-
Lewandowski, D.; Spree, U.: Ranking of Wikipedia articles in search engines revisited : fair ranking for reasonable quality? (2011)
0.02
0.01774153 = product of:
0.07096612 = sum of:
0.07096612 = sum of:
0.040352322 = weight(_text_:methods in 444) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.040352322 = score(doc=444,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18168657 = queryWeight, product of:
4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
0.045191016 = queryNorm
0.22209854 = fieldWeight in 444, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=444)
0.030613795 = weight(_text_:22 in 444) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.030613795 = score(doc=444,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15825124 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045191016 = 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)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Abstract
- This paper aims to review the fiercely discussed question of whether the ranking of Wikipedia articles in search engines is justified by the quality of the articles. After an overview of current research on information quality in Wikipedia, a summary of the extended discussion on the quality of encyclopedic entries in general is given. On this basis, a heuristic method for evaluating Wikipedia entries is developed and applied to Wikipedia articles that scored highly in a search engine retrieval effectiveness test and compared with the relevance judgment of jurors. In all search engines tested, Wikipedia results are unanimously judged better by the jurors than other results on the corresponding results position. Relevance judgments often roughly correspond with the results from the heuristic evaluation. Cases in which high relevance judgments are not in accordance with the comparatively low score from the heuristic evaluation are interpreted as an indicator of a high degree of trust in Wikipedia. One of the systemic shortcomings of Wikipedia lies in its necessarily incoherent user model. A further tuning of the suggested criteria catalog, for instance, the different weighing of the supplied criteria, could serve as a starting point for a user model differentiated evaluation of Wikipedia articles. Approved methods of quality evaluation of reference works are applied to Wikipedia articles and integrated with the question of search engine evaluation.
- Date
- 30. 9.2012 19:27:22
-
Lewandowski, D.: Alles nur noch Google? : Entwicklungen im Bereich der WWW-Suchmaschinen (2002)
0.01
0.006122759 = product of:
0.024491036 = sum of:
0.024491036 = product of:
0.048982073 = sum of:
0.048982073 = weight(_text_:22 in 997) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.048982073 = score(doc=997,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15825124 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045191016 = 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
-
Lewandowski, D.: Abfragesprachen und erweiterte Funktionen von WWW-Suchmaschinen (2004)
0.01
0.006122759 = product of:
0.024491036 = sum of:
0.024491036 = product of:
0.048982073 = sum of:
0.048982073 = weight(_text_:22 in 2314) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.048982073 = score(doc=2314,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15825124 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045191016 = 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
-
Lewandowski, D.: Query understanding (2011)
0.01
0.006122759 = product of:
0.024491036 = sum of:
0.024491036 = product of:
0.048982073 = sum of:
0.048982073 = weight(_text_:22 in 344) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.048982073 = score(doc=344,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15825124 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045191016 = 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)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Date
- 18. 9.2018 18:22:18
-
Behnert, C.; Lewandowski, D.: ¬A framework for designing retrieval effectiveness studies of library information systems using human relevance assessments (2017)
0.01
0.0050440403 = product of:
0.020176161 = sum of:
0.020176161 = product of:
0.040352322 = sum of:
0.040352322 = weight(_text_:methods in 3700) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.040352322 = score(doc=3700,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18168657 = queryWeight, product of:
4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
0.045191016 = queryNorm
0.22209854 = fieldWeight in 3700, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3700)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- 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.: ¬Die Macht der Suchmaschinen und ihr Einfluss auf unsere Entscheidungen (2014)
0.00
0.004592069 = product of:
0.018368276 = sum of:
0.018368276 = product of:
0.03673655 = sum of:
0.03673655 = weight(_text_:22 in 1491) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03673655 = score(doc=1491,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15825124 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045191016 = 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)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Date
- 22. 9.2014 18:54:11
-
Lewandowski, D.; Sünkler, S.: What does Google recommend when you want to compare insurance offerings? (2019)
0.00
0.0038267244 = product of:
0.015306897 = sum of:
0.015306897 = product of:
0.030613795 = sum of:
0.030613795 = weight(_text_:22 in 5288) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.030613795 = score(doc=5288,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15825124 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045191016 = 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)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Date
- 20. 1.2015 18:30:22
