Search (6 results, page 1 of 1)

0.031408206 = product of:
  0.09422461 = sum of:
    0.09422461 = weight(_text_:query in 4380) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09422461 = score(doc=4380,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.22937049 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6476326 = idf(docFreq=1151, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049352113 = queryNorm
        0.41079655 = fieldWeight in 4380, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          4.6476326 = idf(docFreq=1151, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4380)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

We return to arguments made 10 years ago that online catalogs are difficult to use because their design does not incorporate sufficient understanding of searching behavior. The earlier article examined studies of information retrieval system searching for their implications for online catalog design; this article examines the implications of card catalog design for online catalogs. With this analysis, we hope to contribute to a better understanding of user behavior and to lay to rest the card catalog design model for online catalogs. We discuss the problems with query matching systems, which were designed for skilled search intermediaries rather than end-users, and the knowledge and skills they require in the information-seeking process, illustrated with examples of searching card and online catalogs. Searching requires conceptual knowledge of the information retrieval process - translating an information need into a searchable query; semantic knowledge of how to implement a query in a given system - the how and when to use system features; and technical skills in executing the query - basic computing skills and the syntax of entering queries as specific search statements. In the short term, we can help make online catalogs easier to use through improved training and documentation that is based on information-seeking bahavior, with the caveat that good training is not a substitute for good system design. Our long term goal should be to design intuitive systems that require a minimum of instruction. Given the complexity of the information retrieval problem and the limited capabilities of today's systems, we are far from achieving that goal. If libraries are to provide primary information services for the networked world, they need to put research results on the information-seeking process into practice in designing the next generation of online public access information retrieval systems

0.019630127 = product of:
  0.05889038 = sum of:
    0.05889038 = weight(_text_:query in 4385) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05889038 = score(doc=4385,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22937049 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6476326 = idf(docFreq=1151, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049352113 = queryNorm
        0.25674784 = fieldWeight in 4385, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.6476326 = idf(docFreq=1151, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4385)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Searching information retrieval systems is a highly interactive, iterative process that cannot be understood simply by comparing the output of a search session (the 'search product') to a query stated in advance. In this article, we examine evaluation goals and methods for studying information retrieval behavior, drawing examples from our own research and that of others. We limit our review to research that employs online monitoring, also known as transaction log analysis. Online monitoring is one of few methods that can capture detailed data on the search process at a reasonable cost; these data can be used to build quantitative models or to support qualitative interpretations of quatitative results. Monitoring is a data collection technique rather than a research design, and can be employed in experimental of field studies, whether alone or combined with other data collection methods. Based on the the research questions of interest, the researcher must determine what variables to collect from each data source, which to treat as independent varaibles to manipulate, and which to treat as dependent variables to observe effects. Studies of searching behavior often treat search task and searcher characteristics as independent variables and may manipulate other independent variables specific to the research questions addressed. Search outcomes, time, and search paths frequently are treated as dependent variables. We discuss each of these sets of variables, illustrating them with sample results from the literature and from our own research. Our examples are drawn from the Science Library Catalog project, a 7-year study of children's searching behavior on an experimental retrieval system. We close with a brief discussion of the implications of these results for the design of information retrieval systems

0.0066865305 = product of:
  0.020059591 = sum of:
    0.020059591 = product of:
      0.040119182 = sum of:
        0.040119182 = weight(_text_:22 in 5507) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040119182 = score(doc=5507,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1728227 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049352113 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 5507, 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=5507)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source

IFLA journal. 22(1996) no.2, S.121-127

0.0055721086 = product of:
  0.016716326 = sum of:
    0.016716326 = product of:
      0.03343265 = sum of:
        0.03343265 = weight(_text_:22 in 248) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03343265 = score(doc=248,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1728227 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049352113 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 248, 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=248)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

11. 6.2012 15:22:29

0.0055721086 = product of:
  0.016716326 = sum of:
    0.016716326 = product of:
      0.03343265 = sum of:
        0.03343265 = weight(_text_:22 in 5325) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03343265 = score(doc=5325,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1728227 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049352113 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5325, 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=5325)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

7. 7.2019 11:58:22

0.004457687 = product of:
  0.013373061 = sum of:
    0.013373061 = product of:
      0.026746122 = sum of:
        0.026746122 = weight(_text_:22 in 3231) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026746122 = score(doc=3231,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1728227 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049352113 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 3231, 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=3231)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

3. 6.2005 20:40:22