete search user interfaces (SUI) design are unclear, both at the level of the individual features and of the whole interface. Guidelines and design patterns for concrete SUIs, on the other hand, provide recommendations for feature design, but these are separated from their role in the information seeking process. This chapter addresses the question of how to design SUIs with enhanced support for the macro-level process, first by reviewing previous research. Subsequently, we outline a framework for complex task support, which explicitly connects the temporal development of complex tasks with different levels of support by SUI features. This is followed by a discussion of concrete system examples which include elements of the three dimensions of our framework in an exploratory search and sensemaking context. Moreover, we discuss the connection of navigation with the search-oriented framework. In our final discussion and conclusion, we provide recommendations for designing more holistic SUIs which potentially evolve along with a user's information seeking process.

0.0030343123 = product of:
  0.012137249 = sum of:
    0.012137249 = product of:
      0.024274498 = sum of:
        0.024274498 = weight(_text_:22 in 1447) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024274498 = score(doc=1447,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15685207 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04479146 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 1447, 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=1447)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

21. 4.2002 10:22:31