Search (33 results, page 1 of 2)

0.039850432 = product of:
  0.19925216 = sum of:
    0.19925216 = weight(_text_:line in 820) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.19925216 = score(doc=820,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.28424788 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6078424 = idf(docFreq=440, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050687566 = queryNorm
        0.7009803 = fieldWeight in 820, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.6078424 = idf(docFreq=440, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=820)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

COMPASS

Information retrieval / Use of / On-line computers

Subject

Information retrieval / Use of / On-line computers

0.029887825 = product of:
  0.14943913 = sum of:
    0.14943913 = weight(_text_:line in 4810) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14943913 = score(doc=4810,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.28424788 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6078424 = idf(docFreq=440, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050687566 = queryNorm
        0.52573526 = fieldWeight in 4810, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.6078424 = idf(docFreq=440, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4810)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

This article reports on a qualitative study exploring: (1) strategies and behaviors of public library users during interaction with an OPAC; and (2) users' confidence in finding needed information on-line. Questionnaires, interviews, and observations were employed to gather data from 32 public library users. the results found search behaviors, confidence, and other feelings varied, based on 3 types of searches: unknown-item searches; area searches; and known-item searches. Term generation was the most important factor in unknown-item search strategies. Speed and convenience palyed a role in area searches, and simplicity characterized known-item searches. Of the 3 types, unknown-item searchers experienced the most frustration and doubt; known-item searchers the most disappointment; and area searchers the most confidence and contentment. Knowledge of these differences may prove helpful for librarians and interface designers

0.028178511 = product of:
  0.14089255 = sum of:
    0.14089255 = weight(_text_:line in 2407) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14089255 = score(doc=2407,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.28424788 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6078424 = idf(docFreq=440, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050687566 = queryNorm
        0.4956679 = fieldWeight in 2407, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6078424 = idf(docFreq=440, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2407)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

As part of the study of human information search strategy, the concept of the search tactic, or move made to futher a search, is introduced. 29 search tactics are named, defined, and discussed in 4 categories: monitoring, file structure, search formulation, and term. Implications of the search tactics for research in search strategy are considered. The search tactics are inteded to be practically useful in information searching. This approach to searching is designed to be general, yet nontrivial; it is applicable to both bibliographic and reference searches and in both manual and on-line systems

0.024656197 = product of:
  0.12328098 = sum of:
    0.12328098 = weight(_text_:line in 2406) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12328098 = score(doc=2406,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.28424788 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6078424 = idf(docFreq=440, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050687566 = queryNorm
        0.4337094 = fieldWeight in 2406, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6078424 = idf(docFreq=440, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2406)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

An information search tactic is a move made to further a search. In this article, 17 "idea tactics" are presented: tactics to help generate new ideas or solutions to problems in information searching. The focus of these tactics is psychological; they are intended to help improve the information specialist's thinking and creative processes in searching. The tactics are applicable to all kinds of situations - both bibliographical and reference searches, and in both manual and on-line systems. Research leads for the study of idea tactics are suggested, and experimental design problems associated with the testing of all sorts of search tactics are discussed

0.02197589 = product of:
  0.10987945 = sum of:
    0.10987945 = weight(_text_:22 in 1448) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10987945 = score(doc=1448,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17749922 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050687566 = queryNorm
        0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 1448, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=1448)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

22. 5.2005 19:53:09

0.019228904 = product of:
  0.09614451 = sum of:
    0.09614451 = weight(_text_:22 in 3339) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09614451 = score(doc=3339,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17749922 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050687566 = queryNorm
        0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 3339, 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=3339)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

22. 5.2005 19:52:29

0.019228904 = product of:
  0.09614451 = sum of:
    0.09614451 = weight(_text_:22 in 3924) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09614451 = score(doc=3924,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17749922 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050687566 = queryNorm
        0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 3924, 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=3924)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Source

Library and information science research. 22(2000) no.4, S.371-382

0.017611569 = product of:
  0.08805784 = sum of:
    0.08805784 = weight(_text_:line in 600) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08805784 = score(doc=600,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.28424788 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6078424 = idf(docFreq=440, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050687566 = queryNorm
        0.30979243 = fieldWeight in 600, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6078424 = idf(docFreq=440, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=600)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Recent studies show that humans engage in multitasking behaviors as they seek and search information retrieval (IR) systems for information on more than one topic at the same time. For example, a Web search session by a single user may consist of searching on single topics or multitasking. Findings are presented from four separate studies of the prevalence of multitasking information seeking and searching by Web, IR system, and library users. Incidence of multitasking identified in the four different studies included: (1) users of the Excite Web search engine who completed a survey form, (2) Excite Web search engine users filtered from an Excite transaction log from 20 December 1999, (3) mediated on-line databases searches, and (4) academic library users. Findings include: (1) multitasking information seeking and searching is a common human behavior, (2) users may conduct information seeking and searching on related or unrelated topics, (3) Web or IR multitasking search sessions are longer than single topic sessions, (4) mean number of topics per Web search ranged of 1 to more than 10 topics with a mean of 2.11 topic changes per search session, and (4) many Web search topic changes were from hobbies to shopping and vice versa. A more complex model of human seeking and searching levels that incorporates multitasking information behaviors is presented, and a theoretical framework for human information coordinating behavior (HICB) is proposed. Multitasking information seeking and searching is developing as major research area that draws together IR and information seeking studies toward a focus on IR within the context of human information behavior. Implications for models of information seeking and searching, IR/Web systems design, and further research are discussed.

0.017611569 = product of:
  0.08805784 = sum of:
    0.08805784 = weight(_text_:line in 3588) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08805784 = score(doc=3588,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.28424788 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6078424 = idf(docFreq=440, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050687566 = queryNorm
        0.30979243 = fieldWeight in 3588, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6078424 = idf(docFreq=440, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3588)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Evaluation of information during information problem-solving processes already starts when trying to select the appropriate search result on a search engine results page (SERP). Up to now, research has mainly focused on the evaluation of webpages, while the evaluation of SERPs received less attention. Furthermore, task complexity is often not taken into account. A within-subjects design was used to study the influence of task complexity on search query formulation, evaluation of search results, and task performance. Three search tasks were used: a fact-finding, cause-effect, and a controversial topic task. To measure perceptual search processes, we used a combination of log files, eye-tracking data, answer forms, and think-aloud protocols. The results reveal that an increase in task complexity results in more search queries and used keywords, more time to formulate search queries, and more considered search results on the SERPs. Furthermore, higher ranked search results were considered more often than lower ranked results. However, not all the results for the most complex task were in line with expectations. These conflicting results can be explained by a lack of prior knowledge and the possible interference of prior attitudes.

0.013734931 = product of:
  0.068674654 = sum of:
    0.068674654 = weight(_text_:22 in 5835) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.068674654 = score(doc=5835,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17749922 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050687566 = queryNorm
        0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 5835, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=5835)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

5. 8.2006 13:22:44

0.010566941 = product of:
  0.052834705 = sum of:
    0.052834705 = weight(_text_:line in 1270) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.052834705 = score(doc=1270,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.28424788 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6078424 = idf(docFreq=440, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050687566 = queryNorm
        0.18587546 = fieldWeight in 1270, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6078424 = idf(docFreq=440, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1270)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Footnote

Rez. in: JASIST 54(2003) no.7, S.695-697 (R. Savolainen): "Donald O. Case has written an ambitious book to create an overall picture of the major approaches to information needs and seeking (INS) studies. The aim to write an extensive review is reflected in the list of references containing about 700 items. The high ambitions are explained an p. 14, where Case states that he is aiming at a multidisciplinary understanding of the concept of information seeking. In the Preface, the author characterizes his book as an introduction to the topic for students at the graduate level, as well as as a review and handbook for scholars engagged in information behavior research. In my view, Looking for Information is particularly welcome as an academic textbook because the field of INS studies suffers from the lack of monographs. Along with the continuous growth of the number of journal articles and conference papers, there is a genuine need for a book that picks up the numerous pieces and puts them together. The use of the study as a textbook is facilitated by clearly delineated sections an major themes and the wealth of concrete examples of information seeking in everyday contexts. The book is lucidly written and it is accessible to novice readers, too. At first glance, the idea of providing a comprehensive review of INS studies may seem a mission impossible because the current number of articles, papers, and other contributions in this field is nearing the 10,000 range (p. 224). Donald Case is not alone in the task of coming to grips with an increasing number of studies; similar problems have been faced by those writing INS-related chapters for the Annual Review of Information Science and Technology (ARIST). Case has solved the problem of "too many publications to be reviewed" by concentrating an the INS literature published during the last two decades. Secondly, studies an library use and information retrieval are discussed only to a limited extent. In addition, Case is highly selective as to studies focusing an the use of specific sources and channels such as WWW. These delineations are reasonable, even though they beg some questions. First, how should one draw the line between studies an information seeking and information retrieval? Case does not discuss this question in greater detail, although in recent years, the overlapping areas of information seeking and retrieval studies have been broadened, along with the growing importance of WWW in information seeking/retrieval. Secondly, how can one define the concept of information searching (or, more specifically, Internet or Web searching) in relation to information seeking and information retrieval? In the field of Web searching studies, there is an increasing number of contributions that are of direct relevance to information-seeking studies. Clearly, the advent of the Internet, particularly, the Web, has blurred the previous lines between INS and IR literature, making them less clear cut. The book consists of five main sections, and comprises 13 chapters. There is an Appendix serving the needs of an INS textbook (questions for discussion and application). The structure of the book is meticulously planned and, as a whole, it offers a sufficiently balanced contribution to theoretical, methodological, and empirical issues of INS. The title, Looking for Information: A Survey of Research an Information Seeking, Needs, and Behavior aptly describes the main substance of the book. . . . It is easy to agree with Case about the significance of the problem of specialization and fragmentation. This problem seems to be concomitant with the broadening field of INS research. In itself, Case's book can be interpreted as a struggle against this fragmentation. His book suggests that this struggle is not hopeless and that it is still possible to draw an overall picture of the evolving research field. The major pieces of the puzzle were found and the book will provide a useful overview of INS studies for many years."

0.008240959 = product of:
  0.04120479 = sum of:
    0.04120479 = weight(_text_:22 in 2404) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04120479 = score(doc=2404,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17749922 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050687566 = queryNorm
        0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2404, 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=2404)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

25.12.1998 19:22:31

0.008240959 = product of:
  0.04120479 = sum of:
    0.04120479 = weight(_text_:22 in 281) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04120479 = score(doc=281,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17749922 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050687566 = queryNorm
        0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 281, 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=281)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

22. 3.2002 9:53:10

0.008240959 = product of:
  0.04120479 = sum of:
    0.04120479 = weight(_text_:22 in 3450) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04120479 = score(doc=3450,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17749922 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050687566 = queryNorm
        0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3450, 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=3450)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

10. 4.2005 14:52:22

0.008240959 = product of:
  0.04120479 = sum of:
    0.04120479 = weight(_text_:22 in 3612) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04120479 = score(doc=3612,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17749922 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050687566 = queryNorm
        0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3612, 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=3612)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

2. 7.2005 12:22:50

0.008240959 = product of:
  0.04120479 = sum of:
    0.04120479 = weight(_text_:22 in 5047) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04120479 = score(doc=5047,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17749922 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050687566 = queryNorm
        0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 5047, 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=5047)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

5. 6.2006 11:22:23

0.008240959 = product of:
  0.04120479 = sum of:
    0.04120479 = weight(_text_:22 in 331) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04120479 = score(doc=331,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17749922 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050687566 = queryNorm
        0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 331, 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=331)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

27. 5.2007 13:55:22

0.008240959 = product of:
  0.04120479 = sum of:
    0.04120479 = weight(_text_:22 in 813) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04120479 = score(doc=813,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17749922 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050687566 = queryNorm
        0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 813, 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=813)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

23.12.2007 12:22:16

0.008240959 = product of:
  0.04120479 = sum of:
    0.04120479 = weight(_text_:22 in 3589) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04120479 = score(doc=3589,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17749922 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050687566 = queryNorm
        0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3589, 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=3589)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Information searching in practice seldom is an end in itself. In work, work task (WT) performance forms the context, which information searching should serve. Therefore, information retrieval (IR) systems development/evaluation should take the WT context into account. The present paper analyzes how WT features: task complexity and task types, affect information searching in authentic work: the types of information needs, search processes, and search media. We collected data on 22 information professionals in authentic work situations in three organization types: city administration, universities, and companies. The data comprise 286 WTs and 420 search tasks (STs). The data include transaction logs, video recordings, daily questionnaires, interviews. and observation. The data were analyzed quantitatively. Even if the participants used a range of search media, most STs were simple throughout the data, and up to 42% of WTs did not include searching. WT's effects on STs are not straightforward: different WT types react differently to WT complexity. Due to the simplicity of authentic searching, the WT/ST types in interactive IR experiments should be reconsidered.

0.0068674656 = product of:
  0.034337327 = sum of:
    0.034337327 = weight(_text_:22 in 297) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.034337327 = score(doc=297,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17749922 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050687566 = queryNorm
        0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 297, 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=297)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

22. 3.2002 9:55:52