Search (45 results, page 1 of 3)

0.1050245 = product of:
  0.15753675 = sum of:
    0.13362148 = weight(_text_:book in 2946) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13362148 = score(doc=2946,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.2237077 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050679956 = queryNorm
        0.5973039 = fieldWeight in 2946, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2946)
    0.023915261 = product of:
      0.047830522 = sum of:
        0.047830522 = weight(_text_:search in 2946) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047830522 = score(doc=2946,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17614716 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050679956 = queryNorm
            0.27153727 = fieldWeight in 2946, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2946)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

In both the social sciences and the humanities, books and monographs play significant roles in research communication. The absence of citations from most books and monographs from the Thomson Reuters/Institute for Scientific Information databases (ISI) has been criticized, but attempts to include citations from or to books in the research evaluation of the social sciences and humanities have not led to widespread adoption. This article assesses whether Google Book Search (GBS) can partially fill this gap by comparing citations from books with citations from journal articles to journal articles in 10 science, social science, and humanities disciplines. Book citations were 31% to 212% of ISI citations and, hence, numerous enough to supplement ISI citations in the social sciences and humanities covered, but not in the sciences (3%-5%), except for computing (46%), due to numerous published conference proceedings. A case study was also made of all 1,923 articles in the 51 information science and library science ISI-indexed journals published in 2003. Within this set, highly book-cited articles tended to receive many ISI citations, indicating a significant relationship between the two types of citation data, but with important exceptions that point to the additional information provided by book citations. In summary, GBS is clearly a valuable new source of citation data for the social sciences and humanities. One practical implication is that book-oriented scholars should consult it for additional citations to their work when applying for promotion and tenure.

0.05716911 = product of:
  0.085753664 = sum of:
    0.0654609 = weight(_text_:book in 3906) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0654609 = score(doc=3906,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2237077 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050679956 = queryNorm
        0.29261798 = fieldWeight in 3906, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3906)
    0.02029277 = product of:
      0.04058554 = sum of:
        0.04058554 = weight(_text_:search in 3906) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04058554 = score(doc=3906,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17614716 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050679956 = queryNorm
            0.230407 = fieldWeight in 3906, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3906)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Webometrics is an information science field concerned with measuring aspects of the World Wide Web (WWW) for a variety of information science research goals. It came into existence about five years after the Web was formed and has since grown to become a significant aspect of information science, at least in terms of published research. Although some webometrics research has focused on the structure or evolution of the Web itself or the performance of commercial search engines, most has used data from the Web to shed light on information provision or online communication in various contexts. Most prominently, techniques have been developed to track, map, and assess Web-based informal scholarly communication, for example, in terms of the hyperlinks between academic Web sites or the online impact of digital repositories. In addition, a range of nonacademic issues and groups of Web users have also been analyzed.

Footnote

Vgl.: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/book/10.1081/E-ELIS3.

0.052310668 = product of:
  0.078466 = sum of:
    0.05455074 = weight(_text_:book in 3226) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05455074 = score(doc=3226,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2237077 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050679956 = queryNorm
        0.2438483 = fieldWeight in 3226, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3226)
    0.023915261 = product of:
      0.047830522 = sum of:
        0.047830522 = weight(_text_:search in 3226) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047830522 = score(doc=3226,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17614716 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050679956 = queryNorm
            0.27153727 = fieldWeight in 3226, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3226)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Scholars writing books that are widely used to support teaching in higher education may be undervalued because of a lack of evidence of teaching value. Although sales data may give credible evidence for textbooks, these data may poorly reflect educational uses of other types of books. As an alternative, this article proposes a method to search automatically for mentions of books in online academic course syllabi based on Bing searches for syllabi mentioning a given book, filtering out false matches through an extensive set of rules. The method had an accuracy of over 90% based on manual checks of a sample of 2,600 results from the initial Bing searches. Over one third of about 14,000 monographs checked had one or more academic syllabus mention, with more in the arts and humanities (56%) and social sciences (52%). Low but significant correlations between syllabus mentions and citations across most fields, except the social sciences, suggest that books tend to have different levels of impact for teaching and research. In conclusion, the automatic syllabus search method gives a new way to estimate the educational utility of books in a way that sales data and citation counts cannot.

0.044540495 = product of:
  0.13362148 = sum of:
    0.13362148 = weight(_text_:book in 3534) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13362148 = score(doc=3534,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.2237077 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050679956 = queryNorm
        0.5973039 = fieldWeight in 3534, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3534)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Goodreads is an Amazon-owned book-based social web site for members to share books, read, review books, rate books, and connect with other readers. Goodreads has tens of millions of book reviews, recommendations, and ratings that may help librarians and readers to select relevant books. This article describes a first investigation of the properties of Goodreads users, using a random sample of 50,000 members. The results suggest that about three quarters of members with a public profile are female, and that there is little difference between male and female users in patterns of behavior, except for females registering more books and rating them less positively. Goodreads librarians and super-users engage extensively with most features of the site. The absence of strong correlations between book-based and social usage statistics (e.g., numbers of friends, followers, books, reviews, and ratings) suggests that members choose their own individual balance of social and book activities and rarely ignore one at the expense of the other. Goodreads is therefore neither primarily a book-based website nor primarily a social network site but is a genuine hybrid, social navigation site.

0.044540495 = product of:
  0.13362148 = sum of:
    0.13362148 = weight(_text_:book in 5461) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13362148 = score(doc=5461,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.2237077 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050679956 = queryNorm
        0.5973039 = fieldWeight in 5461, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5461)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Purpose Despite the social, educational and therapeutic benefits of book clubs, little is known about which books participants are likely to have read. In response, the purpose of this paper is to investigate the public bookshelves of those that have joined a group within the Goodreads social network site. Design/methodology/approach Books listed as read by members of 50 large English-language Goodreads groups - with a genre focus or other theme - were compiled by author and title. Findings Recent and youth-oriented fiction dominate the 50 books most read by book club members, whilst almost half are works of literature frequently taught at the secondary and postsecondary level (literary classics). Whilst J.K. Rowling is almost ubiquitous (at least 63 per cent as frequently listed as other authors in any group, including groups for other genres), most authors, including Shakespeare (15 per cent), Goulding (6 per cent) and Hemmingway (9 per cent), are little read by some groups. Nor are individual recent literary prize winners or works in languages other than English frequently read. Research limitations/implications Although these results are derived from a single popular website, knowing more about what book club members are likely to have read should help participants, organisers and moderators. For example, recent literary prize winners might be a good choice, given that few members may have read them. Originality/value This is the first large scale study of book group members' reading patterns. Whilst typical reading is likely to vary by group theme and average age, there seems to be a mainly female canon of about 14 authors and 19 books that Goodreads book club members are likely to have read.

0.040659726 = product of:
  0.12197917 = sum of:
    0.12197917 = weight(_text_:book in 3768) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12197917 = score(doc=3768,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.2237077 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050679956 = queryNorm
        0.5452614 = fieldWeight in 3768, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3768)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Although peer-review and citation counts are commonly used to help assess the scholarly impact of published research, informal reader feedback might also be exploited to help assess the wider impacts of books, such as their educational or cultural value. The social website Goodreads seems to be a reasonable source for this purpose because it includes a large number of book reviews and ratings by many users inside and outside of academia. To check this, Goodreads book metrics were compared with different book-based impact indicators for 15,928 academic books across broad fields. Goodreads engagements were numerous enough in the arts (85% of books had at least one), humanities (80%), and social sciences (67%) for use as a source of impact evidence. Low and moderate correlations between Goodreads book metrics and scholarly or non-scholarly indicators suggest that reader feedback in Goodreads reflects the many purposes of books rather than a single type of impact. Although Goodreads book metrics can be manipulated, they could be used guardedly by academics, authors, and publishers in evaluations.

0.03779387 = product of:
  0.11338161 = sum of:
    0.11338161 = weight(_text_:book in 3598) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11338161 = score(doc=3598,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.2237077 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050679956 = queryNorm
        0.50682926 = fieldWeight in 3598, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3598)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Although gender differences are known to exist in the publishing industry and in reader preferences, there is little public systematic data about them. This article uses evidence from the book-based social website Goodreads to provide a large scale analysis of 50 major English book genres based on author genders. The results show gender differences in authorship in almost all categories and gender differences the level of interest in, and ratings of, books in a minority of categories. Perhaps surprisingly in this context, there is not a clear gender-based relationship between the success of an author and their prevalence within a genre. The unexpected almost universal authorship gender differences should give new impetus to investigations of the importance of gender in fiction and the success of minority genders in some genres should encourage publishers and librarians to take their work seriously, except perhaps for most male-authored chick-lit.

0.036367163 = product of:
  0.10910148 = sum of:
    0.10910148 = weight(_text_:book in 4920) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10910148 = score(doc=4920,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.2237077 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050679956 = queryNorm
        0.4876966 = fieldWeight in 4920, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4920)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Citation indictors are increasingly used in some subject areas to support peer review in the evaluation of researchers and departments. Nevertheless, traditional journal-based citation indexes may be inadequate for the citation impact assessment of book-based disciplines. This article examines whether online citations from Google Books and Google Scholar can provide alternative sources of citation evidence. To investigate this, we compared the citation counts to 1,000 books submitted to the 2008 U.K. Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) from Google Books and Google Scholar with Scopus citations across seven book-based disciplines (archaeology; law; politics and international studies; philosophy; sociology; history; and communication, cultural, and media studies). Google Books and Google Scholar citations to books were 1.4 and 3.2 times more common than were Scopus citations, and their medians were more than twice and three times as high as were Scopus median citations, respectively. This large number of citations is evidence that in book-oriented disciplines in the social sciences, arts, and humanities, online book citations may be sufficiently numerous to support peer review for research evaluation, at least in the United Kingdom.

0.036367163 = product of:
  0.10910148 = sum of:
    0.10910148 = weight(_text_:book in 3384) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10910148 = score(doc=3384,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.2237077 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050679956 = queryNorm
        0.4876966 = fieldWeight in 3384, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3384)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

In recent years there has been an increasing demand for research evaluation within universities and other research-based organisations. In parallel, there has been an increasing recognition that traditional citation-based indicators are not able to reflect the societal impacts of research and are slow to appear. This has led to the creation of new indicators for different types of research impact as well as timelier indicators, mainly derived from the Web. These indicators have been called altmetrics, webometrics or just web metrics. This book describes and evaluates a range of web indicators for aspects of societal or scholarly impact, discusses the theory and practice of using and evaluating web indicators for research assessment and outlines practical strategies for obtaining many web indicators. In addition to describing impact indicators for traditional scholarly outputs, such as journal articles and monographs, it also covers indicators for videos, datasets, software and other non-standard scholarly outputs. The book describes strategies to analyse web indicators for individual publications as well as to compare the impacts of groups of publications. The practical part of the book includes descriptions of how to use the free software Webometric Analyst to gather and analyse web data. This book is written for information science undergraduate and Master?s students that are learning about alternative indicators or scientometrics as well as Ph.D. students and other researchers and practitioners using indicators to help assess research impact or to study scholarly communication.

0.030858565 = product of:
  0.09257569 = sum of:
    0.09257569 = weight(_text_:book in 2768) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09257569 = score(doc=2768,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.2237077 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050679956 = queryNorm
        0.41382432 = fieldWeight in 2768, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2768)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Although citation counts are often used to evaluate the research impact of academic publications, they are problematic for books that aim for educational or cultural impact. To fill this gap, this article assesses whether a number of simple metrics derived from Amazon.com reviews of academic books could provide evidence of their impact. Based on a set of 2,739 academic monographs from 2008 and a set of 1,305 best-selling books in 15 Amazon.com academic subject categories, the existence of significant but low or moderate correlations between citations and numbers of reviews, combined with other evidence, suggests that online book reviews tend to reflect the wider popularity of a book rather than its academic impact, although there are substantial disciplinary differences. Metrics based on online reviews are therefore recommended for the evaluation of books that aim at a wide audience inside or outside academia when it is important to capture the broader impacts of educational or cultural activities and when they cannot be manipulated in advance of the evaluation.

0.018183582 = product of:
  0.05455074 = sum of:
    0.05455074 = weight(_text_:book in 1548) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05455074 = score(doc=1548,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2237077 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050679956 = queryNorm
        0.2438483 = fieldWeight in 1548, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1548)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Citation indicators are increasingly used in book-based disciplines to support peer review in the evaluation of authors and to gauge the prestige of publishers. However, because global citation databases seem to offer weak coverage of books outside the West, it is not clear whether the influence of non-Western books can be assessed with citations. To investigate this, citations were extracted from Google Books and Google Scholar to 1,357 arts, humanities and social sciences (AHSS) books published by 5 university presses during 1961-2012 in 1 non-Western nation, Malaysia. A significant minority of the books (23% in Google Books and 37% in Google Scholar, 45% in total) had been cited, with a higher proportion cited if they were older or in English. The combination of Google Books and Google Scholar is therefore recommended, with some provisos, for non-Western countries seeking to differentiate between books with some impact and books with no impact, to identify the highly-cited works or to develop an indicator of academic publisher prestige.

0.018183582 = product of:
  0.05455074 = sum of:
    0.05455074 = weight(_text_:book in 1658) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05455074 = score(doc=1658,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2237077 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050679956 = queryNorm
        0.2438483 = fieldWeight in 1658, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1658)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Recent studies have shown that counting citations from books can help scholarly impact assessment and that Google Books (GB) is a useful source of such citation counts, despite its lack of a public citation index. Searching GB for citations produces approximate matches, however, and so its raw results need time-consuming human filtering. In response, this article introduces a method to automatically remove false and irrelevant matches from GB citation searches in addition to introducing refinements to a previous GB manual citation extraction method. The method was evaluated by manual checking of sampled GB results and comparing citations to about 14,500 monographs in the Thomson Reuters Book Citation Index (BKCI) against automatically extracted citations from GB across 24 subject areas. GB citations were 103% to 137% as numerous as BKCI citations in the humanities, except for tourism (72%) and linguistics (91%), 46% to 85% in social sciences, but only 8% to 53% in the sciences. In all cases, however, GB had substantially more citing books than did BKCI, with BKCI's results coming predominantly from journal articles. Moderate correlations between the GB and BKCI citation counts in social sciences and humanities, with most BKCI results coming from journal articles rather than books, suggests that they could measure the different aspects of impact, however.

0.01803802 = product of:
  0.054114055 = sum of:
    0.054114055 = product of:
      0.10822811 = sum of:
        0.10822811 = weight(_text_:search in 4539) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10822811 = score(doc=4539,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.17614716 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050679956 = queryNorm
            0.6144187 = fieldWeight in 4539, 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=4539)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Search engines index only a proportion of the web and this proportion is not determined randomly but by following algorithms that take into account the properties that impact factors measure. A survey was conducted in order to test the coverage of search engines and to decide thether their partial coverage is indeed an obstacle to using them to calculate web impact factors. The results indicate that search engine coverage, even of large national domains is extremely uneven and would be likely to lead to misleading calculations

0.016568977 = product of:
  0.04970693 = sum of:
    0.04970693 = product of:
      0.09941386 = sum of:
        0.09941386 = weight(_text_:search in 2536) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09941386 = score(doc=2536,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.17614716 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050679956 = queryNorm
            0.5643796 = fieldWeight in 2536, 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=2536)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Commercial search engines are now playing an increasingly important role in Web information dissemination and access. Of particular interest to business and national governments is whether the big engines have coverage biased towards the US or other countries. In our study we tested for national biases in three major search engines and found significant differences in their coverage of commercial Web sites. The US sites were much better covered than the others in the study: sites from China, Taiwan and Singapore. We then examined the possible technical causes of the differences and found that the language of a site does not affect its coverage by search engines. However, the visibility of a site, measured by the number of links to it, affects its chance to be covered by search engines. We conclude that the coverage bias does exist but this is due not to deliberate choices of the search engines but occurs as a natural result of cumulative advantage effects of US sites on the Web. Nevertheless, the bias remains a cause for international concern.

0.015125338 = product of:
  0.045376014 = sum of:
    0.045376014 = product of:
      0.09075203 = sum of:
        0.09075203 = weight(_text_:search in 10) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09075203 = score(doc=10,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.17614716 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050679956 = queryNorm
            0.51520574 = fieldWeight in 10, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=10)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Information Retrieval (IR) research typically evaluates search systems in terms of the standard precision, recall and F-measures to weight the relative importance of precision and recall (e.g. van Rijsbergen, 1979). All of these assess the extent to which the system returns good matches for a query. In contrast, webometric measures are designed specifically for web search engines and are designed to monitor changes in results over time and various aspects of the internal logic of the way in which search engine select the results to be returned. This chapter introduces a range of webometric measurements and illustrates them with case studies of Google, Bing and Yahoo! This is a very fertile area for simple and complex new investigations into search engine results.

0.013807482 = product of:
  0.041422445 = sum of:
    0.041422445 = product of:
      0.08284489 = sum of:
        0.08284489 = weight(_text_:search in 2350) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08284489 = score(doc=2350,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.17614716 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050679956 = queryNorm
            0.47031635 = fieldWeight in 2350, 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=2350)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Search engines are normally used to find information or Web sites, but Webometric investigations use them for quantitative data such as the number of pages matching a query and the international spread of those pages. For this type of application, the accuracy of the hit count estimates and range of URLs in the full results are important. Here, we compare the applications programming interfaces of Google, Yahoo!, and Live Search for 1,587 single word searches. The hit count estimates were broadly consistent but with Yahoo! and Google, reporting 5-6 times more hits than Live Search. Yahoo! tended to return slightly more matching URLs than Google, with Live Search returning significantly fewer. Yahoo!'s result URLs included a significantly wider range of domains and sites than the other two, and there was little consistency between the three engines in the number of different domains. In contrast, the three engines were reasonably consistent in the number of different top-level domains represented in the result URLs, although Yahoo! tended to return the most. In conclusion, quantitative results from the three search engines are mostly consistent but with unexpected types of inconsistency that users should be aware of. Google is recommended for hit count estimates but Yahoo! is recommended for all other Webometric purposes.

0.013528514 = product of:
  0.04058554 = sum of:
    0.04058554 = product of:
      0.08117108 = sum of:
        0.08117108 = weight(_text_:search in 1338) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08117108 = score(doc=1338,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.17614716 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050679956 = queryNorm
            0.460814 = fieldWeight in 1338, 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=1338)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Although designed for general Web searching, Webometrics and related research commercial search engines are also used to produce estimated hit counts or lists of URLs matching a query. Unfortunately, however, they do not return all matching URLs for a search and their hit count estimates are unreliable. In this article, we assess whether it is possible to obtain complete lists of matching URLs from Windows Live, and whether any of its hit count estimates are robust. As part of this, we introduce two new methods to extract extra URLs from search engines: automated query splitting and automated domain and TLD searching. Both methods successfully identify additional matching URLs but the findings suggest that there is no way to get complete lists of matching URLs or accurate hit counts from Windows Live, although some estimating suggestions are provided.

0.012604448 = product of:
  0.037813343 = sum of:
    0.037813343 = product of:
      0.075626686 = sum of:
        0.075626686 = weight(_text_:search in 697) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.075626686 = score(doc=697,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.17614716 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050679956 = queryNorm
            0.4293381 = fieldWeight in 697, 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=697)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Those seeking information from the Internet often start from a search engine, using either its organised directory structure or its text query facility. In response to the difficulty in identifying the most relevant pages for some information needs, many search engines offer Boolean text matching and some, including Google, AltaVista and HotBot, offer the facility to integrate additional information into a more advanced request. Amongst web users, however, it is known that the employment of complex enquiries is far from universal, with very short queries being the norm. It is demonstrated that the gap between the provision of advanced search facilities and their use can be bridged, for specific information needs, by the construction of a simple interface in the form of a website that automatically formulates the necessary requests. It is argued that this kind of resource, perhaps employing additional knowledge domain specific information, is one that could be useful for websites or portals of common interest groups. The approach is illustrated by a website that enables a user to search the individual websites of university level institutions in European Union associated countries.

0.012604448 = product of:
  0.037813343 = sum of:
    0.037813343 = product of:
      0.075626686 = sum of:
        0.075626686 = weight(_text_:search in 4626) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.075626686 = score(doc=4626,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.17614716 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050679956 = queryNorm
            0.4293381 = fieldWeight in 4626, 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=4626)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The primary webometric method for estimating the online impact of an organization is to count links to its website. Link counts have been available from commercial search engines for over a decade but this was set to end by early 2012 and so a replacement is needed. This article compares link counts to two alternative methods: URL citations and organization title mentions. New variations of these methods are also introduced. The three methods are compared against each other using Yahoo!. Two of the three methods (URL citations and organization title mentions) are also compared against each other using Bing. Evidence from a case study of 131 UK universities and 49 US Library and Information Science (LIS) departments suggests that Bing's Hit Count Estimates (HCEs) for popular title searches are not useful for webometric research but that Yahoo!'s HCEs for all three types of search and Bing's URL citation HCEs seem to be consistent. For exact URL counts the results of all three methods in Yahoo! and both methods in Bing are also consistent. Four types of accuracy factors are also introduced and defined: search engine coverage, search engine retrieval variation, search engine retrieval anomalies, and query polysemy.

0.011160455 = product of:
  0.033481363 = sum of:
    0.033481363 = product of:
      0.06696273 = sum of:
        0.06696273 = weight(_text_:search in 364) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06696273 = score(doc=364,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17614716 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050679956 = queryNorm
            0.38015217 = fieldWeight in 364, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=364)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Conducting a literature review is an important activity for postgraduates and many undergraduates. Librarians can play an important role, directing students to digital libraries, compiling online subject reSource lists, and educating about the need to evaluate the quality of online resources. In order to conduct an effective literature search in a new area, however, in some subjects it is necessary to gain basic topic knowledge, including specialist vocabularies. Google's link-based page ranking algorithm makes this search engine an ideal tool for finding specialist topic introductory material, particularly in computer science, and so librarians should be teaching this as part of a strategic literature review approach.