-
Lewandowski, D.: Query understanding (2011)
0.11
0.106666565 = product of:
0.15999985 = sum of:
0.13325372 = weight(_text_:query in 344) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.13325372 = score(doc=344,freq=4.0), product of:
0.22937049 = queryWeight, product of:
4.6476326 = idf(docFreq=1151, maxDocs=44218)
0.049352113 = queryNorm
0.5809541 = fieldWeight in 344, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
4.6476326 = idf(docFreq=1151, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=344)
0.026746122 = product of:
0.053492244 = sum of:
0.053492244 = weight(_text_:22 in 344) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.053492244 = score(doc=344,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1728227 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.049352113 = queryNorm
0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 344, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=344)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Abstract
- In diesem Kapitel wird beschrieben, wie Suchmaschinen Suchanfragen interpretieren können, um letztendlich den Nutzern besser auf ihren Kontext zugeschnittene Ergebnisse liefern zu können. Nach einer Diskussion der Notwendigkeit und der Einsatzmöglichkeiten des Query Understanding wird aufgezeigt, auf welcher Datenbasis und an welchen Ansatzpunkten Suchanfragen interpretiert werden können. Dann erfolgt eine Erläuterung der Interpretationsmöglichkeiten anhand der Suchanfragen-Facetten von Calderon-Benavides et al. (2010), welcher sich eine Diskussion der Verfahren zur Ermittlung der Facetten anschließt.
- Date
- 18. 9.2018 18:22:18
-
Lewandowski, D.: Evaluating the retrieval effectiveness of web search engines using a representative query sample (2015)
0.05
0.04711231 = product of:
0.14133692 = sum of:
0.14133692 = weight(_text_:query in 2157) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.14133692 = score(doc=2157,freq=8.0), product of:
0.22937049 = queryWeight, product of:
4.6476326 = idf(docFreq=1151, maxDocs=44218)
0.049352113 = queryNorm
0.61619484 = fieldWeight in 2157, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
4.6476326 = idf(docFreq=1151, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2157)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Abstract
- Search engine retrieval effectiveness studies are usually small scale, using only limited query samples. Furthermore, queries are selected by the researchers. We address these issues by taking a random representative sample of 1,000 informational and 1,000 navigational queries from a major German search engine and comparing Google's and Bing's results based on this sample. Jurors were found through crowdsourcing, and data were collected using specialized software, the Relevance Assessment Tool (RAT). We found that although Google outperforms Bing in both query types, the difference in the performance for informational queries was rather low. However, for navigational queries, Google found the correct answer in 95.3% of cases, whereas Bing only found the correct answer 76.6% of the time. We conclude that search engine performance on navigational queries is of great importance, because users in this case can clearly identify queries that have returned correct results. So, performance on this query type may contribute to explaining user satisfaction with search engines.
-
Lewandowski, D.; Drechsler, J.; Mach, S. von: Deriving query intents from web search engine queries (2012)
0.04
0.039260253 = product of:
0.11778076 = sum of:
0.11778076 = weight(_text_:query in 385) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.11778076 = score(doc=385,freq=8.0), product of:
0.22937049 = queryWeight, product of:
4.6476326 = idf(docFreq=1151, maxDocs=44218)
0.049352113 = queryNorm
0.5134957 = fieldWeight in 385, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
4.6476326 = idf(docFreq=1151, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=385)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Abstract
- The purpose of this article is to test the reliability of query intents derived from queries, either by the user who entered the query or by another juror. We report the findings of three studies. First, we conducted a large-scale classification study (~50,000 queries) using a crowdsourcing approach. Next, we used clickthrough data from a search engine log and validated the judgments given by the jurors from the crowdsourcing study. Finally, we conducted an online survey on a commercial search engine's portal. Because we used the same queries for all three studies, we also were able to compare the results and the effectiveness of the different approaches. We found that neither the crowdsourcing approach, using jurors who classified queries originating from other users, nor the questionnaire approach, using searchers who were asked about their own query that they just entered into a Web search engine, led to satisfying results. This leads us to conclude that there was little understanding of the classification tasks, even though both groups of jurors were given detailed instructions. Although we used manual classification, our research also has important implications for automatic classification. We must question the success of approaches using automatic classification and comparing its performance to a baseline from human jurors.
-
Lewandowski, D.: Wie "Next Generation Search Systems" die Suche auf eine neue Ebene heben und die Informationswelt verändern (2017)
0.02
0.022680946 = product of:
0.06804284 = sum of:
0.06804284 = product of:
0.13608567 = sum of:
0.13608567 = weight(_text_:page in 3611) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.13608567 = score(doc=3611,freq=2.0), product of:
0.27565226 = queryWeight, product of:
5.5854197 = idf(docFreq=450, maxDocs=44218)
0.049352113 = queryNorm
0.49368602 = fieldWeight in 3611, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.5854197 = idf(docFreq=450, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3611)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Source
- http://www.password-online.de/?wysija-page=1&controller=email&action=view&email_id=254&wysijap=subscriptions&user_id=1045
-
Lewandowski, D.: ¬Die Informationswissenschaft hat ein strukturelles, kein inhaltliches Problem : Ein Sechs-Punkte-Programm, um aus dem Status eines kleinen Faches herauszukommen (2019)
0.02
0.01603785 = product of:
0.048113547 = sum of:
0.048113547 = product of:
0.096227095 = sum of:
0.096227095 = weight(_text_:page in 5666) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.096227095 = score(doc=5666,freq=4.0), product of:
0.27565226 = queryWeight, product of:
5.5854197 = idf(docFreq=450, maxDocs=44218)
0.049352113 = queryNorm
0.34908873 = fieldWeight in 5666, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
5.5854197 = idf(docFreq=450, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5666)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Content
- Vgl. auch die Stellungnahme von W. Bredemeier in: Open Password. Nr.676 vom 10.12.2019 u.d.T.: Fehlende Theorie und fehlender Bezugsrahmen auch bei "Human Recorded Information": Fahrlässige Aufgabe des einzigen Alleinstellungsmerkmals, den die Disziplin von vornherein hatte, Die Informationswissenschaft als Hügellandschaft mit "Stand-alone-USPs" [https://www.password-online.de/?wysija-page=1&controller=email&action=view&email_id=833&wysijap=subscriptions&user_id=1045]. Vgl. auch den Bericht über die Berliner Tagung von Stefan Hauff-Hartwig in: Bibliotheksdienst 54(2020) H.1, S.27- . Vgl. auch die Erwiderung: Jörs, B.: Wider eine Überschätzung der gegenwärtigen Leistungen der deutschsprachigen Informationswissenschaft: Keine fehlende Fundierung? Doch mit gesellschaftlicher Relevanz ausgestattet?. Bernd Jörs antwortet Dirk Lewandowski. In: Open Password. Nr. 691 vom 21.01.2020, [https://www.password- online.de/?mailpoet_router&endpoint=view_in_browser&action=view&data=WzksMCw2MjY0LCIxMjF0dWVibnVuczBra2dnY2d3d2c0ODB3ODgwazRzYyIsOCwwXQ].
- Source
- Open Password. 2019, Nr. 664 vom 19. November 2019. [https://www.password-online.de/?wysija-page=1&controller=email&action=view&email_id=822&wysijap=subscriptions&user_id=1045]
-
Schaer, P.; Mayr, P.; Sünkler, S.; Lewandowski, D.: How relevant is the long tail? : a relevance assessment study on million short (2016)
0.01
0.01417559 = product of:
0.04252677 = sum of:
0.04252677 = product of:
0.08505354 = sum of:
0.08505354 = weight(_text_:page in 3144) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08505354 = score(doc=3144,freq=2.0), product of:
0.27565226 = queryWeight, product of:
5.5854197 = idf(docFreq=450, maxDocs=44218)
0.049352113 = queryNorm
0.30855376 = fieldWeight in 3144, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.5854197 = idf(docFreq=450, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3144)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Abstract
- Users of web search engines are known to mostly focus on the top ranked results of the search engine result page. While many studies support this well known information seeking pattern only few studies concentrate on the question what users are missing by neglecting lower ranked results. To learn more about the relevance distributions in the so-called long tail we conducted a relevance assessment study with the Million Short long-tail web search engine. While we see a clear difference in the content between the head and the tail of the search engine result list we see no statistical significant differences in the binary relevance judgments and weak significant differences when using graded relevance. The tail contains different but still valuable results. We argue that the long tail can be a rich source for the diversification of web search engine result lists but it needs more evaluation to clearly describe the differences.
-
Lewandowski, D.; Sünkler, S.; Kerkmann, F.: Are ads on Google search engine results pages labeled clearly enough? : the influence of knowledge on search ads on users' selection behaviour (2017)
0.01
0.01417559 = product of:
0.04252677 = sum of:
0.04252677 = product of:
0.08505354 = sum of:
0.08505354 = weight(_text_:page in 3567) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08505354 = score(doc=3567,freq=2.0), product of:
0.27565226 = queryWeight, product of:
5.5854197 = idf(docFreq=450, maxDocs=44218)
0.049352113 = queryNorm
0.30855376 = fieldWeight in 3567, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.5854197 = idf(docFreq=450, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3567)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Abstract
- In an online experiment using a representative sample of the German online population (n = 1.000), we compare users' selection behaviour on two versions of the same Google search engine results page (SERP), one showing advertisements and organic results, the other showing organic results only. Selection behaviour is analyzed in relation to users' knowledge on Google's business model, on SERP design, and on these users' actual performance in marking advertisements on SERPs correctly. We find that users who were not able to mark ads correctly selected ads significantly more often. This leads to the conclusion that ads need to be labeled more clearly, and that there is a need for more information literacy in search engine users.
-
Lewandowski, D.: Alles nur noch Google? : Entwicklungen im Bereich der WWW-Suchmaschinen (2002)
0.01
0.008915374 = product of:
0.026746122 = sum of:
0.026746122 = product of:
0.053492244 = sum of:
0.053492244 = weight(_text_:22 in 997) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.053492244 = score(doc=997,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1728227 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.049352113 = queryNorm
0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 997, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=997)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Date
- 29. 9.2002 18:49:22
-
Lewandowski, D.: Abfragesprachen und erweiterte Funktionen von WWW-Suchmaschinen (2004)
0.01
0.008915374 = product of:
0.026746122 = sum of:
0.026746122 = product of:
0.053492244 = sum of:
0.053492244 = weight(_text_:22 in 2314) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.053492244 = score(doc=2314,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1728227 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.049352113 = queryNorm
0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 2314, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2314)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Date
- 28.11.2004 13:11:22
-
Lewandowski, D.: ¬Die Macht der Suchmaschinen und ihr Einfluss auf unsere Entscheidungen (2014)
0.01
0.0066865305 = product of:
0.020059591 = sum of:
0.020059591 = product of:
0.040119182 = sum of:
0.040119182 = weight(_text_:22 in 1491) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.040119182 = score(doc=1491,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1728227 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.049352113 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1491, 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=1491)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Date
- 22. 9.2014 18:54:11
-
Lewandowski, D.; Spree, U.: Ranking of Wikipedia articles in search engines revisited : fair ranking for reasonable quality? (2011)
0.01
0.0055721086 = product of:
0.016716326 = sum of:
0.016716326 = product of:
0.03343265 = sum of:
0.03343265 = weight(_text_:22 in 444) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03343265 = score(doc=444,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1728227 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.049352113 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 444, 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=444)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Date
- 30. 9.2012 19:27:22
-
Lewandowski, D.; Sünkler, S.: What does Google recommend when you want to compare insurance offerings? (2019)
0.01
0.0055721086 = product of:
0.016716326 = sum of:
0.016716326 = product of:
0.03343265 = sum of:
0.03343265 = weight(_text_:22 in 5288) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03343265 = score(doc=5288,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1728227 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.049352113 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5288, 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=5288)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Date
- 20. 1.2015 18:30:22
