Search (361 results, page 1 of 19)

0.199209 = product of:
  0.265612 = sum of:
    0.05759195 = weight(_text_:web in 5186) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05759195 = score(doc=5186,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.16134618 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049439456 = queryNorm
        0.35694647 = fieldWeight in 5186, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5186)
    0.13064735 = weight(_text_:search in 5186) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13064735 = score(doc=5186,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.17183559 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049439456 = queryNorm
        0.76030433 = fieldWeight in 5186, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5186)
    0.07737271 = product of:
      0.15474541 = sum of:
        0.15474541 = weight(_text_:engine in 5186) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.15474541 = score(doc=5186,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.26447627 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.349498 = idf(docFreq=570, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049439456 = queryNorm
            0.5851013 = fieldWeight in 5186, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.349498 = idf(docFreq=570, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5186)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)

Abstract

Jansen and Pooch review three major search engine studies and compare them to three traditional search system studies and three OPAC search studies, to determine if user search characteristics differ. The web search engine studies indicate that most searchers use two, two search term queries per session, no boolean operators, and look only at the top ten items returned, while reporting the location of relevant information. In traditional search systems we find seven to 16 queries of six to nine terms, while about ten documents per session were viewed. The OPAC studies indicated two to five queries per session of two or less terms, with Boolean search about 1% and less than 50 documents viewed.

0.17040431 = product of:
  0.22720575 = sum of:
    0.04072366 = weight(_text_:web in 2509) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04072366 = score(doc=2509,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.16134618 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049439456 = queryNorm
        0.25239927 = fieldWeight in 2509, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=2509)
    0.10832706 = weight(_text_:search in 2509) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10832706 = score(doc=2509,freq=44.0), product of:
        0.17183559 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049439456 = queryNorm
        0.6304111 = fieldWeight in 2509, product of:
          6.6332498 = tf(freq=44.0), with freq of:
            44.0 = termFreq=44.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=2509)
    0.07815504 = sum of:
      0.05471077 = weight(_text_:engine in 2509) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05471077 = score(doc=2509,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.26447627 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.349498 = idf(docFreq=570, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049439456 = queryNorm
          0.20686457 = fieldWeight in 2509, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.349498 = idf(docFreq=570, maxDocs=44218)
            0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=2509)
      0.023444273 = weight(_text_:22 in 2509) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.023444273 = score(doc=2509,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17312855 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049439456 = queryNorm
          0.1354154 = fieldWeight in 2509, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=2509)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)

Abstract

A relevancy-ranking algorithm for a natural language interface to Boolean online public access catalogs (OPACs) was formulated and compared with that currently used in a knowledge-based search interface called the E-Referencer, being developed by the authors. The algorithm makes use of seven weIl-known ranking criteria: breadth of match, section weighting, proximity of query words, variant word forms (stemming), document frequency, term frequency and document length. The algorithm converts a natural language query into a series of increasingly broader Boolean search statements. In a small experiment with ten subjects in which the algorithm was simulated by hand, the algorithm obtained good results with a mean overall precision of 0.42 and mean average precision of 0.62, representing a 27 percent improvement in precision and 41 percent improvement in average precision compared to the E-Referencer. The usefulness of each step in the algorithm was analyzed and suggestions are made for improving the algorithm.

Content

"Most Web search engines accept natural language queries, perform some kind of fuzzy matching and produce ranked output, displaying first the documents that are most likely to be relevant. On the other hand, most library online public access catalogs (OPACs) an the Web are still Boolean retrieval systems that perform exact matching, and require users to express their search requests precisely in a Boolean search language and to refine their search statements to improve the search results. It is well-documented that users have difficulty searching Boolean OPACs effectively (e.g. Borgman, 1996; Ensor, 1992; Wallace, 1993). One approach to making OPACs easier to use is to develop a natural language search interface that acts as a middleware between the user's Web browser and the OPAC system. The search interface can accept a natural language query from the user and reformulate it as a series of Boolean search statements that are then submitted to the OPAC. The records retrieved by the OPAC are ranked by the search interface before forwarding them to the user's Web browser. The user, then, does not need to interact directly with the Boolean OPAC but with the natural language search interface or search intermediary. The search interface interacts with the OPAC system an the user's behalf. The advantage of this approach is that no modification to the OPAC or library system is required. Furthermore, the search interface can access multiple OPACs, acting as a meta search engine, and integrate search results from various OPACs before sending them to the user. The search interface needs to incorporate a method for converting the user's natural language query into a series of Boolean search statements, and for ranking the OPAC records retrieved. The purpose of this study was to develop a relevancyranking algorithm for a search interface to Boolean OPAC systems. This is part of an on-going effort to develop a knowledge-based search interface to OPACs called the E-Referencer (Khoo et al., 1998, 1999; Poo et al., 2000). E-Referencer v. 2 that has been implemented applies a repertoire of initial search strategies and reformulation strategies to retrieve records from OPACs using the Z39.50 protocol, and also assists users in mapping query keywords to the Library of Congress subject headings."

Source

Electronic library. 22(2004) no.2, S.112-120

0.15599944 = product of:
  0.20799924 = sum of:
    0.041137107 = weight(_text_:web in 4042) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.041137107 = score(doc=4042,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.16134618 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049439456 = queryNorm
        0.25496176 = fieldWeight in 4042, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4042)
    0.12778303 = weight(_text_:search in 4042) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12778303 = score(doc=4042,freq=30.0), product of:
        0.17183559 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049439456 = queryNorm
        0.7436354 = fieldWeight in 4042, product of:
          5.477226 = tf(freq=30.0), with freq of:
            30.0 = termFreq=30.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4042)
    0.03907912 = product of:
      0.07815824 = sum of:
        0.07815824 = weight(_text_:engine in 4042) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07815824 = score(doc=4042,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.26447627 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.349498 = idf(docFreq=570, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049439456 = queryNorm
            0.29552078 = fieldWeight in 4042, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.349498 = idf(docFreq=570, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4042)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)

Abstract

Although technology can often correct spelling errors, the complex tasks of information searching and retrieval in an online public access catalog (OPAC) are made more difficult by these errors in users' input and bibliographic records. This study examines the search behaviors of 38 university students, divided into groups with either easy-to-spell or difficult-to-spell search terms, who were asked to find items in the OPAC with these search terms. Search behaviors and strategy use in the OPAC and on the World Wide Web (WWW) were examined. In general, students used familiar Web resources to check their spelling or discover more about the assigned topic. Students with difficult-to-spell search terms checked spelling more often, changed search strategies to look for the general topic and had fewer successful searches. Students unable to find the correct spelling of a search term were unable to complete their search. Students tended to search the OPAC as they would search a search engine, with few search terms or complex search strategies. The results of this study have implications for spell checking, user-focused OPAC design, and cataloging. Students' search behaviors are discussed by expanding Thatcher's (2006) Information-Seeking Process and Tactics for the WWW model to include OPACs.

0.13841115 = product of:
  0.1845482 = sum of:
    0.05817665 = weight(_text_:web in 2726) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05817665 = score(doc=2726,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.16134618 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049439456 = queryNorm
        0.36057037 = fieldWeight in 2726, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2726)
    0.08729243 = weight(_text_:search in 2726) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08729243 = score(doc=2726,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.17183559 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049439456 = queryNorm
        0.5079997 = fieldWeight in 2726, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2726)
    0.03907912 = product of:
      0.07815824 = sum of:
        0.07815824 = weight(_text_:engine in 2726) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07815824 = score(doc=2726,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.26447627 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.349498 = idf(docFreq=570, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049439456 = queryNorm
            0.29552078 = fieldWeight in 2726, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.349498 = idf(docFreq=570, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2726)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)

Abstract

This research investigates how people's perceptions of information retrieval (IR) systems, their perceptions of search tasks, and their perceptions of self-efficacy influence the amount of invested mental effort (AIME) they put into using two different IR systems: a Web search engine and a library system. It also explores the impact of mental effort on an end user's search experience. To assess AIME in online searching, two experiments were conducted using these methods: Experiment 1 relied on self-reports and Experiment 2 employed the dual-task technique. In both experiments, data were collected through search transaction logs, a pre-search background questionnaire, a post-search questionnaire and an interview. Important findings are these: (1) subjects invested greater mental effort searching a library system than searching the Web; (2) subjects put little effort into Web searching because of their high sense of self-efficacy in their searching ability and their perception of the easiness of the Web; (3) subjects did not recognize that putting mental effort into searching was something needed to improve the search results; and (4) data collected from multiple sources proved to be effective for assessing mental effort in online searching.

0.13223815 = product of:
  0.17631754 = sum of:
    0.07125156 = weight(_text_:web in 5229) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07125156 = score(doc=5229,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.16134618 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049439456 = queryNorm
        0.4416067 = fieldWeight in 5229, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5229)
    0.06598687 = weight(_text_:search in 5229) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06598687 = score(doc=5229,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.17183559 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049439456 = queryNorm
        0.3840117 = fieldWeight in 5229, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5229)
    0.03907912 = product of:
      0.07815824 = sum of:
        0.07815824 = weight(_text_:engine in 5229) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07815824 = score(doc=5229,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.26447627 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.349498 = idf(docFreq=570, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049439456 = queryNorm
            0.29552078 = fieldWeight in 5229, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.349498 = idf(docFreq=570, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5229)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)

Abstract

Thirty-one patrons, who were selected by Slone to provide a range of age and experience, agreed when approached while using the catalog of the Wake County library system to try searching via the Internet. Fifteen searched the Wake County online catalog in this manner and 16 searched the World Wide Web, including that catalog. They were subjected to brief pre-structured taped interviews before and after their searches and observed during the searching process resulting in a log of behaviors, comments, pages accessed, and time spent. Data were analyzed across participants and categories. Web searches were characterized as linking, URL, search engine, within a site domain, and searching a web catalog; and participants by the number of these techniques used. Four used only one, 13 used two, 11 used three, two used four, and one all five. Participant experience was characterized as never used, used search engines, browsing experience, email experience, URL experience, catalog experience, and finally chat room/newsgroup experience. Sixteen percent of the participants had never used the Internet, 71% had used search engines, 65% had browsed, 58% had used email, 39% had used URLs, 39% had used online catalogs, and 32% had used chat rooms. The catalog was normally consulted before the web, where both were used, and experience with an online catalog assists in web use. Scrolling was found to be unpopular and practiced halfheartedly.

0.109051734 = product of:
  0.14540231 = sum of:
    0.06581937 = weight(_text_:web in 5185) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06581937 = score(doc=5185,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.16134618 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049439456 = queryNorm
        0.4079388 = fieldWeight in 5185, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5185)
    0.052789498 = weight(_text_:search in 5185) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.052789498 = score(doc=5185,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17183559 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049439456 = queryNorm
        0.30720934 = fieldWeight in 5185, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5185)
    0.026793454 = product of:
      0.053586908 = sum of:
        0.053586908 = weight(_text_:22 in 5185) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.053586908 = score(doc=5185,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17312855 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049439456 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 5185, 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=5185)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)

Abstract

Stanford University's Socrates II and University of California at Berkeley's Pathfinder are 2 USA World Wide Web based online publication access catalogues under development. They differ in their design language (how an interface functionally and visually communicates to the users). Evaluates each system's interface design and their ability to communicate functionality to users: analyzes design in terms of: colour, buttons, metaphors, layout, and basic and advanced search modes. Concludes that the design languages of both systems have the right directive and have the potential to evolve

Source

Online. 22(1998) no.4, S.98-105

0.10061687 = product of:
  0.20123374 = sum of:
    0.08227421 = weight(_text_:web in 113) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08227421 = score(doc=113,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.16134618 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049439456 = queryNorm
        0.5099235 = fieldWeight in 113, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=113)
    0.11895954 = weight(_text_:search in 113) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11895954 = score(doc=113,freq=26.0), product of:
        0.17183559 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049439456 = queryNorm
        0.69228697 = fieldWeight in 113, product of:
          5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
            26.0 = termFreq=26.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=113)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

The World Wide Web (simplified here to "Web") is well-known for its "point and click" graphical user interface (GUI) and hyperlink search and navigate capabilities. When OPACs are placed in this operational context, users can easily hyperlink from a bibliographic display to related search terms, class marks, or bibliographic records. This hyperlinking capability is not available in most conventional text-based OPACs. As more and more users undertake their searches on Web-based information retrieval systems such as OPACs, it is natural to ask, "Are Web-based OPACs more effective retrieval systems than their conventional predecessors?" This paper presents the findings of an experimental study which compared users' search performance, assessments of ease of use, and satisfaction with search results after use of a Web OPAC or its conventional counterpart. The primary questions addressed by this research center on the influence of two experimental factors, OPAC search interface style and search task level of difficulty, on the dependent variables: actual search performance, perceptions of ease of use, and user assessments of satisfaction with search results. It was hypothesized that Web OPACs would be assessed as easier to use and that they would outperform conventional OPACs when measured by actual search results and users' levels of satisfaction with search results. Web OPAC searchers outperformed Text OPAC searchers, but search task level of difficulty is a major determinant of search success. The study also found little association between searchers' level of satisfaction with results and actual search performance

0.089878514 = product of:
  0.17975703 = sum of:
    0.09975218 = weight(_text_:web in 6110) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09975218 = score(doc=6110,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.16134618 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049439456 = queryNorm
        0.6182494 = fieldWeight in 6110, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6110)
    0.08000484 = weight(_text_:search in 6110) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08000484 = score(doc=6110,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.17183559 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049439456 = queryNorm
        0.46558946 = fieldWeight in 6110, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6110)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Online catalog users search predominately by subject, yet it is the most difficult search to perform and retrieves records only about one-half of the time. A new generation of OPACs (online public access catalogs) is on the horizon, the Web-based OPAC. Web-based OPACs allow users to access online catalogs through a WWW (World Wide Web) interface and have the potential to improve patrons' ability to search by subject. But will this potential be realized? This article proposes some basic guidelines that can be incorporated into Web-based OPAC interface design to help users perform subject searches more effectively, and evaluates how well Web-based OPACs currently in operation address the subject searching problem

0.08648706 = product of:
  0.17297412 = sum of:
    0.07918424 = weight(_text_:search in 2724) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07918424 = score(doc=2724,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17183559 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049439456 = queryNorm
        0.460814 = fieldWeight in 2724, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=2724)
    0.09378988 = product of:
      0.18757977 = sum of:
        0.18757977 = weight(_text_:engine in 2724) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.18757977 = score(doc=2724,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.26447627 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.349498 = idf(docFreq=570, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049439456 = queryNorm
            0.7092499 = fieldWeight in 2724, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.349498 = idf(docFreq=570, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=2724)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

0.08612041 = product of:
  0.114827216 = sum of:
    0.029088326 = weight(_text_:web in 2843) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029088326 = score(doc=2843,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16134618 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049439456 = queryNorm
        0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 2843, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2843)
    0.046659768 = weight(_text_:search in 2843) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.046659768 = score(doc=2843,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.17183559 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049439456 = queryNorm
        0.27153727 = fieldWeight in 2843, 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=2843)
    0.03907912 = product of:
      0.07815824 = sum of:
        0.07815824 = weight(_text_:engine in 2843) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07815824 = score(doc=2843,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.26447627 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.349498 = idf(docFreq=570, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049439456 = queryNorm
            0.29552078 = fieldWeight in 2843, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.349498 = idf(docFreq=570, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2843)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)

Abstract

Purpose - Library online public access catalogues (OPACs) are considered to be unattractive in comparison with popular internet sites. In 2000, the authors presented some suggestions on how library catalogues should change. Have librarians actually made their OPACs more user-friendly by adopting techniques and technologies already present in other information resources? This paper aims to address these issues. Design/methodology/approach - The characteristics of four OPACs, one online bookstore and two internet search engines are analyzed. The paper reviews some of the changes and directions suggested by researchers and adds some of authors own. All this is in the hope that library catalogues will survive "Google attack." Findings - Changes are identified in the information services studied over a seven-year period. Least development is found in library catalogues. Suggestions are made for library catalogues of the future. Research limitations/implications - A library catalogue, a web search engine and an internet bookstore cannot be compared directly because of differences in scope. But features from each could be fruitfully used in others. Practical implications - OPACs must be both attractive and useful. They should be at least as easy to use as their competitors. With the results of research as well as the knowledge librarians have many years, the profession should be able to develop better OPACs than we have today and regain lost ground in the "competition" for those with information needs. Originality/value - A comparison of OPAC features in 2000 and 2007, even if subjective, can provide a panoramic view of the development of the field.

0.08573888 = product of:
  0.17147776 = sum of:
    0.093319535 = weight(_text_:search in 1599) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.093319535 = score(doc=1599,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.17183559 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049439456 = queryNorm
        0.54307455 = fieldWeight in 1599, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1599)
    0.07815824 = product of:
      0.15631647 = sum of:
        0.15631647 = weight(_text_:engine in 1599) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.15631647 = score(doc=1599,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.26447627 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.349498 = idf(docFreq=570, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049439456 = queryNorm
            0.59104156 = fieldWeight in 1599, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.349498 = idf(docFreq=570, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1599)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

The British Library has computerized its paper catalogues into an OPAC. It uses personal computer clients running Windows. Explains reasons for this computerization, how the OPAC works, its architecture, which is built around the BRS/Search full text engine, and describes the software development

Aid

BRS/Search

0.0772354 = product of:
  0.10298054 = sum of:
    0.029088326 = weight(_text_:web in 731) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029088326 = score(doc=731,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16134618 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049439456 = queryNorm
        0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 731, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=731)
    0.057146307 = weight(_text_:search in 731) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.057146307 = score(doc=731,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.17183559 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049439456 = queryNorm
        0.33256388 = fieldWeight in 731, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=731)
    0.01674591 = product of:
      0.03349182 = sum of:
        0.03349182 = weight(_text_:22 in 731) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03349182 = score(doc=731,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17312855 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049439456 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 731, 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=731)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)

Abstract

One finding of the 2006 OCLC study of College Students' Perceptions of Libraries and Information Resources was that students expressed equal levels of trust in libraries and search engines when it came to meeting their information needs in a way that they felt was authoritative. Seeking to incorporate this insight into our own instructional methodology, Schaffer Library at Union College has attempted to engineer a shift from Google to Google Scholar among our student users by representing Scholar as a viable adjunct to the catalog and to snore traditional electronic resources. By attempting to engage student researchers on their own terms, we have discovered that most of them react enthusiastically to the revelation that the Google they think they know so well is, it turns out, a multifaceted resource that is capable of delivering the sort of scholarly information that will meet with their professors' approval. Specifically, this article focuses on the fact that many Google Scholar searches link hack to our own Web catalog where they identify useful book titles that direct OPAC keyword searches have missed.

Date

2.12.2007 19:39:22

Object

Google Book Search

0.07606016 = product of:
  0.15212032 = sum of:
    0.046541322 = weight(_text_:web in 1936) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.046541322 = score(doc=1936,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16134618 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049439456 = queryNorm
        0.2884563 = fieldWeight in 1936, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1936)
    0.105578996 = weight(_text_:search in 1936) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.105578996 = score(doc=1936,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.17183559 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049439456 = queryNorm
        0.6144187 = fieldWeight in 1936, 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=1936)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Präsentation folgender Gestaltungsprinzipien: (1) Help the user develop an understanding of the operation of the interface and the search process; (2) Provide information to help users judge the value of continuing a search path; (3) Assist the user in refining the search query or search topic; (4) Provide verbal labels suggestive of meaning

0.0760199 = product of:
  0.10135986 = sum of:
    0.061568383 = weight(_text_:web in 1447) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.061568383 = score(doc=1447,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.16134618 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049439456 = queryNorm
        0.38159183 = fieldWeight in 1447, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1447)
    0.026394749 = weight(_text_:search in 1447) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026394749 = score(doc=1447,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17183559 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049439456 = queryNorm
        0.15360467 = fieldWeight in 1447, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1447)
    0.013396727 = product of:
      0.026793454 = sum of:
        0.026793454 = weight(_text_:22 in 1447) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026793454 = score(doc=1447,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17312855 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049439456 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 1447, 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=1447)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)

Abstract

The BAER Web Resources Group was charged in October 1999 with defining and describing the parameters of electronic resources that do not clearly belong to the categories being defined by the BAER Digital Group or the BAER Electronic Journals Group. After some difficulty identifying precisely which resources fell under the Group's charge, we finally named the following types of resources for our consideration: web sites, electronic texts, indexes, databases and abstracts, online reference resources, and networked and non-networked CD-ROMs. Electronic resources are a vast and growing collection that touch nearly every department within the Library. It is unrealistic to think one department can effectively administer all aspects of the collection. The Group then began to focus on the concern of bibliographic access to these varied resources, and to define parameters for handling or processing them within the Library. Some key elements became evident as the work progressed. * Selection process of resources to be acquired for the collection * Duplication of effort * Use of CORC * Resource Finder design * Maintenance of Resource Finder * CD-ROMs not networked * Communications * Voyager search limitations. An unexpected collaboration with the Web Development Committee on the Resource Finder helped to steer the Group to more detailed descriptions of bibliographic access. This collaboration included development of data elements for the Resource Finder database, and some discussions on Library staff processing of the resources. The Web Resources Group invited expert testimony to help the Group broaden its view to envision public use of the resources and discuss concerns related to technical services processing. The first testimony came from members of the Resource Finder Committee. Some background information on the Web Development Resource Finder Committee was shared. The second testimony was from librarians who select electronic texts. Three main themes were addressed: accessing CD-ROMs; the issue of including non-networked CD-ROMs in the Resource Finder; and, some special concerns about electronic texts. The third testimony came from librarians who select indexes and abstracts and also provide Reference services. Appendices to this report include minutes of the meetings with the experts (Appendix A), a list of proposed data elements to be used in the Resource Finder (Appendix B), and recommendations made to the Resource Finder Committee (Appendix C). Below are summaries of the key elements.

Date

21. 4.2002 10:22:31

0.07273454 = product of:
  0.14546908 = sum of:
    0.05817665 = weight(_text_:web in 5584) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05817665 = score(doc=5584,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.16134618 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049439456 = queryNorm
        0.36057037 = fieldWeight in 5584, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5584)
    0.08729243 = weight(_text_:search in 5584) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08729243 = score(doc=5584,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.17183559 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049439456 = queryNorm
        0.5079997 = fieldWeight in 5584, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5584)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

This article reports on a model and patterns of use of a library catalog that can be accessed through the Internet. Three categories of users are identified. individuals who perform a search of the catalog, tourists who look only at opening pages of the library catalog's site, and Web spiders that come to the site to obtain pages for indexing the Web. A number of types of use activities are also identified, and can be grouped with the presearch phase (which takes place before any searching begins): the search phase, the display phase (in which users display the results of their search), and phases in which users make errors, ask the system for help or assistance, and take other actions. An empirical investigation of patterns of use of a university Web-based library catalog was conducted for 479 days. During that period, the characteristics of about 2.5 million sessions were recorded and analyzed, and usage trends were identified. Of the total, 62% of the sessions were for users who performed a search, 27% were from spiders, and 11% were for tourists. During the study period, the average search session lasted about 5 minutes when the study began and had increased to about 10 minutes 16 months later. An average search consisted of about 1.5 presearch actions lasting about 25 seconds, about 5.3 display actions, and 2.5 searches per session. The latter two categories are in the range of 35-37 seconds per session each. There were major differences in usage (number of searches, search time, number of display actions, and display time), depending upon the database accessed

0.063819066 = product of:
  0.12763813 = sum of:
    0.08144732 = weight(_text_:web in 925) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08144732 = score(doc=925,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.16134618 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049439456 = queryNorm
        0.50479853 = fieldWeight in 925, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=925)
    0.046190813 = weight(_text_:search in 925) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.046190813 = score(doc=925,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17183559 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049439456 = queryNorm
        0.2688082 = fieldWeight in 925, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=925)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

To access a remote catalogue the searcher can use the Z39.50 standard as interface, which requires appropriate software; or for databases accessible on the WWW use a common gateway interface. The multibase access advantage of Z39.50 can also be obtained through a Web navigator by inserting a Web server/Z39.50 client software connector: this can be located either on the search site, in an intermediary position or on the database site, so determining the range of databases which can be searched. Z39.50 also offers interesting possibilities for joint and local cataloguing: multibase searching can equally be realised on intranets

Footnote

Übers. des Titels: The puzzling game of catalogue access: World Wide Web and/or Z39.50

0.060696527 = product of:
  0.080928706 = sum of:
    0.023270661 = weight(_text_:web in 761) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023270661 = score(doc=761,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16134618 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049439456 = queryNorm
        0.14422815 = fieldWeight in 761, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=761)
    0.026394749 = weight(_text_:search in 761) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026394749 = score(doc=761,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17183559 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049439456 = queryNorm
        0.15360467 = fieldWeight in 761, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=761)
    0.031263296 = product of:
      0.06252659 = sum of:
        0.06252659 = weight(_text_:engine in 761) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06252659 = score(doc=761,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.26447627 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.349498 = idf(docFreq=570, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049439456 = queryNorm
            0.23641664 = fieldWeight in 761, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.349498 = idf(docFreq=570, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=761)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)

Abstract

Der KOBV setzt bereits seit 2005 Suchmaschinentechnologie in verschiedenen Entwicklungsprojekten erfolgreich ein. Zusammen mit der Bibliothek des Wissenschaftsparks Albert Einstein wurde nun der Prototyp einer "Bibliothekssuchmaschine" auf Basis erprobter Open-Source-Technologien aus dem Java-Umfeld (wie Tomcat, Jakarta-Commons, Log4J usw.) als web-basierte Anwendung realisiert, deren Suchmaschinenkern auf der ebenfalls als freie Open-Source Java-Variante erhältlichen Search-Engine-Library Lucene4 basiert. Die erste Version der Bibliothekssuchmaschine läuft seit Ende Oktober im Echtbetrieb. Ziel des Pilotprojektes war die Konzeptionierung, Spezifikation und Implementierung einer neuen, benutzerfreundlichen Suchoberfläche zum schnellen Auffinden fachwissenschaftlich relevanter Daten und Informationen, sowohl in bibliothekseigenen Beständen als auch in zusätzlichen Quellen. Vor dem spezifischen Hintergrund der Spezialbibliothek werden dabei nicht nur Kataloginhalte google-like findbar gemacht, sondern der Suchraum "Katalog" um weitere für die Informationsvermittlung auf dem Campus relevante und spezifische fachwissenschaftliche Inhalte als zusätzliche Suchräume erschlossen. Die neue Anwendung dient dem schnellen Ersteinstieg und leitet die Nutzer dann an die jeweiligen Quellen weiter.

0.06001722 = product of:
  0.12003444 = sum of:
    0.06532367 = weight(_text_:search in 1318) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06532367 = score(doc=1318,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.17183559 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049439456 = queryNorm
        0.38015217 = fieldWeight in 1318, 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=1318)
    0.05471077 = product of:
      0.10942154 = sum of:
        0.10942154 = weight(_text_:engine in 1318) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10942154 = score(doc=1318,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.26447627 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.349498 = idf(docFreq=570, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049439456 = queryNorm
            0.41372913 = fieldWeight in 1318, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.349498 = idf(docFreq=570, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1318)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

A project to design a graphical user interface for the OKAPI online catalogue search system which uses the basic term weighting probabilistic search engine. Presents a research context of the project with a discussion of interface and functionality issues relating to the design of OPACs. Describes the design methodology and evaluation methodology. Presents the preliminary results of the field trial evaluation. Considers problems encountered in the field trial and discusses contributory factors to the effectiveness of interactive query expansion. Highlights the tension between usability and functionality in highly interactive retrieval and suggests further areas of research

0.05993805 = product of:
  0.1198761 = sum of:
    0.093082644 = weight(_text_:web in 2905) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.093082644 = score(doc=2905,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.16134618 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049439456 = queryNorm
        0.5769126 = fieldWeight in 2905, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2905)
    0.026793454 = product of:
      0.053586908 = sum of:
        0.053586908 = weight(_text_:22 in 2905) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.053586908 = score(doc=2905,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17312855 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049439456 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 2905, 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=2905)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Der Artikel betrachtet anhand einer Studie zum Benutzerverhalten bei der Online-Katalogrecherche den gegenwärtigen Stellenwert und das zukünftige Potential der Web-OPACs. Dabei werden zunächst die Ergebnisse einer quantitativen Logfile-Analyse sowie qualitativer Benutzertests erörtert, bevor aktuelle Entwicklungen der Webtechnologie, die unter den Schlagworten Web 2.0 und Web 3.0 propagiert werden, im Zusammenhang mit der Online-Recherche und der Entwicklung neuartiger Suchverfahren kurz diskutiert werden.

Date

22. 2.2009 18:50:43

0.057658046 = product of:
  0.11531609 = sum of:
    0.052789498 = weight(_text_:search in 2156) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.052789498 = score(doc=2156,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17183559 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049439456 = queryNorm
        0.30720934 = fieldWeight in 2156, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2156)
    0.06252659 = product of:
      0.12505318 = sum of:
        0.12505318 = weight(_text_:engine in 2156) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12505318 = score(doc=2156,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.26447627 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.349498 = idf(docFreq=570, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049439456 = queryNorm
            0.47283328 = fieldWeight in 2156, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.349498 = idf(docFreq=570, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2156)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

In Febr. 1989, Vanderbilt University Library introduced a locally mounte MEDLINE file into its NOTIS-based online catalog. Planning and programming efforts are under way to add several H.W. Wilson databases by summer 1989. Considerations related to decisions about databases and search engine selection are described; key factors in the implementation process are presented