Search (3 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × year_i:[2000 TO 2010}
  • × author_ss:"Bawden, D."
  1. Brophy, J.; Bawden, D.: Is Google enough? : Comparison of an internet search engine with academic library resources (2005) 0.07 
    0.06863054 = product of:
  0.102945805 = sum of:
    0.06709928 = weight(_text_:search in 648) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06709928 = score(doc=648,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.3840117 = fieldWeight in 648, 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=648)
    0.03584652 = product of:
      0.07169304 = sum of:
        0.07169304 = weight(_text_:engines in 648) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07169304 = score(doc=648,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.25542772 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05027291 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    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.
  2. Bawden, D.: Google and the universe of knowledge (2008) 0.02 
    0.015893001 = product of:
  0.047679 = sum of:
    0.047679 = product of:
      0.095358 = sum of:
        0.095358 = weight(_text_:22 in 844) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.095358 = score(doc=844,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17604718 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05027291 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Date
    7. 6.2008 16:22:20
  3. Bawden, D.; Vilar, P.: Digital libraries : to meet or manage user expectations (2006) 0.01 
    0.013419857 = product of:
  0.04025957 = sum of:
    0.04025957 = weight(_text_:search in 653) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04025957 = score(doc=653,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.230407 = fieldWeight in 653, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=653)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to review the nature of, and rationale for, user expectations in the digital library setting, and ways in which they may best be met and/or managed. Design/methodology/approach - An analysis of the literature, focusing on empirical studies, and bringing out main themes and issues. Findings - User expectations of digital libraries are often unrealistic, usually unrealistically high, mainly due to the ubiquity of the web search engine as an information environment. Expectations differ between user groups. Both meeting and managing expectations have been promoted as a solution; it is likely that a mix of the two will be most effective. More empirical and conceptual studies are needed. Ways of making the nature of digital library collections and their organisation "visible", embedded in a natural way within their interfaces, are desirable. Originality/value - This is the first paper to review the literature of this topic.

Authors

Themes