Search (9 results, page 1 of 1)

0.067098185 = product of:
  0.13419637 = sum of:
    0.03853567 = weight(_text_:wide in 1188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03853567 = score(doc=1188,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19679762 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.1958137 = fieldWeight in 1188, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1188)
    0.08362513 = weight(_text_:web in 1188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08362513 = score(doc=1188,freq=32.0), product of:
        0.14495286 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.5769126 = fieldWeight in 1188, product of:
          5.656854 = tf(freq=32.0), with freq of:
            32.0 = termFreq=32.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1188)
    0.012035574 = product of:
      0.024071148 = sum of:
        0.024071148 = weight(_text_:22 in 1188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024071148 = score(doc=1188,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1555381 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044416238 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 1188, 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=1188)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(3/6)

Abstract

Surfing the World Wide Web used to be cool, dude, real cool. But things have gotten hot - so hot that finding something useful an the Web is no longer cool. It is suffocating Web searchers in the smoke and debris of mountain-sized lists of hits, decisions about which search engines they should use, whether they will get lost in the dizzying maze of a subject directory, use the right syntax for the search engine at hand, enter keywords that are likely to retrieve hits an the topics they have in mind, or enlist a browser that has sufficient functionality to display the most promising hits. When it comes to Web searching, in a few short years we have gone from the cool image of surfing the Web into the frying pan of searching the Web. We can turn down the heat by rethinking what Web searchers are doing and introduce some order into the chaos. Web search strategies that are tool-based-oriented to specific Web searching tools such as search en gines, subject directories, and meta search engines-have been widely promoted, and these strategies are just not working. It is time to dissect what Web searching tools expect from searchers and adjust our search strategies to these new tools. This discussion offers Web searchers help in the form of search strategies that are based an strategies that librarians have been using for a long time to search commercial information retrieval systems like Dialog, NEXIS, Wilsonline, FirstSearch, and Data-Star.

Content

"Web searching is different from searching commercial IR systems. We can learn from search strategies recommended for searching IR systems, but most won't be effective for Web searching. Web searchers need strate gies that let search engines do the job they were designed to do. This article presents six new Web searching strategies that do just that."

Date

22. 9.1997 19:16:05

0.012845224 = product of:
  0.07707134 = sum of:
    0.07707134 = weight(_text_:wide in 7716) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07707134 = score(doc=7716,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19679762 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.3916274 = fieldWeight in 7716, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=7716)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Library users continue to experience difficulty in using the online catalog, particularly in the area of subject access. This project describes a test of a new design for subject access to online catalogs. The new design requires a wide range of subject searching capabilities and search trees to govern the system's selection of searching capabilities in response to user queries. Is the performance of search trees superior to subject searching approaches chosen at random? This project is geared to make that determination

0.011353682 = product of:
  0.06812209 = sum of:
    0.06812209 = weight(_text_:wide in 4382) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06812209 = score(doc=4382,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.19679762 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.34615302 = fieldWeight in 4382, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4382)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

This article describes the findings of a research project that tested a new subject-access design in an experimental online catalog that had a wide range of subject-searching capabilities and search trees to govern the system's selection of searching capabilities in response to user queries. Library users at 2 academic libraries searched this experimental catalog for topics of their own choosing, judges the usefulness of retrieved titles, and answered post-search questions about their searching experiences. Mixed results from a quantitative analysis (i.e., precision scores) were supplemented with the more conclusive results from a qualitative analysis (i.e., failure analysis). Overall, analyses demonstrated that the new subject-access design that featured search trees was more effective in selecting a subject-searching approach that would prooduce useful information for the subjects users seek than users would select on their own. The qualitative analysis was especially helpful in providing recommendations for improving specific subject-searching approaches to increase their effenciency, increase user perseverance, and encourage browsing. It also suggested enhancements to the new subject-searching design to enable systems to respond to the wide variety of user queries for subjects

0.009633917 = product of:
  0.057803504 = sum of:
    0.057803504 = weight(_text_:wide in 5553) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.057803504 = score(doc=5553,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19679762 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.29372054 = fieldWeight in 5553, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5553)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Search trees are sets of paths with branches or choices that enable systems to carry out the most sensible search approaches at each stage of searches. Report results of a research project, undertaken at Michigan University, which aimed to identify characteristics of the most difficult user queries and recommend enhancements to the new subject searching design to enable it to produce useful retrievals in response to the wide variety of queries users pose to online catalogues. Online catalogues governed by search trees are more effective than the users themselves in selecting subject searching approaches and the enhanced search trees described and tested enlist subject searching approaches that are not typical of the functionality of operational online catalogues. Concludes that design and development is required to upgrade existing online catalogues with search trees and new subject searching functionality to be successful in responding with useful retrievals to the most difficult user queries

0.009268723 = product of:
  0.05561234 = sum of:
    0.05561234 = weight(_text_:computer in 3679) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05561234 = score(doc=3679,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.16231956 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.34261024 = fieldWeight in 3679, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3679)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Subject queries were extracted from 3 universities' online catalogues and analysed to determine the extend to which they matched subject headings in the LCSH. Computer analyses show that nearly 25% of the subject queries entered by online catalogue users are exact matches of LCSH. Yet, manual analyses show that, even though a user matches or closely matches LCSH-mr, the citations retrieved by this vocabulary are not necessarily satisfactory. Sometimes the closest LCSH-mr is not at all pertinent to a user's topic of interest. This study presents reasons why close matches of LCSH-mr are not always satisfactory and suggests approaches to finding the best matches of the catalogue's controlled vocabulary

0.008738637 = product of:
  0.05243182 = sum of:
    0.05243182 = weight(_text_:computer in 2101) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05243182 = score(doc=2101,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16231956 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.32301605 = fieldWeight in 2101, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2101)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

A prototype expert system for the computer science section (QA75 to QA76.95) of Library of Congress Classification was built using the Mahogany Professional expert system shell. The prototype demonstrates an expert systes application in which the system is enlisted as an intelligent job aid to assist users during the actual performance of shelflisting

0.008028265 = product of:
  0.04816959 = sum of:
    0.04816959 = weight(_text_:wide in 1713) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04816959 = score(doc=1713,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19679762 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.24476713 = fieldWeight in 1713, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1713)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

User studies demonstrate that nondomain experts do not use the same information-seeking strategies as domain experts. Because of the transformation of integrated library systems into Information Gateways in the late 1990s, both nondomain experts and domain experts have had available to them the wide range of information-seeking strategies in a single system. This article describes the results of a study to answer three research questions: (1) do nondomain experts enlist the strategies of domain experts? (2) if they do, how did they learn about these strategies? and (3) are they successful using them? Interviews, audio recordings, screen captures, and observations were used to gather data from 14 undergraduate students who searched an academic library's Information Gateway. The few times that the undergraduates in this study enlisted search strategies that were characteristic of domain experts, it usually took perseverance, trial-and-error, serendipity, or a combination of all three for them to find useful information. Although this study's results provide no compelling reasons for systems to support features that make domain-expert strategies possible, there is need for system features that scaffold nondomain experts from their usual strategies to the strategies characteristic of domain experts.

0.006968761 = product of:
  0.041812565 = sum of:
    0.041812565 = weight(_text_:web in 5432) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.041812565 = score(doc=5432,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14495286 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.2884563 = fieldWeight in 5432, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5432)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

In an interview with Robert P. Holley, Karen M. Drabenstott provides a history of a professional career that has focused on subject access to information. Since her early work with Pauline Cochrane, she has strongly supported enhanced bibliographic records as a way to improve user access in the online catalog. Her Dewey Decimal Classification Online project showed that the classification offers increased subject retrieval. Her current projects include improved strategies for Web searching and multimedia literacy including subject access.

0.0030088935 = product of:
  0.01805336 = sum of:
    0.01805336 = product of:
      0.03610672 = sum of:
        0.03610672 = weight(_text_:22 in 1333) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03610672 = score(doc=1333,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1555381 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044416238 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1333, 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=1333)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22