Search (19 results, page 1 of 1)

Stock, W.G.: Qualitätskriterien von Suchmaschinen : Checkliste für Retrievalsysteme (2000) 0.05

0.054586574 = product of:
  0.10917315 = sum of:
    0.10917315 = sum of:
      0.07415321 = weight(_text_:2000 in 5773) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07415321 = score(doc=5773,freq=5.0), product of:
          0.20949209 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.0524464 = idf(docFreq=2088, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051695216 = queryNorm
          0.35396662 = fieldWeight in 5773, product of:
            2.236068 = tf(freq=5.0), with freq of:
              5.0 = termFreq=5.0
            4.0524464 = idf(docFreq=2088, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5773)
      0.03501994 = weight(_text_:22 in 5773) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03501994 = score(doc=5773,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18102784 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051695216 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5773, 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=5773)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source: Password. 2000, H.5, S.22-31
Year: 2000

Stock, W.G.: Elektronisches Publizieren und seine Auswirkungen auf Verlage, Buchhandel und Bibliotheken : New Book Economy (2000) 0.04

0.04449192 = product of:
  0.08898384 = sum of:
    0.08898384 = product of:
      0.17796768 = sum of:
        0.17796768 = weight(_text_:2000 in 4498) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.17796768 = score(doc=4498,freq=5.0), product of:
            0.20949209 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.0524464 = idf(docFreq=2088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051695216 = queryNorm
            0.84951985 = fieldWeight in 4498, product of:
              2.236068 = tf(freq=5.0), with freq of:
                5.0 = termFreq=5.0
              4.0524464 = idf(docFreq=2088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4498)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source: Password. 2000, H.2, S.24-30
Year: 2000

Stock, M.; Stock, W.G.: Klassifikation und terminologische Kontrolle : Yahoo!, Open Directory und Oingo im Vergleich (2000) 0.04

0.0350957 = product of:
  0.0701914 = sum of:
    0.0701914 = product of:
      0.1403828 = sum of:
        0.1403828 = weight(_text_:2000 in 5496) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1403828 = score(doc=5496,freq=7.0), product of:
            0.20949209 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.0524464 = idf(docFreq=2088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051695216 = queryNorm
            0.6701103 = fieldWeight in 5496, product of:
              2.6457512 = tf(freq=7.0), with freq of:
                7.0 = termFreq=7.0
              4.0524464 = idf(docFreq=2088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5496)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract: In Password 11/2000 wurden durch einen Retrievaltest die qualitativ führenden Suchwerkzeuge im Internet bestimmt. In den nächsten Teilen unseres State of the Art - Berichts über Retrievalsysteme im World Wide Weh beschreiben wir einzelne interessante Ansätze der Technik der TopSuchwerkzeuge. Den Anfang machen die klassifikatorischen Verzeichnisse Yahoo! und das Open Directory-Projekt sowie das System Oingo, das im Rahmen eines "semantischen Retrievals" das Homonym- und Synonymproblem angeht
Source: Password. 2000, H.12, S.26-32
Year: 2000

Stock, W.G.: Textwortmethode : Norbert Henrichs zum 65. (3) (2000) 0.03

0.029661283 = product of:
  0.059322566 = sum of:
    0.059322566 = product of:
      0.11864513 = sum of:
        0.11864513 = weight(_text_:2000 in 4891) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11864513 = score(doc=4891,freq=5.0), product of:
            0.20949209 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.0524464 = idf(docFreq=2088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051695216 = queryNorm
            0.5663466 = fieldWeight in 4891, product of:
              2.236068 = tf(freq=5.0), with freq of:
                5.0 = termFreq=5.0
              4.0524464 = idf(docFreq=2088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4891)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source: Password. 2000, H.7/8, S.26-35
Year: 2000

Stock, W.G.: Textwortmethode (2000) 0.03

0.028719414 = product of:
  0.057438828 = sum of:
    0.057438828 = product of:
      0.114877656 = sum of:
        0.114877656 = weight(_text_:2000 in 3408) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.114877656 = score(doc=3408,freq=3.0), product of:
            0.20949209 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.0524464 = idf(docFreq=2088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051695216 = queryNorm
            0.54836273 = fieldWeight in 3408, product of:
              1.7320508 = tf(freq=3.0), with freq of:
                3.0 = termFreq=3.0
              4.0524464 = idf(docFreq=2088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3408)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Year: 2000

Stock, W.G.: Eugene Garfield und die Folgen : der Weg der Fußnote bis in die Wissenschaftspolitik (2002) 0.03

0.028139163 = product of:
  0.056278326 = sum of:
    0.056278326 = product of:
      0.11255665 = sum of:
        0.11255665 = weight(_text_:2000 in 472) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11255665 = score(doc=472,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20949209 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.0524464 = idf(docFreq=2088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051695216 = queryNorm
            0.53728354 = fieldWeight in 472, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.0524464 = idf(docFreq=2088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=472)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract: Ein Besprechungsaufsatz zur Festschrift für E. Garfield: The Web of knowledge: Festschrift in honor of Eugene Garfield. Medford, NJ: Information Today 2000.

Stock, W.G.: Wissenschaftsinformatik : Fundierung, Gegenstand und Methoden (1980) 0.03

0.028015953 = product of:
  0.056031905 = sum of:
    0.056031905 = product of:
      0.11206381 = sum of:
        0.11206381 = weight(_text_:22 in 2808) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11206381 = score(doc=2808,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18102784 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051695216 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 2808, 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=2808)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source: Ratio. 22(1980), S.155-164

Stock, W.G.: Informationsmangel trotz Überfluß : Informationsgesellschaft verlangt neue Berufe und Berufsbilder (1995) 0.03

0.028015953 = product of:
  0.056031905 = sum of:
    0.056031905 = product of:
      0.11206381 = sum of:
        0.11206381 = weight(_text_:22 in 2027) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11206381 = score(doc=2027,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18102784 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051695216 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 2027, 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=2027)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source: Insider. 1995, Nr.4, Juli, S.19-22

Stock, M.; Stock, W.G.: Internet-Suchwerkzeuge im Vergleich : Teil 1: Retrievaltests mit Known Item searches (2000) 0.03

0.02595362 = product of:
  0.05190724 = sum of:
    0.05190724 = product of:
      0.10381448 = sum of:
        0.10381448 = weight(_text_:2000 in 5772) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10381448 = score(doc=5772,freq=5.0), product of:
            0.20949209 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.0524464 = idf(docFreq=2088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051695216 = queryNorm
            0.49555326 = fieldWeight in 5772, product of:
              2.236068 = tf(freq=5.0), with freq of:
                5.0 = termFreq=5.0
              4.0524464 = idf(docFreq=2088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5772)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source: Password. 2000, H.11, S.23-31
Year: 2000

Stock, W.G.: Endnutzersystem für internationale Geschäftsinformationen (1998) 0.02

0.024513958 = product of:
  0.049027916 = sum of:
    0.049027916 = product of:
      0.09805583 = sum of:
        0.09805583 = weight(_text_:22 in 2407) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09805583 = score(doc=2407,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18102784 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051695216 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 2407, 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=2407)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source: Password. 1998, H.10, S.22-28

Stock, M.; Stock, W.G.: Internet-Suchwerkzeuge im Vergleich (III) : Informationslinguistik und -statistik: AltaVista, FAST und Northern Light (2001) 0.02
```
0.018759442 = product of:
  0.037518885 = sum of:
    0.037518885 = product of:
      0.07503777 = sum of:
        0.07503777 = weight(_text_:2000 in 5578) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07503777 = score(doc=5578,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20949209 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.0524464 = idf(docFreq=2088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051695216 = queryNorm
            0.35818905 = fieldWeight in 5578, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.0524464 = idf(docFreq=2088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5578)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
```
Abstract

Suchmaschinen im World Wide Web arbeiten automatisch: Sie spüren Dokumente auf, indexieren sie, halten die Datenbank (mehr oder minder) aktuell und bieten den Kunden Retrievaloberflächen an. In unserem Known-Item-Retrievaltest (Password 11/2000) schnitten - in dieser Reihenfolge - Google, Alta Vista, Northern Light und FAST (All the Web) am besten ab. Die letzten drei Systeme arbeiten mit einer Kombination aus informationslinguistischen und informationsstatistischen Algorithmen, weshalb wir sie hier gemeinsam besprechen wollen. Im Zentrum unserer informationswissenschaftlichen Analysen stehen die "Highlights" der jeweiligen Suchwerkzeuge

Bredemeier, W.; Stock, W.G.: Informationskompetenz europäischer Volkswirtschaften (2000) 0.02

0.018538302 = product of:
  0.037076604 = sum of:
    0.037076604 = product of:
      0.07415321 = sum of:
        0.07415321 = weight(_text_:2000 in 5492) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07415321 = score(doc=5492,freq=5.0), product of:
            0.20949209 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.0524464 = idf(docFreq=2088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051695216 = queryNorm
            0.35396662 = fieldWeight in 5492, product of:
              2.236068 = tf(freq=5.0), with freq of:
                5.0 = termFreq=5.0
              4.0524464 = idf(docFreq=2088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5492)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source: Informationskompetenz - Basiskompetenz in der Informationsgesellschaft: Proceedings des 7. Internationalen Symposiums für Informationswissenschaft (ISI 2000), Hrsg.: G. Knorz u. R. Kuhlen
Year: 2000

Garfield, E.; Stock, W.G.: Citation Consciousness : Interview with Eugene Garfiels, chairman emeritus of ISI; Philadelphia (2002) 0.02

0.01750997 = product of:
  0.03501994 = sum of:
    0.03501994 = product of:
      0.07003988 = sum of:
        0.07003988 = weight(_text_:22 in 613) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07003988 = score(doc=613,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18102784 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051695216 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 613, 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=613)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source: Password. 2002, H.6, S.22-25

Stock, M.; Stock, W.G.: Internet-Suchwerkzeuge im Vergleich (IV) : Relevance Ranking nach "Popularität" von Webseiten: Google (2001) 0.01
```
0.014069581 = product of:
  0.028139163 = sum of:
    0.028139163 = product of:
      0.056278326 = sum of:
        0.056278326 = weight(_text_:2000 in 5771) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.056278326 = score(doc=5771,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20949209 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.0524464 = idf(docFreq=2088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051695216 = queryNorm
            0.26864177 = fieldWeight in 5771, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.0524464 = idf(docFreq=2088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5771)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
```
Abstract

In unserem Retrievaltest von Suchwerkzeugen im World Wide Web (Password 11/2000) schnitt die Suchmaschine Google am besten ab. Im Vergleich zu anderen Search Engines setzt Google kaum auf Informationslinguistik, sondern auf Algorithmen, die sich aus den Besonderheiten der Web-Dokumente ableiten lassen. Kernstück der informationsstatistischen Technik ist das "PageRank"- Verfahren (benannt nach dem Entwickler Larry Page), das aus der Hypertextstruktur des Web die "Popularität" von Seiten anhand ihrer ein- und ausgehenden Links berechnet. Google besticht durch das Angebot intuitiv verstehbarer Suchbildschirme sowie durch einige sehr nützliche "Kleinigkeiten" wie die Angabe des Rangs einer Seite, Highlighting, Suchen in der Seite, Suchen innerhalb eines Suchergebnisses usw., alles verstaut in einer eigenen Befehlsleiste innerhalb des Browsers. Ähnlich wie RealNames bietet Google mit dem Produkt "AdWords" den Aufkauf von Suchtermen an. Nach einer Reihe von nunmehr vier Password-Artikeln über InternetSuchwerkzeugen im Vergleich wollen wir abschließend zu einer Bewertung kommen. Wie ist der Stand der Technik bei Directories und Search Engines aus informationswissenschaftlicher Sicht einzuschätzen? Werden die "typischen" Internetnutzer, die ja in der Regel keine Information Professionals sind, adäquat bedient? Und können auch Informationsfachleute von den Suchwerkzeugen profitieren?

Schumann, L.; Stock, W.G.: ¬Ein umfassendes ganzheitliches Modell für Evaluation und Akzeptanzanalysen von Informationsdiensten : Das Information Service Evaluation (ISE) Modell (2014) 0.01

0.012256979 = product of:
  0.024513958 = sum of:
    0.024513958 = product of:
      0.049027916 = sum of:
        0.049027916 = weight(_text_:22 in 1492) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049027916 = score(doc=1492,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18102784 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051695216 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 1492, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1492)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date: 22. 9.2014 18:56:46

Stock, W.G.: Forschung im internationalen Vergleich - Wissenschaftsindikatoren auf Zitationsbasis : ISI Essential Science Indicators (2002) 0.01
```
0.011724652 = product of:
  0.023449304 = sum of:
    0.023449304 = product of:
      0.046898607 = sum of:
        0.046898607 = weight(_text_:2000 in 474) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.046898607 = score(doc=474,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20949209 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.0524464 = idf(docFreq=2088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051695216 = queryNorm
            0.22386816 = fieldWeight in 474, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.0524464 = idf(docFreq=2088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=474)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
```
Abstract

Bewertung wissenschaftlicher Forschungsergebnisse aus einer elektronischen Datenbank heraus? Rangordnungen der wichtigsten Institutionen, Wissenschaftler, Zeitschriften und sogar Länder in Fachdisziplinen nach Einfluss? Markierung "heißer", hochaktueller Artikel? Auflisten der hochzitierten Forschungsfronten in den einzelnen Wissenschaftsdisziplinen? Und das alles auf Knopfdruck und nicht mittels umständlicher szientometrischer Verfahren? Geht so etwas überhaupt? Es geht. Mit den "Essential Science Indicators" (ESI) legt das ISl ein webbasiertes Informationssystem zur Wissenschaftsevaluation vor, das einzigartige Ergebnisse präsentiert und in der Tat ausgesprochen einfach zu bedienen ist. Aber es geht, verglichen mit ausgeklügelten Methoden der empirischen Wissenschaftsforschung, nicht alles. Wo liegen die Grenzen des Systems? Wir werden die Arbeitsweise der ESI, seine Datenbasis, die eingesetzten informetrischen Algorithmen - und deren methodischen Probleme, die Suchoberfläche sowie die Ergebnisdarstellung skizzieren. Als Beispiel dienen uns Aspekte deutscher Forschung. Etwa: In welcher Disziplin haben Deutschlands Forscher den größten internationalen Einfluss? Welches deutsche Institut der Neurowissenschaften kann aufglobaler Ebene mitmischen? Oder: Welcher in Deutschland tätige Wissenschaftler führt eine disziplinspezifische Rangordnung an?Letztlich: Wer braucht die "Essential Science Indicators"? - Wir testeten die Essential Science Indicators Mitte Februar 2002 anhand der Version vom 1. Januar 2002, die das Zehn-Jahres-Intervall 1991 bis 2000 sowie die ersten zehn Monate aus 2001 berücksichtigt.
Schloegl, C.; Stock, W.G.: Impact and relevance of LIS journals : a scientometric analysis of international and German-language LIS journals - Citation analysis versus reader survey (2004) 0.01
```
0.009379721 = product of:
  0.018759442 = sum of:
    0.018759442 = product of:
      0.037518885 = sum of:
        0.037518885 = weight(_text_:2000 in 5249) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037518885 = score(doc=5249,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20949209 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.0524464 = idf(docFreq=2088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051695216 = queryNorm
            0.17909452 = fieldWeight in 5249, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.0524464 = idf(docFreq=2088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5249)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
```
Abstract

The goal of the scientometric analysis presented in this article was to investigate international and regional (i.e., German-language) periodicals in the field of library and information science (LIS). This was done by means of a citation analysis and a reader survey. For the citation analysis, impact factor, citing half-life, number of references per article, and the rate of self-references of a periodical were used as indicators. In addition, the leading LIS periodicals were mapped. For the 40 international periodicals, data were collected from ISI's Social Sciences Citation Index Journal Citation Reports (JCR); the citations of the 10 German-language journals were counted manually (overall 1,494 source articles with 10,520 citations). Altogether, the empirical base of the citation analysis consisted of nearly 90,000 citations in 6,203 source articles that were published between 1997 and 2000. The expert survey investigated reading frequency, applicability of the journals to the job of the reader, publication frequency, and publication preference both for all respondents and for different groups among them (practitioners vs. scientists, librarians vs. documentalists vs. LIS scholars, public sector vs. information industry vs. other private company employees). The study was conducted in spring 2002. A total of 257 questionnaires were returned by information specialists from Germany, Austria, and Switzerland. Having both citation and readership data, we performed a comparative analysis of these two data sets. This enabled us to identify answers to questions like: Does reading behavior correlate with the journal impact factor? Do readers prefer journals with a short or a long half-life, or with a low or a high number of references? Is there any difference in this matter among librarians, documentalists, and LIS scholars?

Stock, W.G.: Hochschulmanagement, Information Appliances, Fairness als Grundsatz : Information und Mobilität (2002) 0.01

0.008754985 = product of:
  0.01750997 = sum of:
    0.01750997 = product of:
      0.03501994 = sum of:
        0.03501994 = weight(_text_:22 in 1364) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03501994 = score(doc=1364,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18102784 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051695216 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1364, 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=1364)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date: 22. 2.2003 19:39:36

Stock, W.G.: Informational cities : analysis and construction of cities in the knowledge society (2011) 0.01

0.008754985 = product of:
  0.01750997 = sum of:
    0.01750997 = product of:
      0.03501994 = sum of:
        0.03501994 = weight(_text_:22 in 4452) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03501994 = score(doc=4452,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18102784 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051695216 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4452, 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=4452)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date: 3. 7.2011 19:22:49

Search (19 results, page 1 of 1)

Authors

Years

Languages

Themes