-
Bar-Ilan, J.: On the overlap, the precision and estimated recall of search engines : a case study of the query 'Erdös' (1998)
0.14
0.13693151 = product of:
0.20539725 = sum of:
0.10502698 = weight(_text_:search in 3753) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.10502698 = score(doc=3753,freq=10.0), product of:
0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
0.05027291 = queryNorm
0.6010733 = fieldWeight in 3753, product of:
3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
10.0 = termFreq=10.0
3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3753)
0.10037026 = product of:
0.20074052 = sum of:
0.20074052 = weight(_text_:engines in 3753) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.20074052 = score(doc=3753,freq=8.0), product of:
0.25542772 = queryWeight, product of:
5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
0.05027291 = queryNorm
0.7858995 = fieldWeight in 3753, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3753)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Abstract
- Investigates the retrieval capabilities of 6 Internet search engines on a simple query. Existing work on search engine evaluation considers only the first 10 or 20 results returned by the search engine. In this work, all documents that the search engine pointed at were retrieved and thoroughly examined. Thus the precision of the whole retrieval process could be calculated, the overlap between the results of the engines studied, and an estimate on the recall of the searches given. The precision of the engines is high, recall is very low and the overlap is minimal
-
Bar-Ilan, J.; Gutman,T.: How do search engines respond to some non-English queries? (2005)
0.13
0.12953952 = product of:
0.19430926 = sum of:
0.093939 = weight(_text_:search in 4653) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.093939 = score(doc=4653,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
0.05027291 = queryNorm
0.5376164 = fieldWeight in 4653, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4653)
0.10037026 = product of:
0.20074052 = sum of:
0.20074052 = weight(_text_:engines in 4653) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.20074052 = score(doc=4653,freq=2.0), product of:
0.25542772 = queryWeight, product of:
5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
0.05027291 = queryNorm
0.7858995 = fieldWeight in 4653, 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=4653)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
-
Bar-Ilan, J.: Comparing rankings of search results on the Web (2005)
0.13
0.12648915 = product of:
0.18973371 = sum of:
0.09489272 = weight(_text_:search in 1068) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.09489272 = score(doc=1068,freq=16.0), product of:
0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
0.05027291 = queryNorm
0.54307455 = fieldWeight in 1068, product of:
4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
16.0 = termFreq=16.0
3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1068)
0.094840996 = product of:
0.18968199 = sum of:
0.18968199 = weight(_text_:engines in 1068) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.18968199 = score(doc=1068,freq=14.0), product of:
0.25542772 = queryWeight, product of:
5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
0.05027291 = queryNorm
0.7426053 = fieldWeight in 1068, product of:
3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
14.0 = termFreq=14.0
5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1068)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Abstract
- The Web has become an information source for professional data gathering. Because of the vast amounts of information on almost all topics, one cannot systematically go over the whole set of results, and therefore must rely on the ordering of the results by the search engine. It is well known that search engines on the Web have low overlap in terms of coverage. In this study we measure how similar are the rankings of search engines on the overlapping results. We compare rankings of results for identical queries retrieved from several search engines. The method is based only on the set of URLs that appear in the answer sets of the engines being compared. For comparing the similarity of rankings of two search engines, the Spearman correlation coefficient is computed. When comparing more than two sets Kendall's W is used. These are well-known measures and the statistical significance of the results can be computed. The methods are demonstrated on a set of 15 queries that were submitted to four large Web search engines. The findings indicate that the large public search engines on the Web employ considerably different ranking algorithms.
-
Bar-Ilan, J.; Keenoy, K.; Yaari, E.; Levene, M.: User rankings of search engine results (2007)
0.12
0.118524216 = product of:
0.17778632 = sum of:
0.10609328 = weight(_text_:search in 470) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.10609328 = score(doc=470,freq=20.0), product of:
0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
0.05027291 = queryNorm
0.60717577 = fieldWeight in 470, product of:
4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
20.0 = termFreq=20.0
3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=470)
0.07169304 = product of:
0.14338608 = sum of:
0.14338608 = weight(_text_:engines in 470) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.14338608 = score(doc=470,freq=8.0), product of:
0.25542772 = queryWeight, product of:
5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
0.05027291 = queryNorm
0.5613568 = fieldWeight in 470, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=470)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Abstract
- In this study, we investigate the similarities and differences between rankings of search results by users and search engines. Sixty-seven students took part in a 3-week-long experiment, during which they were asked to identify and rank the top 10 documents from the set of URLs that were retrieved by three major search engines (Google, MSN Search, and Yahoo!) for 12 selected queries. The URLs and accompanying snippets were displayed in random order, without disclosing which search engine(s) retrieved any specific URL for the query. We computed the similarity of the rankings of the users and search engines using four nonparametric correlation measures in [0,1] that complement each other. The findings show that the similarities between the users' choices and the rankings of the search engines are low. We examined the effects of the presentation order of the results, and of the thinking styles of the participants. Presentation order influences the rankings, but overall the results indicate that there is no "average user," and even if the users have the same basic knowledge of a topic, they evaluate information in their own context, which is influenced by cognitive, affective, and physical factors. This is the first large-scale experiment in which users were asked to rank the results of identical queries. The analysis of the experimental results demonstrates the potential for personalized search.
- Object
- MSN Search
-
Bar-Ilan, J.: Methods for measuring search engine performance over time (2002)
0.12
0.11825685 = product of:
0.17738527 = sum of:
0.12003084 = weight(_text_:search in 305) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.12003084 = score(doc=305,freq=10.0), product of:
0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
0.05027291 = queryNorm
0.68694097 = fieldWeight in 305, product of:
3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
10.0 = termFreq=10.0
3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=305)
0.057354435 = product of:
0.11470887 = sum of:
0.11470887 = weight(_text_:engines in 305) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.11470887 = score(doc=305,freq=2.0), product of:
0.25542772 = queryWeight, product of:
5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
0.05027291 = queryNorm
0.44908544 = fieldWeight in 305, 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=305)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Abstract
- This study introduces methods for evaluating search engine performance over a time period. Several measures are defined, which as a whole describe search engine functionality over time. The necessary setup for such studies is described, and the use of these measures is illustrated through a specific example. The set of measures introduced here may serve as a guideline for the search engines for testing and improving their functionality. We recommend setting up a standard suite of measures for evaluating search engine performance.
-
Zhitomirsky-Geffet, M.; Bar-Ilan, J.; Levene, M.: Testing the stability of "wisdom of crowds" judgments of search results over time and their similarity with the search engine rankings (2016)
0.11
0.110079154 = product of:
0.16511872 = sum of:
0.08051914 = weight(_text_:search in 3071) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08051914 = score(doc=3071,freq=18.0), product of:
0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
0.05027291 = queryNorm
0.460814 = fieldWeight in 3071, product of:
4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
18.0 = termFreq=18.0
3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3071)
0.08459958 = sum of:
0.057354435 = weight(_text_:engines in 3071) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.057354435 = score(doc=3071,freq=2.0), product of:
0.25542772 = queryWeight, product of:
5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
0.05027291 = queryNorm
0.22454272 = fieldWeight in 3071, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3071)
0.027245143 = weight(_text_:22 in 3071) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.027245143 = score(doc=3071,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17604718 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.05027291 = queryNorm
0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 3071, 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=3071)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Abstract
- Purpose - One of the under-explored aspects in the process of user information seeking behaviour is influence of time on relevance evaluation. It has been shown in previous studies that individual users might change their assessment of search results over time. It is also known that aggregated judgements of multiple individual users can lead to correct and reliable decisions; this phenomenon is known as the "wisdom of crowds". The purpose of this paper is to examine whether aggregated judgements will be more stable and thus more reliable over time than individual user judgements. Design/methodology/approach - In this study two simple measures are proposed to calculate the aggregated judgements of search results and compare their reliability and stability to individual user judgements. In addition, the aggregated "wisdom of crowds" judgements were used as a means to compare the differences between human assessments of search results and search engine's rankings. A large-scale user study was conducted with 87 participants who evaluated two different queries and four diverse result sets twice, with an interval of two months. Two types of judgements were considered in this study: relevance on a four-point scale, and ranking on a ten-point scale without ties. Findings - It was found that aggregated judgements are much more stable than individual user judgements, yet they are quite different from search engine rankings. Practical implications - The proposed "wisdom of crowds"-based approach provides a reliable reference point for the evaluation of search engines. This is also important for exploring the need of personalisation and adapting search engine's ranking over time to changes in users preferences. Originality/value - This is a first study that applies the notion of "wisdom of crowds" to examine an under-explored in the literature phenomenon of "change in time" in user evaluation of relevance.
- Date
- 20. 1.2015 18:30:22
-
Bar-Ilan, J.; Levene, M.; Mat-Hassan, M.: Methods for evaluating dynamic changes in search engine rankings : a case study (2006)
0.11
0.10716495 = product of:
0.16074742 = sum of:
0.08487463 = weight(_text_:search in 616) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08487463 = score(doc=616,freq=20.0), product of:
0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
0.05027291 = queryNorm
0.48574063 = fieldWeight in 616, product of:
4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
20.0 = termFreq=20.0
3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=616)
0.075872794 = product of:
0.15174559 = sum of:
0.15174559 = weight(_text_:engines in 616) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.15174559 = score(doc=616,freq=14.0), product of:
0.25542772 = queryWeight, product of:
5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
0.05027291 = queryNorm
0.59408426 = fieldWeight in 616, product of:
3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
14.0 = termFreq=14.0
5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=616)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Abstract
- Purpose - The objective of this paper is to characterize the changes in the rankings of the top ten results of major search engines over time and to compare the rankings between these engines. Design/methodology/approach - The papers compare rankings of the top-ten results of the search engines Google and AlltheWeb on ten identical queries over a period of three weeks. Only the top-ten results were considered, since users do not normally inspect more than the first results page returned by a search engine. The experiment was repeated twice, in October 2003 and in January 2004, in order to assess changes to the top-ten results of some of the queries during the three months interval. In order to assess the changes in the rankings, three measures were computed for each data collection point and each search engine. Findings - The findings in this paper show that the rankings of AlltheWeb were highly stable over each period, while the rankings of Google underwent constant yet minor changes, with occasional major ones. Changes over time can be explained by the dynamic nature of the web or by fluctuations in the search engines' indexes. The top-ten results of the two search engines had surprisingly low overlap. With such small overlap, the task of comparing the rankings of the two engines becomes extremely challenging. Originality/value - The paper shows that because of the abundance of information on the web, ranking search results is of extreme importance. The paper compares several measures for computing the similarity between rankings of search tools, and shows that none of the measures is fully satisfactory as a standalone measure. It also demonstrates the apparent differences in the ranking algorithms of two widely used search engines.
-
Bar-Ilan, J.: ¬The use of Web search engines in information science research (2003)
0.10
0.10334983 = product of:
0.15502474 = sum of:
0.08051914 = weight(_text_:search in 4271) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08051914 = score(doc=4271,freq=8.0), product of:
0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
0.05027291 = queryNorm
0.460814 = fieldWeight in 4271, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4271)
0.074505605 = product of:
0.14901121 = sum of:
0.14901121 = weight(_text_:engines in 4271) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.14901121 = score(doc=4271,freq=6.0), product of:
0.25542772 = queryWeight, product of:
5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
0.05027291 = queryNorm
0.58337915 = fieldWeight in 4271, 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=4271)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Abstract
- The World Wide Web was created in 1989, but it has already become a major information channel and source, influencing our everyday lives, commercial transactions, and scientific communication, to mention just a few areas. The seventeenth-century philosopher Descartes proclaimed, "I think, therefore I am" (cogito, ergo sum). Today the Web is such an integral part of our lives that we could rephrase Descartes' statement as "I have a Web presence, therefore I am." Because many people, companies, and organizations take this notion seriously, in addition to more substantial reasons for publishing information an the Web, the number of Web pages is in the billions and growing constantly. However, it is not sufficient to have a Web presence; tools that enable users to locate Web pages are needed as well. The major tools for discovering and locating information an the Web are search engines. This review discusses the use of Web search engines in information science research. Before going into detail, we should define the terms "information science," "Web search engine," and "use" in the context of this review.
-
Bar-Ilan, J.; Keenoy, K.; Levene, M.; Yaari, E.: Presentation bias is significant in determining user preference for search results : a user study (2009)
0.10
0.09705824 = product of:
0.14558735 = sum of:
0.09489272 = weight(_text_:search in 2703) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.09489272 = score(doc=2703,freq=16.0), product of:
0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
0.05027291 = queryNorm
0.54307455 = fieldWeight in 2703, product of:
4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
16.0 = termFreq=16.0
3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2703)
0.05069464 = product of:
0.10138928 = sum of:
0.10138928 = weight(_text_:engines in 2703) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.10138928 = score(doc=2703,freq=4.0), product of:
0.25542772 = queryWeight, product of:
5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
0.05027291 = queryNorm
0.39693922 = fieldWeight in 2703, 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=2703)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Abstract
- We describe the results of an experiment designed to study user preferences for different orderings of search results from three major search engines. In the experiment, 65 users were asked to choose the best ordering from two different orderings of the same set of search results: Each pair consisted of the search engine's original top-10 ordering and a synthetic ordering created from the same top-10 results retrieved by the search engine. This process was repeated for 12 queries and nine different synthetic orderings. The results show that there is a slight overall preference for the search engines' original orderings, but the preference is rarely significant. Users' choice of the best result from each of the different orderings indicates that placement on the page (i.e., whether the result appears near the top) is the most important factor used in determining the quality of the result, not the actual content displayed in the top-10 snippets. In addition to the placement bias, we detected a small bias due to the reputation of the sites appearing in the search results.
-
Bar-Ilan, J.: Evaluating the stability of the search tools Hotbot and Snap : a case study (2000)
0.09
0.08769246 = product of:
0.13153869 = sum of:
0.08135357 = weight(_text_:search in 1180) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08135357 = score(doc=1180,freq=6.0), product of:
0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
0.05027291 = queryNorm
0.46558946 = fieldWeight in 1180, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1180)
0.05018513 = product of:
0.10037026 = sum of:
0.10037026 = weight(_text_:engines in 1180) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.10037026 = score(doc=1180,freq=2.0), product of:
0.25542772 = queryWeight, product of:
5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
0.05027291 = queryNorm
0.39294976 = fieldWeight in 1180, 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=1180)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Abstract
- Discusses the results of a case study in which 20 random queries were presented for ten consecutive days to Hotbot and Snap, two search tools that draw their results from the database of Inktomi. The results show huge daily fluctuations in the number of hits retrieved by Hotbot, and high stability in the hits displayed by Snap. These findings are to alert users of Hotbot of its instability as of October 1999, and they raise questions about the reliability of previous studies estimating the size of Hotbot based on its overlap with other search engines.
-
Bar-Ilan, J.: Web links and search engine ranking : the case of Google and the query "Jew" (2006)
0.07
0.07253622 = product of:
0.10880433 = sum of:
0.058109686 = weight(_text_:search in 6104) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.058109686 = score(doc=6104,freq=6.0), product of:
0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
0.05027291 = queryNorm
0.33256388 = fieldWeight in 6104, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6104)
0.05069464 = product of:
0.10138928 = sum of:
0.10138928 = weight(_text_:engines in 6104) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.10138928 = score(doc=6104,freq=4.0), product of:
0.25542772 = queryWeight, product of:
5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
0.05027291 = queryNorm
0.39693922 = fieldWeight in 6104, 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=6104)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Abstract
- The World Wide Web has become one of our more important information sources, and commercial search engines are the major tools for locating information; however, it is not enough for a Web page to be indexed by the search engines-it also must rank high on relevant queries. One of the parameters involved in ranking is the number and quality of links pointing to the page, based on the assumption that links convey appreciation for a page. This article presents the results of a content analysis of the links to two top pages retrieved by Google for the query "jew" as of July 2004: the "jew" entry on the free online encyclopedia Wikipedia, and the home page of "Jew Watch," a highly anti-Semitic site. The top results for the query "jew" gained public attention in April 2004, when it was noticed that the "Jew Watch" homepage ranked number 1. From this point on, both sides engaged in "Googlebombing" (i.e., increasing the number of links pointing to these pages). The results of the study show that most of the links to these pages come from blogs and discussion links, and the number of links pointing to these pages in appreciation of their content is extremely small. These findings have implications for ranking algorithms based on link counts, and emphasize the huge difference between Web links and citations in the scientific community.
-
Bar-Ilan, J.: ¬The Web as an information source on informetrics? : A content analysis (2000)
0.07
0.066634305 = product of:
0.09995145 = sum of:
0.056935627 = weight(_text_:search in 4587) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.056935627 = score(doc=4587,freq=4.0), product of:
0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
0.05027291 = queryNorm
0.3258447 = fieldWeight in 4587, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4587)
0.043015826 = product of:
0.08603165 = sum of:
0.08603165 = weight(_text_:engines in 4587) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08603165 = score(doc=4587,freq=2.0), product of:
0.25542772 = queryWeight, product of:
5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
0.05027291 = queryNorm
0.33681408 = fieldWeight in 4587, 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=4587)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Abstract
- This article addresses the question of whether the Web can serve as an information source for research. Specifically, it analyzes by way of content analysis the Web pages retrieved by the major search engines on a particular date (June 7, 1998), as a result of the query 'informetrics OR informetric'. In 807 out of the 942 retrieved pages, the search terms were mentioned in the context of information science. Over 70% of the pages contained only indirect information on the topic, in the form of hypertext links and bibliographical references without annotation. The bibliographical references extracted from the Web pages were analyzed, and lists of most productive authors, most cited authors, works, and sources were compiled. The list of reference obtained from the Web was also compared to data retrieved from commercial databases. For most cases, the list of references extracted from the Web outperformed the commercial, bibliographic databases. The results of these comparisons indicate that valuable, freely available data is hidden in the Web waiting to be extracted from the millions of Web pages
-
Zhitomirsky-Geffet, M.; Bar-Ilan, J.: Towards maximal unification of semantically diverse ontologies for controversial domains (2014)
0.04
0.044868 = product of:
0.067301996 = sum of:
0.053679425 = weight(_text_:search in 1634) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.053679425 = score(doc=1634,freq=8.0), product of:
0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
0.05027291 = queryNorm
0.30720934 = fieldWeight in 1634, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1634)
0.013622572 = product of:
0.027245143 = sum of:
0.027245143 = weight(_text_:22 in 1634) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.027245143 = score(doc=1634,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17604718 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.05027291 = queryNorm
0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 1634, 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=1634)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Abstract
- Purpose - Ontologies are prone to wide semantic variability due to subjective points of view of their composers. The purpose of this paper is to propose a new approach for maximal unification of diverse ontologies for controversial domains by their relations. Design/methodology/approach - Effective matching or unification of multiple ontologies for a specific domain is crucial for the success of many semantic web applications, such as semantic information retrieval and organization, document tagging, summarization and search. To this end, numerous automatic and semi-automatic techniques were proposed in the past decade that attempt to identify similar entities, mostly classes, in diverse ontologies for similar domains. Apparently, matching individual entities cannot result in full integration of ontologies' semantics without matching their inter-relations with all other-related classes (and instances). However, semantic matching of ontological relations still constitutes a major research challenge. Therefore, in this paper the authors propose a new paradigm for assessment of maximal possible matching and unification of ontological relations. To this end, several unification rules for ontological relations were devised based on ontological reference rules, and lexical and textual entailment. These rules were semi-automatically implemented to extend a given ontology with semantically matching relations from another ontology for a similar domain. Then, the ontologies were unified through these similar pairs of relations. The authors observe that these rules can be also facilitated to reveal the contradictory relations in different ontologies. Findings - To assess the feasibility of the approach two experiments were conducted with different sets of multiple personal ontologies on controversial domains constructed by trained subjects. The results for about 50 distinct ontology pairs demonstrate a good potential of the methodology for increasing inter-ontology agreement. Furthermore, the authors show that the presented methodology can lead to a complete unification of multiple semantically heterogeneous ontologies. Research limitations/implications - This is a conceptual study that presents a new approach for semantic unification of ontologies by a devised set of rules along with the initial experimental evidence of its feasibility and effectiveness. However, this methodology has to be fully automatically implemented and tested on a larger dataset in future research. Practical implications - This result has implication for semantic search, since a richer ontology, comprised of multiple aspects and viewpoints of the domain of knowledge, enhances discoverability and improves search results. Originality/value - To the best of the knowledge, this is the first study to examine and assess the maximal level of semantic relation-based ontology unification.
- Date
- 20. 1.2015 18:30:22
- Series
- Special issue: Semantic search
-
Barsky, E.; Bar-Ilan, J.: ¬The impact of task phrasing on the choice of search keywords and on the search process and success (2012)
0.03
0.031630907 = product of:
0.09489272 = sum of:
0.09489272 = weight(_text_:search in 455) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.09489272 = score(doc=455,freq=16.0), product of:
0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
0.05027291 = queryNorm
0.54307455 = fieldWeight in 455, product of:
4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
16.0 = termFreq=16.0
3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=455)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Abstract
- This experiment studied the impact of various task phrasings on the search process. Eighty-eight searchers performed four web search tasks prescribed by the researchers. Each task was linked to an existing target web page, containing a piece of text that served as the basis for the task. A matching phrasing was a task whose wording matched the text of the target page. A nonmatching phrasing was synonymous with the matching phrasing, but had no match with the target page. Searchers received tasks for both types in English and in Hebrew. The search process was logged. The findings confirm that task phrasing shapes the search process and outcome, and also user satisfaction. Each search stage-retrieval of the target page, visiting the target page, and finding the target answer-was associated with different phenomena; for example, target page retrieval was negatively affected by persistence in search patterns (e.g., use of phrases), user-originated keywords, shorter queries, and omitting key keywords from the queries. Searchers were easily driven away from the top-ranked target pages by lower-ranked pages with title tags matching the queries. Some searchers created consistently longer queries than other searchers, regardless of the task length. Several consistent behavior patterns that characterized the Hebrew language were uncovered, including the use of keyword modifications (replacing infinitive forms with nouns), omitting prefixes and articles, and preferences for the common language. The success self-assessment also depended on whether the wording of the answer matched the task phrasing.
-
Zhitomirsky-Geffet, M.; Bar-Ilan, J.; Levene, M.: Analysis of change in users' assessment of search results over time (2017)
0.02
0.022366427 = product of:
0.06709928 = sum of:
0.06709928 = weight(_text_:search in 3593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06709928 = score(doc=3593,freq=8.0), product of:
0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
0.05027291 = queryNorm
0.3840117 = fieldWeight in 3593, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3593)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Abstract
- We present the first systematic study of the influence of time on user judgements for rankings and relevance grades of web search engine results. The goal of this study is to evaluate the change in user assessment of search results and explore how users' judgements change. To this end, we conducted a large-scale user study with 86 participants who evaluated 2 different queries and 4 diverse result sets twice with an interval of 2 months. To analyze the results we investigate whether 2 types of patterns of user behavior from the theory of categorical thinking hold for the case of evaluation of search results: (a) coarseness and (b) locality. To quantify these patterns we devised 2 new measures of change in user judgements and distinguish between local (when users swap between close ranks and relevance values) and nonlocal changes. Two types of judgements were considered in this study: (a) relevance on a 4-point scale, and (b) ranking on a 10-point scale without ties. We found that users tend to change their judgements of the results over time in about 50% of cases for relevance and in 85% of cases for ranking. However, the majority of these changes were local.
-
Zhitomirsky-Geffet, M.; Bar-Ilan, J.; Levene, M.: Categorical relevance judgment (2018)
0.02
0.022366427 = product of:
0.06709928 = sum of:
0.06709928 = weight(_text_:search in 4457) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06709928 = score(doc=4457,freq=8.0), product of:
0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
0.05027291 = queryNorm
0.3840117 = fieldWeight in 4457, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4457)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Abstract
- In this study we aim to explore users' behavior when assessing search results relevance based on the hypothesis of categorical thinking. To investigate how users categories search engine results, we perform several experiments where users are asked to group a list of 20 search results into several categories, while attaching a relevance judgment to each formed category. Moreover, to determine how users change their minds over time, each experiment was repeated three times under the same conditions, with a gap of one month between rounds. The results show that on average users form 4-5 categories. Within each round the size of a category decreases with the relevance of a category. To measure the agreement between the search engine's ranking and the users' relevance judgments, we defined two novel similarity measures, the average concordance and the MinMax swap ratio. Similarity is shown to be the highest for the third round as the users' opinion stabilizes. Qualitative analysis uncovered some interesting points that users tended to categories results by type and reliability of their source, and particularly, found commercial sites less trustworthy, and attached high relevance to Wikipedia when their prior domain knowledge was limited.
-
Bar-Ilan, J.; Peritz, B.C.: ¬A method for measuring the evolution of a topic on the Web : the case of "informetrics" (2009)
0.02
0.015815454 = product of:
0.04744636 = sum of:
0.04744636 = weight(_text_:search in 3089) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04744636 = score(doc=3089,freq=4.0), product of:
0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
0.05027291 = queryNorm
0.27153727 = fieldWeight in 3089, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3089)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Abstract
- The universe of information has been enriched by the creation of the World Wide Web, which has become an indispensible source for research. Since this source is growing at an enormous speed, an in-depth look of its performance to create a method for its evaluation has become necessary; however, growth is not the only process that influences the evolution of the Web. During their lifetime, Web pages may change their content and links to/from other Web pages, be duplicated or moved to a different URL, be removed from the Web either temporarily or permanently, and be temporarily inaccessible due to server and/or communication failures. To obtain a better understanding of these processes, we developed a method for tracking topics on the Web for long periods of time, without the need to employ a crawler and relying only on publicly available resources. The multiple data-collection methods used allow us to discover new pages related to the topic, to identify changes to existing pages, and to detect previously existing pages that have been removed or whose content is not relevant anymore to the specified topic. The method is demonstrated through monitoring Web pages that contain the term informetrics for a period of 8 years. The data-collection method also allowed us to analyze the dynamic changes in search engine coverage, illustrated here on Google - the search engine used for the longest period of time for data collection in this project.
-
Bronstein, J.; Gazit, T.; Perez, O.; Bar-Ilan, J.; Aharony, N.; Amichai-Hamburger, Y.: ¬An examination of the factors contributing to participation in online social platforms (2016)
0.01
0.0056760716 = product of:
0.017028214 = sum of:
0.017028214 = product of:
0.03405643 = sum of:
0.03405643 = weight(_text_:22 in 3364) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03405643 = score(doc=3364,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17604718 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.05027291 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 3364, 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=3364)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Date
- 20. 1.2015 18:30:22
