Search (7 results, page 1 of 1)

0.12788323 = product of:
  0.19182482 = sum of:
    0.13168289 = weight(_text_:query in 1081) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13168289 = score(doc=1081,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.22937049 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6476326 = idf(docFreq=1151, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049352113 = queryNorm
        0.5741056 = fieldWeight in 1081, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          4.6476326 = idf(docFreq=1151, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1081)
    0.060141932 = product of:
      0.120283864 = sum of:
        0.120283864 = weight(_text_:page in 1081) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.120283864 = score(doc=1081,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.27565226 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.5854197 = idf(docFreq=450, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049352113 = queryNorm
            0.4363609 = fieldWeight in 1081, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.5854197 = idf(docFreq=450, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1081)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

The aim of the work described in this paper is to evaluate the influencing effects of query-biased summaries in web searching. For this purpose, a summarisation system has been developed, and a summary tailored to the user's query is generated automatically for each document retrieved. The system aims to provide both a better means of assessing document relevance than titles or abstracts typical of many web search result lists. Through visiting each result page at retrieval-time, the system provides the user with an idea of the current page content and thus deals with the dynamic nature of the web. To examine the effectiveness of this approach, a task-oriented, comparative evaluation between four different web retrieval systems was performed; two that use query-biased summarisation, and two that use the standard ranked titles/abstracts approach. The results from the evaluation indicate that query-biased summarisation techniques appear to be more useful and effective in helping users gauge document relevance than the traditional ranked titles/abstracts approach. The same methodology was used to compare the effectiveness of two of the web's major search engines; AltaVista and Google.

0.08387356 = product of:
  0.12581034 = sum of:
    0.08328357 = weight(_text_:query in 3881) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08328357 = score(doc=3881,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.22937049 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6476326 = idf(docFreq=1151, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049352113 = queryNorm
        0.3630963 = fieldWeight in 3881, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.6476326 = idf(docFreq=1151, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3881)
    0.04252677 = product of:
      0.08505354 = sum of:
        0.08505354 = weight(_text_:page in 3881) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08505354 = score(doc=3881,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.27565226 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.5854197 = idf(docFreq=450, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049352113 = queryNorm
            0.30855376 = fieldWeight in 3881, 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=3881)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Web searchers typically fall to view search results beyond the first page nor fully examine those results presented to them. In this article we describe an approach that encourages a deeper examination of the contents of the document set retrieved in response to a searcher's query. The approach shifts the focus of perusal and interaction away from potentially uninformative document surrogates (such as titles, sentence fragments, and URLs) to actual document content, and uses this content to drive the information seeking process. Current search interfaces assume searchers examine results document-by-document. In contrast our approach extracts, ranks, and presents the contents of the top-ranked document set. We use query-relevant topranking sentences extracted from the top documents at retrieval time as fine-grained representations of topranked document content and, when combined in a ranked list, an overview of these documents. The interaction of the searcher provides implicit evidence that is used to reorder the sentences where appropriate. We evaluate our approach in three separate user studies, each applying these sentences in a different way. The findings of these studies show that top-ranking sentences can facilitate effective information access.

0.05875936 = product of:
  0.17627808 = sum of:
    0.17627808 = weight(_text_:query in 913) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.17627808 = score(doc=913,freq=28.0), product of:
        0.22937049 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6476326 = idf(docFreq=1151, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049352113 = queryNorm
        0.76852995 = fieldWeight in 913, product of:
          5.2915025 = tf(freq=28.0), with freq of:
            28.0 = termFreq=28.0
          4.6476326 = idf(docFreq=1151, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=913)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Interactive query expansion (IQE) (c.f. [Efthimiadis, E. N. (1996). Query expansion. Annual Review of Information Systems and Technology, 31, 121-187]) is a potentially useful technique to help searchers formulate improved query statements, and ultimately retrieve better search results. However, IQE is seldom used in operational settings. Two possible explanations for this are that IQE is generally not integrated into searchers' established information-seeking behaviors (e.g., examining lists of documents), and it may not be offered at a time in the search when it is needed most (i.e., during the initial query formulation). These challenges can be addressed by coupling IQE more closely with familiar search activities, rather than as a separate functionality that searchers must learn. In this article we introduce and evaluate a variant of IQE known as Real-Time Query Expansion (RTQE). As a searcher enters their query in a text box at the interface, RTQE provides a list of suggested additional query terms, in effect offering query expansion options while the query is formulated. To investigate how the technique is used - and when it may be useful - we conducted a user study comparing three search interfaces: a baseline interface with no query expansion support; an interface that provides expansion options during query entry, and a third interface that provides options after queries have been submitted to a search system. The results show that offering RTQE leads to better quality initial queries, more engagement in the search, and an increase in the uptake of query expansion. However, the results also imply that care must be taken when implementing RTQE interactively. Our findings have broad implications for how IQE should be offered, and form part of our research on the development of techniques to support the increased use of query expansion.

0.019630127 = product of:
  0.05889038 = sum of:
    0.05889038 = weight(_text_:query in 5064) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05889038 = score(doc=5064,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22937049 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6476326 = idf(docFreq=1151, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049352113 = queryNorm
        0.25674784 = fieldWeight in 5064, 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=5064)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Advances in search technology have meant that search systems can now offer assistance to users beyond simply retrieving a set of documents. For example, search systems are now capable of inferring user interests by observing their interaction, offering suggestions about what terms could be used in a query, or reorganizing search results to make exploration of retrieved material more effective. When providing new search functionality, system designers must decide how the new functionality should be offered to users. One major choice is between (a) offering automatic features that require little human input, but give little human control; or (b) interactive features which allow human control over how the feature is used, but often give little guidance over how the feature should be best used. This article presents a study in which we empirically investigate the issue of control by presenting an experiment in which participants were asked to interact with three experimental systems that vary the degree of control they had in creating queries, indicating which results are relevant in making search decisions. We use our findings to discuss why and how the control users want over search decisions can vary depending on the nature of the decisions and the impact of those decisions on the user's search.

0.019630127 = product of:
  0.05889038 = sum of:
    0.05889038 = weight(_text_:query in 0) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05889038 = score(doc=0,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22937049 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6476326 = idf(docFreq=1151, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049352113 = queryNorm
        0.25674784 = fieldWeight in 0, 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=0)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

0.019630127 = product of:
  0.05889038 = sum of:
    0.05889038 = weight(_text_:query in 1523) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05889038 = score(doc=1523,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22937049 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6476326 = idf(docFreq=1151, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049352113 = queryNorm
        0.25674784 = fieldWeight in 1523, 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=1523)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

People frequently answer consequential questions, such as those with a medical focus, using Internet search engines. Their primary goal is to revise or establish beliefs in one or more outcomes. Search engines are not designed to furnish answers, and instead provide results that may contain answers. Information retrieval research has targeted aspects of information access such as query formulation, relevance, and search success. However, there are important unanswered questions on how beliefs-and potential biases in those beliefs-affect search behaviors and how beliefs are shaped by searching. To understand belief dynamics, we focus on yes-no medical questions (e.g., "Is congestive heart failure a heart attack?"), with consensus answers from physicians. We show that (a) presearch beliefs are affected only slightly by searching and changes are likely to skew positive (yes); (b) presearch beliefs affect search behavior; (c) search engines can shift some beliefs by manipulating result rank and availability, but strongly-held beliefs are difficult to move using uncongenial information and can be counterproductive, and (d) search engines exhibit near-random answer accuracy. Our findings suggest that search engines should provide correct answers to searchers' questions and develop methods to persuade searchers to shift strongly held but factually incorrect beliefs.

0.01417559 = product of:
  0.04252677 = sum of:
    0.04252677 = product of:
      0.08505354 = sum of:
        0.08505354 = weight(_text_:page in 3612) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08505354 = score(doc=3612,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.27565226 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.5854197 = idf(docFreq=450, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049352113 = queryNorm
            0.30855376 = fieldWeight in 3612, 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=3612)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Footnote

Vgl. auch den Beitrag: Lewandowski, D.: Wie "Next Generation Search Systems" die Suche auf eine neue Ebene heben und die Informationswelt verändern. In: http://www.password-online.de/?wysija-page=1&controller=email&action=view&email_id=254&wysijap=subscriptions&user_id=1045..