Search (5 results, page 1 of 1)

0.026351841 = product of:
  0.052703682 = sum of:
    0.052703682 = product of:
      0.105407365 = sum of:
        0.105407365 = weight(_text_:light in 5832) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.105407365 = score(doc=5832,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.2920221 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050563898 = queryNorm
            0.3609568 = fieldWeight in 5832, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5832)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The study set out to determine: (1) what were the searching characteristics of end-users in a non-academic environment and explain this in the light of their information needs; (2) whether these characteristics were those that were ascribed to end users in the professional literature; (3) whether they differed materially from those of information professionals working in the same fields. Searching characteristics were interpreted in their widest sense to include: command utilisation/knowledge; search success a satisfaction; volume of searching; searching style / approach; duration of searches; file selection; willingness to delegate and levels of training. These issues were explored in relation to 2 practitioner groups - journalists from he Guardian newspaper, and politicians from The House of Commons. Comparative data were also sought from information professionals in these 2 organisations. A mixture of social and statistical methods was used to monitor end-user and professional searching, though transactional log analysis was strongly featured. Altogether the searching behaviour of 170 end users was evaluated in the light of the searching behaviour of 70 librarians. The principal findings were that: in some respects end users did conform to the picture that information professionals have of them: they did seartch with a limited range of commands; more of their searches produced no results, and search statements were simplly constructed. But in other respects they confounded their image - they could be very quick and economical searchers, and they did not display meters of print-out. However, there were variations between individual end users, and it was often possible to find an end-user group that matched an information professional group on one aspect of online searching or another. The online behaviour of end users was very much related to their general information seeking behaviour; and to the fact that they were not trained

0.023291955 = product of:
  0.04658391 = sum of:
    0.04658391 = product of:
      0.09316782 = sum of:
        0.09316782 = weight(_text_:light in 722) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09316782 = score(doc=722,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2920221 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050563898 = queryNorm
            0.31904373 = fieldWeight in 722, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=722)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

There is very little qualitative data on what impact the Internet is having on information seeking in the workplace. Using open-ended interviews, questionnaires and observation, the impact of the Internet on the British Media was assessed. The focus was largely on newspapers, with The Guardian being covered in some depth. Over 300 journalists and media librarians were surveyed. It was found that amongst traditional journalists use was light. Poor access to the Internet - and good access to other information resources - were largely the reasons for this. Of the journalists it was mainly the older and more senior journalists and the New Media journalists who used the Internet. Librarians were also significant users. Searching the World Wide Web was the principal Internet activity and use was generally conservative in character. Newspapers and official sites were favoured, and searches were mainly of a fact-checking nature. Email was used on a very limited scale and was not regarded as a serious journalistic tool. Non-users were partly put off by the Internet's potential for overloading them with information and its reputation for producing information of suspect quality. Users generally dismissed these concerns, dealing with potential overload and quality problems largely by using authoritative sites and exploiting the lower quality data where it was needed. Where the Internet has been used it has not been at the expense of other information sources or communication channels, but online hosts seem to be at most risk in the future.

0.017126776 = product of:
  0.034253553 = sum of:
    0.034253553 = product of:
      0.068507105 = sum of:
        0.068507105 = weight(_text_:22 in 5941) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.068507105 = score(doc=5941,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17706616 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050563898 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 5941, 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=5941)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

26. 2.2008 19:22:51

0.010276065 = product of:
  0.02055213 = sum of:
    0.02055213 = product of:
      0.04110426 = sum of:
        0.04110426 = weight(_text_:22 in 2680) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04110426 = score(doc=2680,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17706616 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050563898 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2680, 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=2680)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

23. 2.2009 17:22:41

0.008563388 = product of:
  0.017126776 = sum of:
    0.017126776 = product of:
      0.034253553 = sum of:
        0.034253553 = weight(_text_:22 in 228) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034253553 = score(doc=228,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17706616 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050563898 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 228, 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=228)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

9. 2.1997 18:44:22