Search (1116 results, page 1 of 56)

0.19456486 = product of:
  0.2918473 = sum of:
    0.08217951 = weight(_text_:search in 109) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08217951 = score(doc=109,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.47031635 = fieldWeight in 109, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=109)
    0.20966779 = sum of:
      0.17561136 = weight(_text_:engines in 109) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.17561136 = score(doc=109,freq=12.0), product of:
          0.25542772 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05027291 = queryNorm
          0.68751884 = fieldWeight in 109, product of:
            3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
              12.0 = termFreq=12.0
            5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=109)
      0.03405643 = weight(_text_:22 in 109) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03405643 = score(doc=109,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17604718 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05027291 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 109, 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=109)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

This chapter shows that the wider use of Web search engines, reconsidering the theoretical and methodological frameworks to grasp new information practices. Beginning with an overview of the recent challenges implied by the dynamic nature of the Web, this chapter then traces the information behavior related concepts in order to present the different approaches from the user perspective. The authors pay special attention to the concept of "information practice" and other related concepts such as "use", "activity", and "behavior" largely used in the literature but not always strictly defined. The authors provide an overview of user-oriented studies that are meaningful to understand the different contexts of use of electronic information access systems, focusing on five approaches: the system-oriented approaches, the theories of information seeking, the cognitive and psychological approaches, the management science approaches, and the marketing approaches. Future directions of work are then shaped, including social searching and the ethical, cultural, and political dimensions of Web search engines. The authors conclude considering the importance of Critical theory to better understand the role of Web Search engines in our modern society.

Date

20. 4.2012 13:22:37

Footnote

Vgl.: http://www.igi-global.com/book/next-generation-search-engines/64435.

Source

Next generation search engines: advanced models for information retrieval. Eds.: C. Jouis, u.a

0.19232956 = product of:
  0.28849432 = sum of:
    0.0986154 = weight(_text_:search in 105) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0986154 = score(doc=105,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.5643796 = fieldWeight in 105, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=105)
    0.18987893 = sum of:
      0.14901121 = weight(_text_:engines in 105) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.14901121 = score(doc=105,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.25542772 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05027291 = queryNorm
          0.58337915 = fieldWeight in 105, 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=105)
      0.040867712 = weight(_text_:22 in 105) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.040867712 = score(doc=105,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17604718 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05027291 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 105, 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=105)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Result clustering has recently attracted a lot of attention to provide the users with a succinct overview of relevant search results than traditional search engines. This chapter proposes a mixed clustering method to organize all returned search results into a hierarchical tree structure. The clustering method accomplishes two main tasks, one is label construction and the other is tree building. This chapter uses precision to measure the quality of clustering results. According to the results of experiments, the author preliminarily concluded that the performance of the system is better than many other well-known commercial and academic systems. This chapter makes several contributions. First, it presents a high performance system based on the clustering method. Second, it develops a divisive hierarchical clustering algorithm to organize all returned snippets into hierarchical tree structure. Third, it performs a wide range of experimental analyses to show that almost all commercial systems are significantly better than most current academic systems.

Date

17. 4.2012 15:22:11

Footnote

Vgl.: http://www.igi-global.com/book/next-generation-search-engines/64429.

Source

Next generation search engines: advanced models for information retrieval. Eds.: C. Jouis, u.a

0.18427074 = product of:
  0.2764061 = sum of:
    0.113871254 = weight(_text_:search in 108) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.113871254 = score(doc=108,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.6516894 = fieldWeight in 108, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=108)
    0.16253485 = sum of:
      0.12166713 = weight(_text_:engines in 108) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.12166713 = score(doc=108,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.25542772 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05027291 = queryNorm
          0.47632706 = fieldWeight in 108, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=108)
      0.040867712 = weight(_text_:22 in 108) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.040867712 = score(doc=108,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17604718 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05027291 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 108, 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=108)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

The explosion of the information available on the Internet has made traditional information retrieval systems, characterized by one size fits all approaches, less effective. Indeed, users are overwhelmed by the information delivered by such systems in response to their queries, particularly when the latter are ambiguous. In order to tackle this problem, the state-of-the-art reveals that there is a growing interest towards contextual information retrieval (CIR) which relies on various sources of evidence issued from the user's search background and environment, in order to improve the retrieval accuracy. This chapter focuses on mobile context, highlights challenges they present for IR, and gives an overview of CIR approaches applied in this environment. Then, the authors present an approach to personalize search results for mobile users by exploiting both cognitive and spatio-temporal contexts. The experimental evaluation undertaken in front of Yahoo search shows that the approach improves the quality of top search result lists and enhances search result precision.

Date

20. 4.2012 13:19:22

Footnote

Vgl.: http://www.igi-global.com/book/next-generation-search-engines/64434.

Source

Next generation search engines: advanced models for information retrieval. Eds.: C. Jouis, u.a

0.162036 = product of:
  0.24305399 = sum of:
    0.08051914 = weight(_text_:search in 93) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08051914 = score(doc=93,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.460814 = fieldWeight in 93, 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=93)
    0.16253485 = sum of:
      0.12166713 = weight(_text_:engines in 93) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.12166713 = score(doc=93,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.25542772 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05027291 = queryNorm
          0.47632706 = fieldWeight in 93, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=93)
      0.040867712 = weight(_text_:22 in 93) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.040867712 = score(doc=93,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17604718 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05027291 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 93, 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=93)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

This paper is about search of photos in photo databases of agencies which sell photos over the Internet. The problem is far from the behavior of photo databases managed by librarians and also far from the corpora generally used for research purposes. The descriptions use mainly single words and it is well known that it is not the best way to have a good search. This increases the problem of semantic ambiguity. This problem of semantic ambiguity is crucial for cross-language querying. On the other hand, users are not aware of documentation techniques and use generally very simple queries but want to get precise answers. This paper gives the experience gained in a 3 year use (2006-2008) of a cross-language access to several of the main international commercial photo databases. The languages used were French, English, and German.

Date

17. 4.2012 14:25:22

Footnote

Vgl.: http://www.igi-global.com/book/next-generation-search-engines/64421.

Source

Next generation search engines: advanced models for information retrieval. Eds.: C. Jouis, u.a

0.1570256 = product of:
  0.2355384 = sum of:
    0.113871254 = weight(_text_:search in 110) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.113871254 = score(doc=110,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.6516894 = fieldWeight in 110, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=110)
    0.12166713 = product of:
      0.24333426 = sum of:
        0.24333426 = weight(_text_:engines in 110) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.24333426 = score(doc=110,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.25542772 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05027291 = queryNorm
            0.9526541 = fieldWeight in 110, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=110)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Search engines are the major means of information retrieval over the Internet. People's dependence on them increases over time as SEs introduce new and sophisticated technologies. The developments in the Artificial Intelligence (AI) will transform the current search engines Artificial Intelligence Enabled Search Engines (AIESE). Search engines already play a critical role in classifying, sorting and delivering the information over the Internet. However, as Internet's mainstream role becomes more apparent and AI technology increases the sophistication of the tools of the SEs, their roles will become much more critical. Since, the future of search engines are examined, the technological singularity concept is analyzed in detail. Second and third order indirect side effects are analyzed. A four-stage evolution-model is suggested.

Footnote

Vgl.: http://www.igi-global.com/book/next-generation-search-engines/64436.

Source

Next generation search engines: advanced models for information retrieval. Eds.: C. Jouis, u.a

0.15550116 = product of:
  0.23325172 = sum of:
    0.07501928 = weight(_text_:search in 444) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07501928 = score(doc=444,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.4293381 = fieldWeight in 444, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=444)
    0.15823244 = sum of:
      0.12417601 = weight(_text_:engines in 444) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.12417601 = score(doc=444,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.25542772 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05027291 = queryNorm
          0.4861493 = fieldWeight in 444, 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=444)
      0.03405643 = weight(_text_:22 in 444) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03405643 = score(doc=444,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17604718 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05027291 = 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)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

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

0.15225828 = product of:
  0.22838742 = sum of:
    0.12003084 = weight(_text_:search in 1435) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12003084 = score(doc=1435,freq=40.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.68694097 = fieldWeight in 1435, product of:
          6.3245554 = tf(freq=40.0), with freq of:
            40.0 = termFreq=40.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1435)
    0.108356565 = sum of:
      0.08111142 = weight(_text_:engines in 1435) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08111142 = score(doc=1435,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.25542772 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05027291 = queryNorm
          0.31755137 = fieldWeight in 1435, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1435)
      0.027245143 = weight(_text_:22 in 1435) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.027245143 = score(doc=1435,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17604718 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05027291 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 1435, 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=1435)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Background: Faceted navigation (sometimes known as faceted search, faceted browsing, or guided navigation) is the solution applied to an increasingly diverse range of search and discovery applications in the second decade of XXI century. Faceted search is now the dominant interaction paradigm for most of the e-commerce sites and becomes an important solution for universal and specialized search engines for the content-heavy sites such as media publishers, libraries and even non-profits - to make their often broad range of content more findable. Faceted search interfaces are increasingly used to support complex and iterative information-seeking tasks such as exploratory search. These interfaces provide clickable categories in conjunction with search result lists so that searchers can narrow and browse the results without reformulating their queries. User studies demonstrate that faceted search provides more effective information-seeking support to users than best-first search. Faceted search interfaces are presented as an answer to the investigative nature, uncertainty and ambiguity in exploratory search tasks. Objectives: The interesting research questions are: What is the scale of faceted navigating in search and discovery application? Is faceted search intuitive information finding? How faceted search tools affect searcher behavior - the tactics searchers use when querying, looking at search results, and selecting them? What are the key benefits and weaknesses of faceted navigating for users? In what sense faceted navigation is the panacea for information overload? What faceted implementations are the most prominent? What are the most important findings in the field of faceted search for the development of knowledge organization and information science? Methods: To answer research questions listed above, multiple methods will be applied: the conceptual analysis (to clarify the concept of faceted navigation); selected aspects of information seeking and exploratory search will be subject to critical literature review; critical analysis of some user studies will be performed. Case studies of several search and discovery tools will be used to exemplify concrete solutions in them. Findings: The study explores faceted navigation and reveals the most actual solutions in modern search engines, discovery tools, library catalogs. It attempts to explain specific features of this method from the users' perspective, not information architects. It helps knowledge organization specialists to confront theory with users' practice and propose new efficient support for information environments.

Source

Knowledge organization in the 21st century: between historical patterns and future prospects. Proceedings of the Thirteenth International ISKO Conference 19-22 May 2014, Kraków, Poland. Ed.: Wieslaw Babik

0.14947316 = product of:
  0.22420973 = sum of:
    0.08876401 = weight(_text_:search in 5288) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08876401 = score(doc=5288,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.5079997 = fieldWeight in 5288, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5288)
    0.13544571 = sum of:
      0.10138928 = weight(_text_:engines in 5288) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.10138928 = score(doc=5288,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.25542772 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05027291 = queryNorm
          0.39693922 = fieldWeight in 5288, 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=5288)
      0.03405643 = weight(_text_:22 in 5288) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03405643 = score(doc=5288,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17604718 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05027291 = 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)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to describe a new method to improve the analysis of search engine results by considering the provider level as well as the domain level. This approach is tested by conducting a study using queries on the topic of insurance comparisons. Design/methodology/approach The authors conducted an empirical study that analyses the results of search queries aimed at comparing insurance companies. The authors used a self-developed software system that automatically queries commercial search engines and automatically extracts the content of the returned result pages for further data analysis. The data analysis was carried out using the KNIME Analytics Platform. Findings Google's top search results are served by only a few providers that frequently appear in these results. The authors show that some providers operate several domains on the same topic and that these domains appear for the same queries in the result lists. Research limitations/implications The authors demonstrate the feasibility of this approach and draw conclusions for further investigations from the empirical study. However, the study is a limited use case based on a limited number of search queries. Originality/value The proposed method allows large-scale analysis of the composition of the top results from commercial search engines. It allows using valid empirical data to determine what users actually see on the search engine result pages.

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.14141771 = product of:
  0.21212655 = sum of:
    0.15003856 = weight(_text_:search in 2675) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.15003856 = score(doc=2675,freq=40.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.8586762 = fieldWeight in 2675, product of:
          6.3245554 = tf(freq=40.0), with freq of:
            40.0 = termFreq=40.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2675)
    0.062088005 = product of:
      0.12417601 = sum of:
        0.12417601 = weight(_text_:engines in 2675) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12417601 = score(doc=2675,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.25542772 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05027291 = queryNorm
            0.4861493 = fieldWeight in 2675, 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=2675)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

We analyze the transitions from external search, searching on web search engines, to internal search, searching on websites. We categorize 295,571 search episodes composed of a query submitted to web search engines and the subsequent queries submitted to a single website search by the same users. There are a total of 1,136,390 queries from all searches, of which 295,571 are external search queries and 840,819 are internal search queries. We algorithmically classify queries into states and then use n-grams to categorize search patterns. We cluster the searching episodes into major patterns and identify the most commonly occurring, which are: (1) Explorers (43% of all patterns) with a broad external search query and then broad internal search queries, (2) Navigators (15%) with an external search query containing a URL component and then specific internal search queries, and (3) Shifters (15%) with a different, seemingly unrelated, query types when transitioning from external to internal search. The implications of this research are that external search and internal search sessions are part of a single search episode and that online businesses can leverage these search episodes to more effectively target potential customers.

0.14125577 = product of:
  0.21188365 = sum of:
    0.10651682 = weight(_text_:search in 106) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10651682 = score(doc=106,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.6095997 = fieldWeight in 106, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=106)
    0.105366826 = product of:
      0.21073365 = sum of:
        0.21073365 = weight(_text_:engines in 106) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.21073365 = score(doc=106,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.25542772 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05027291 = queryNorm
            0.82502264 = fieldWeight in 106, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=106)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

This chapter presents a theoretical framework for evaluating next generation search engines. The author focuses on search engines whose results presentation is enriched with additional information and does not merely present the usual list of "10 blue links," that is, of ten links to results, accompanied by a short description. While Web search is used as an example here, the framework can easily be applied to search engines in any other area. The framework not only addresses the results presentation, but also takes into account an extension of the general design of retrieval effectiveness tests. The chapter examines the ways in which this design might influence the results of such studies and how a reliable test is best designed.

Footnote

Vgl.: http://www.igi-global.com/book/next-generation-search-engines/64437.

Source

Next generation search engines: advanced models for information retrieval. Eds.: C. Jouis, u.a

0.1394552 = product of:
  0.20918278 = sum of:
    0.15182835 = weight(_text_:search in 43) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.15182835 = score(doc=43,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.86891925 = fieldWeight in 43, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=43)
    0.057354435 = product of:
      0.11470887 = sum of:
        0.11470887 = weight(_text_:engines in 43) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11470887 = score(doc=43,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.25542772 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05027291 = queryNorm
            0.44908544 = fieldWeight in 43, 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=43)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

We present the TREC Open Search track, which represents a new evaluation paradigm for information retrieval. It offers the possibility for researchers to evaluate their approaches in a live setting, with real, unsuspecting users of an existing search engine. The first edition of the track focuses on the academic search domain and features the ad-hoc scientific literature search task. We report on experiments with three different academic search engines: Cite-SeerX, SSOAR, and Microsoft Academic Search.

0.13879234 = product of:
  0.20818849 = sum of:
    0.100648925 = weight(_text_:search in 4537) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.100648925 = score(doc=4537,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.5760175 = fieldWeight in 4537, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4537)
    0.107539564 = product of:
      0.21507913 = sum of:
        0.21507913 = weight(_text_:engines in 4537) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.21507913 = score(doc=4537,freq=18.0), product of:
            0.25542772 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05027291 = queryNorm
            0.8420352 = fieldWeight in 4537, product of:
              4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
                18.0 = termFreq=18.0
              5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4537)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to test major web search engines on their performance on navigational queries, i.e. searches for homepages. Design/methodology/approach - In total, 100 user queries are posed to six search engines (Google, Yahoo!, MSN, Ask, Seekport, and Exalead). Users described the desired pages, and the results position of these was recorded. Measured success and mean reciprocal rank are calculated. Findings - The performance of the major search engines Google, Yahoo!, and MSN was found to be the best, with around 90 per cent of queries answered correctly. Ask and Exalead performed worse but received good scores as well. Research limitations/implications - All queries were in German, and the German-language interfaces of the search engines were used. Therefore, the results are only valid for German queries. Practical implications - When designing a search engine to compete with the major search engines, care should be taken on the performance on navigational queries. Users can be influenced easily in their quality ratings of search engines based on this performance. Originality/value - This study systematically compares the major search engines on navigational queries and compares the findings with studies on the retrieval effectiveness of the engines on informational queries.

0.13108733 = product of:
  0.19663098 = sum of:
    0.06973162 = weight(_text_:search in 3246) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06973162 = score(doc=3246,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.39907667 = fieldWeight in 3246, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3246)
    0.12689936 = sum of:
      0.08603165 = weight(_text_:engines in 3246) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08603165 = score(doc=3246,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.25542772 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05027291 = queryNorm
          0.33681408 = fieldWeight in 3246, 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=3246)
      0.040867712 = weight(_text_:22 in 3246) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.040867712 = score(doc=3246,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17604718 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05027291 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3246, 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=3246)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to discuss the affective premises and economics of the influence of search engines on knowing and informing in the contemporary society. Design/methodology/approach A conceptual discussion of the affective premises and framings of the capitalist economics of knowing is presented. Findings The main proposition of this text is that the exploitation of affects is entwined in the competing market and emancipatory discourses and counter-discourses both as intentional interventions, and perhaps even more significantly, as unintentional influences that shape the ways of knowing in the peripheries of the regime that shape cultural constellations of their own. Affective capitalism bounds and frames our ways of knowing in ways that are difficult to anticipate and read even from the context of the regime itself. Originality/value In the relatively extensive discussion on the role of affects in the contemporary capitalism, influence of affects on knowing and their relation to search engine use has received little explicit attention so far.

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.12953952 = product of:
  0.19430926 = sum of:
    0.093939 = weight(_text_:search in 1150) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.093939 = score(doc=1150,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.5376164 = fieldWeight in 1150, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1150)
    0.10037026 = product of:
      0.20074052 = sum of:
        0.20074052 = weight(_text_:engines in 1150) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.20074052 = score(doc=1150,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.25542772 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05027291 = queryNorm
            0.7858995 = fieldWeight in 1150, 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=1150)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Voice search is becoming a popular mode for interacting with search engines. As a result, research has gone into building better voice transcription engines, interfaces, and search engines that better handle inherent verbosity of queries. However, when one considers its use by non- native speakers of English, another aspect that becomes important is the formulation of the query by users. In this paper, we present the results of a preliminary study that we conducted with non-native English speakers who formulate queries for given retrieval tasks. Our results show that the current search engines are sensitive in their rankings to the query formulation, and thus highlights the need for developing more robust ranking methods.

0.12564686 = product of:
  0.18847027 = sum of:
    0.10735885 = weight(_text_:search in 848) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10735885 = score(doc=848,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.6144187 = fieldWeight in 848, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=848)
    0.08111142 = product of:
      0.16222285 = sum of:
        0.16222285 = weight(_text_:engines in 848) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.16222285 = score(doc=848,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.25542772 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05027291 = queryNorm
            0.63510275 = fieldWeight in 848, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=848)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

An examination of search result terms (SRT) of two major search engines and the classification of these terms into the three thesaural relationships - equivalence, hierarchical and associative, indicating their occurrence outside of a controlled vocabulary setting and demonstrating a naturally occurring phenomena in language.

0.12543035 = product of:
  0.18814552 = sum of:
    0.12731194 = weight(_text_:search in 102) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12731194 = score(doc=102,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.72861093 = fieldWeight in 102, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=102)
    0.060833566 = product of:
      0.12166713 = sum of:
        0.12166713 = weight(_text_:engines in 102) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12166713 = score(doc=102,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.25542772 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05027291 = queryNorm
            0.47632706 = fieldWeight in 102, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=102)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

People commonly experience difficulties when searching the Web, arising from an incomplete knowledge regarding their information needs, an inability to formulate accurate queries, and a low tolerance for considering the relevance of the search results. While simple and easy to use interfaces have made Web search universally accessible, they provide little assistance for people to overcome the difficulties they experience when their information needs are more complex than simple fact-verification. In human-centred Web search, the purpose of the search engine expands from a simple information retrieval engine to a decision support system. People are empowered to take an active role in the search process, with the search engine supporting them in developing a deeper understanding of their information needs, assisting them in crafting and refining their queries, and aiding them in evaluating and exploring the search results. In this chapter, recent research in this domain is outlined and discussed.

Footnote

Vgl.: http://www.igi-global.com/book/next-generation-search-engines/64427.

Source

Next generation search engines: advanced models for information retrieval. Eds.: C. Jouis, u.a

0.12528598 = product of:
  0.18792897 = sum of:
    0.08217951 = weight(_text_:search in 1605) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08217951 = score(doc=1605,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.47031635 = fieldWeight in 1605, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1605)
    0.10574947 = sum of:
      0.07169304 = weight(_text_:engines in 1605) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07169304 = score(doc=1605,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.25542772 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05027291 = queryNorm
          0.2806784 = fieldWeight in 1605, 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=1605)
      0.03405643 = weight(_text_:22 in 1605) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03405643 = score(doc=1605,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17604718 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05027291 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1605, 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=1605)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Numerous studies have explored the possibility of uncovering information from web search queries but few have examined the factors that affect web query data sources. We conducted a study that investigated this issue by comparing Google Trends and Baidu Index. Data from these two services are based on queries entered by users into Google and Baidu, two of the largest search engines in the world. We first compared the features and functions of the two services based on documents and extensive testing. We then carried out an empirical study that collected query volume data from the two sources. We found that data from both sources could be used to predict the quality of Chinese universities and companies. Despite the differences between the two services in terms of technology, such as differing methods of language processing, the search volume data from the two were highly correlated and combining the two data sources did not improve the predictive power of the data. However, there was a major difference between the two in terms of data availability. Baidu Index was able to provide more search volume data than Google Trends did. Our analysis showed that the disadvantage of Google Trends in this regard was due to Google's smaller user base in China. The implication of this finding goes beyond China. Google's user bases in many countries are smaller than that in China, so the search volume data related to those countries could result in the same issue as that related to China.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 66(2015) no.1, S.13-22

0.12527494 = product of:
  0.1879124 = sum of:
    0.11621937 = weight(_text_:search in 4140) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11621937 = score(doc=4140,freq=24.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.66512775 = fieldWeight in 4140, product of:
          4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
            24.0 = termFreq=24.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4140)
    0.07169304 = product of:
      0.14338608 = sum of:
        0.14338608 = weight(_text_:engines in 4140) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.14338608 = score(doc=4140,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.25542772 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05027291 = queryNorm
            0.5613568 = fieldWeight in 4140, 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=4140)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Despite improvements in their capabilities, search engines still fail to provide users with only relevant results. One reason is that most search engines implement a "one size fits all" approach that ignores personal preferences when retrieving the results of a user's query. Recent studies (Smyth, 2010) have elaborated the importance of personalizing search results and have proposed integrating recommender system methods for enhancing results using contextual and extrinsic information that might indicate the user's actual needs. In this article, we review recommender system methods used for personalizing and improving search results and examine the effect of two such methods that are merged for this purpose. One method is based on collaborative users' knowledge; the second integrates information from the user's social network. We propose new methods for collaborative-and social-based search and demonstrate that each of these methods, when separately applied, produce more accurate search results than does a purely keyword-based search engine (referred to as "standard search engine"), where the social search engine is more accurate than is the collaborative one. However, separately applied, these methods do not produce a sufficient number of results (low coverage). Nevertheless, merging these methods with those implemented by standard search engines overcomes the low-coverage problem and produces personalized results for users that display significantly more accurate results while also providing sufficient coverage than do standard search engines. The improvement, however, is significant only for topics for which the diversity of terms used for queries among users is low.

0.12053613 = product of:
  0.1808042 = sum of:
    0.100648925 = weight(_text_:search in 1523) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.100648925 = score(doc=1523,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.5760175 = fieldWeight in 1523, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1523)
    0.08015527 = product of:
      0.16031054 = sum of:
        0.16031054 = weight(_text_:engines in 1523) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.16031054 = score(doc=1523,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.25542772 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05027291 = queryNorm
            0.62761605 = fieldWeight in 1523, 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=1523)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

People frequently answer consequential questions, such as those with a medical focus, using Internet search engines. Their primary goal is to revise or establish beliefs in one or more outcomes. Search engines are not designed to furnish answers, and instead provide results that may contain answers. Information retrieval research has targeted aspects of information access such as query formulation, relevance, and search success. However, there are important unanswered questions on how beliefs-and potential biases in those beliefs-affect search behaviors and how beliefs are shaped by searching. To understand belief dynamics, we focus on yes-no medical questions (e.g., "Is congestive heart failure a heart attack?"), with consensus answers from physicians. We show that (a) presearch beliefs are affected only slightly by searching and changes are likely to skew positive (yes); (b) presearch beliefs affect search behavior; (c) search engines can shift some beliefs by manipulating result rank and availability, but strongly-held beliefs are difficult to move using uncongenial information and can be counterproductive, and (d) search engines exhibit near-random answer accuracy. Our findings suggest that search engines should provide correct answers to searchers' questions and develop methods to persuade searchers to shift strongly held but factually incorrect beliefs.

0.11355185 = product of:
  0.17032777 = sum of:
    0.12731194 = weight(_text_:search in 4373) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12731194 = score(doc=4373,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.72861093 = fieldWeight in 4373, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4373)
    0.043015826 = product of:
      0.08603165 = sum of:
        0.08603165 = weight(_text_:engines in 4373) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08603165 = score(doc=4373,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.25542772 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05027291 = queryNorm
            0.33681408 = fieldWeight in 4373, 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=4373)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

This paper reports on a transaction log analysis of the type and topic of search queries entered into the search engine Google (Australia). Two aspects, in particular, set this apart from previous studies: the sampling and analysis take account of the distribution of search queries, and lifestyle information of the searcher was matched with each search query. A surprising finding was that there was no observed statistically significant difference in search type or topics for different segments of the online population. It was found that queries about popular culture and Ecommerce accounted for almost half of all search engine queries and that half of the queries were entered with a particular Website in mind. The findings of this study also suggest that the Internet search engine is not only an interface to information or a shortcut to Websites, it is equally a site of leisure. This study has implications for the design and evaluation of search engines as well as our understanding of search engine use.