-
Radev, D.R.; Libner, K.; Fan, W.: Getting answers to natural language questions on the Web (2002)
0.17
0.17386737 = product of:
0.23182318 = sum of:
0.041137107 = weight(_text_:web in 5204) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.041137107 = score(doc=5204,freq=4.0), product of:
0.16134618 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.049439456 = queryNorm
0.25496176 = fieldWeight in 5204, 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=5204)
0.08729243 = weight(_text_:search in 5204) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08729243 = score(doc=5204,freq=14.0), product of:
0.17183559 = queryWeight, product of:
3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
0.049439456 = queryNorm
0.5079997 = fieldWeight in 5204, 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=5204)
0.10339364 = product of:
0.20678727 = sum of:
0.20678727 = weight(_text_:engine in 5204) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.20678727 = score(doc=5204,freq=14.0), product of:
0.26447627 = queryWeight, product of:
5.349498 = idf(docFreq=570, maxDocs=44218)
0.049439456 = queryNorm
0.7818746 = fieldWeight in 5204, product of:
3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
14.0 = termFreq=14.0
5.349498 = idf(docFreq=570, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5204)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.75 = coord(3/4)
- Abstract
- Seven hundred natural language questions from TREC-8 and TREC-9 were sent by Radev, Libner, and Fan to each of nine web search engines. The top 40 sites returned by each system were stored for evaluation of their productivity of correct answers. Each question per engine was scored as the sum of the reciprocal ranks of identified correct answers. The large number of zero scores gave a positive skew violating the normality assumption for ANOVA, so values were transformed to zero for no hit and one for one or more hits. The non-zero values were then square-root transformed to remove the remaining positive skew. Interactions were observed between search engine and answer type (name, place, date, et cetera), search engine and number of proper nouns in the query, search engine and the need for time limitation, and search engine and total query words. All effects were significant. Shortest queries had the highest mean scores. One or more proper nouns present provides a significant advantage. Non-time dependent queries have an advantage. Place, name, person, and text description had mean scores between .85 and .9 with date at .81 and number at .59. There were significant differences in score by search engine. Search engines found at least one correct answer in between 87.7 and 75.45 of the cases. Google and Northern Light were just short of a 90% hit rate. No evidence indicated that a particular engine was better at answering any particular sort of question.
-
Schaer, P.; Mayr, P.; Sünkler, S.; Lewandowski, D.: How relevant is the long tail? : a relevance assessment study on million short (2016)
0.15
0.15173718 = product of:
0.20231625 = sum of:
0.050382458 = weight(_text_:web in 3144) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.050382458 = score(doc=3144,freq=6.0), product of:
0.16134618 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.049439456 = queryNorm
0.3122631 = fieldWeight in 3144, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3144)
0.07377557 = weight(_text_:search in 3144) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07377557 = score(doc=3144,freq=10.0), product of:
0.17183559 = queryWeight, product of:
3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
0.049439456 = queryNorm
0.4293381 = fieldWeight in 3144, product of:
3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
10.0 = termFreq=10.0
3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3144)
0.07815824 = product of:
0.15631647 = sum of:
0.15631647 = weight(_text_:engine in 3144) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.15631647 = score(doc=3144,freq=8.0), product of:
0.26447627 = queryWeight, product of:
5.349498 = idf(docFreq=570, maxDocs=44218)
0.049439456 = queryNorm
0.59104156 = fieldWeight in 3144, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
5.349498 = idf(docFreq=570, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3144)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.75 = coord(3/4)
- 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.
-
Oppenheim, C.; Morris, A.; McKnight, C.: ¬The evaluation of WWW search engines (2000)
0.13
0.12774871 = product of:
0.17033161 = sum of:
0.03490599 = weight(_text_:web in 4546) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03490599 = score(doc=4546,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16134618 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.049439456 = queryNorm
0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 4546, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4546)
0.08853068 = weight(_text_:search in 4546) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08853068 = score(doc=4546,freq=10.0), product of:
0.17183559 = queryWeight, product of:
3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
0.049439456 = queryNorm
0.51520574 = fieldWeight in 4546, product of:
3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
10.0 = termFreq=10.0
3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4546)
0.04689494 = product of:
0.09378988 = sum of:
0.09378988 = weight(_text_:engine in 4546) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.09378988 = score(doc=4546,freq=2.0), product of:
0.26447627 = queryWeight, product of:
5.349498 = idf(docFreq=570, maxDocs=44218)
0.049439456 = queryNorm
0.35462496 = fieldWeight in 4546, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.349498 = idf(docFreq=570, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4546)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.75 = coord(3/4)
- Abstract
- The literature of the evaluation of Internet search engines is reviewed. Although there have been many studies, there has been little consistency in the way such studies have been carried out. This problem is exacerbated by the fact that recall is virtually impossible to calculate in the fast changing Internet environment, and therefore the traditional Cranfield type of evaluation is not usually possible. A variety of alternative evaluation methods has been suggested to overcome this difficulty. The authors recommend that a standardised set of tools is developed for the evaluation of web search engines so that, in future, comparisons can be made between search engines more effectively, and that variations in performance of any given search engine over time can be tracked. The paper itself does not provide such a standard set of tools, but it investigates the issues and makes preliminary recommendations of the types of tools needed
-
Bar-Ilan, J.: Methods for measuring search engine performance over time (2002)
0.12
0.12154704 = product of:
0.24309409 = sum of:
0.118040904 = weight(_text_:search in 305) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.118040904 = score(doc=305,freq=10.0), product of:
0.17183559 = queryWeight, product of:
3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
0.049439456 = queryNorm
0.68694097 = fieldWeight in 305, product of:
3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
10.0 = termFreq=10.0
3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=305)
0.12505318 = product of:
0.25010636 = sum of:
0.25010636 = weight(_text_:engine in 305) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.25010636 = score(doc=305,freq=8.0), product of:
0.26447627 = queryWeight, product of:
5.349498 = idf(docFreq=570, maxDocs=44218)
0.049439456 = queryNorm
0.94566655 = fieldWeight in 305, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
5.349498 = idf(docFreq=570, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=305)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Abstract
- This study introduces methods for evaluating search engine performance over a time period. Several measures are defined, which as a whole describe search engine functionality over time. The necessary setup for such studies is described, and the use of these measures is illustrated through a specific example. The set of measures introduced here may serve as a guideline for the search engines for testing and improving their functionality. We recommend setting up a standard suite of measures for evaluating search engine performance.
-
Sarigil, E.; Sengor Altingovde, I.; Blanco, R.; Barla Cambazoglu, B.; Ozcan, R.; Ulusoy, Ö.: Characterizing, predicting, and handling web search queries that match very few or no results (2018)
0.12
0.11549384 = product of:
0.15399179 = sum of:
0.041137107 = weight(_text_:web in 4039) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.041137107 = score(doc=4039,freq=4.0), product of:
0.16134618 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.049439456 = queryNorm
0.25496176 = fieldWeight in 4039, 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=4039)
0.07377557 = weight(_text_:search in 4039) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07377557 = score(doc=4039,freq=10.0), product of:
0.17183559 = queryWeight, product of:
3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
0.049439456 = queryNorm
0.4293381 = fieldWeight in 4039, product of:
3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
10.0 = termFreq=10.0
3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4039)
0.03907912 = product of:
0.07815824 = sum of:
0.07815824 = weight(_text_:engine in 4039) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07815824 = score(doc=4039,freq=2.0), product of:
0.26447627 = queryWeight, product of:
5.349498 = idf(docFreq=570, maxDocs=44218)
0.049439456 = queryNorm
0.29552078 = fieldWeight in 4039, 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=4039)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.75 = coord(3/4)
- Abstract
- A non-negligible fraction of user queries end up with very few or even no matching results in leading commercial web search engines. In this work, we provide a detailed characterization of such queries and show that search engines try to improve such queries by showing the results of related queries. Through a user study, we show that these query suggestions are usually perceived as relevant. Also, through a query log analysis, we show that the users are dissatisfied after submitting a query that match no results at least 88.5% of the time. As a first step towards solving these no-answer queries, we devised a large number of features that can be used to identify such queries and built machine-learning models. These models can be useful for scenarios such as the mobile- or meta-search, where identifying a query that will retrieve no results at the client device (i.e., even before submitting it to the search engine) may yield gains in terms of the bandwidth usage, power consumption, and/or monetary costs. Experiments over query logs indicate that, despite the heavy skew in class sizes, our models achieve good prediction quality, with accuracy (in terms of area under the curve) up to 0.95.
-
Eastman, C.M.: 30,000 hits may be better than 300 : precision anomalies in Internet searches (2002)
0.11
0.112756066 = product of:
0.15034142 = sum of:
0.029088326 = weight(_text_:web in 5231) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.029088326 = score(doc=5231,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16134618 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.049439456 = queryNorm
0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 5231, 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=5231)
0.06598687 = weight(_text_:search in 5231) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06598687 = score(doc=5231,freq=8.0), product of:
0.17183559 = queryWeight, product of:
3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
0.049439456 = queryNorm
0.3840117 = fieldWeight in 5231, 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=5231)
0.05526622 = product of:
0.11053244 = sum of:
0.11053244 = weight(_text_:engine in 5231) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.11053244 = score(doc=5231,freq=4.0), product of:
0.26447627 = queryWeight, product of:
5.349498 = idf(docFreq=570, maxDocs=44218)
0.049439456 = queryNorm
0.41792953 = fieldWeight in 5231, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
5.349498 = idf(docFreq=570, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5231)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.75 = coord(3/4)
- Abstract
- In this issue we begin with a paper where Eastman points out that conventional narrower queries (the use of conjunctions and phrases) in a web engine search will reduce returned number of hits but not necessarily increase precision in the top ranked documents in the return. Thus by precision anomalies Eastman means that search narrowing activity results in no precision change or a decrease in precision. Multiple queries with multiple engines were run by students for a three-year period and the formulation/engine combination was recorded as was the number of hits. Relevance was also recorded for the top ten and top twenty ranked retrievals. While narrower searches reduced total hits they did not usually improve precision. Initial high precision and poor query reformulation account for some of the results, as did Alta Vista's failure to use the ranking algorithm incorporated in its regular search in its advanced search feature. However, since the top listed returns often reoccurred in all formulations, it would seem that the ranking algorithms are doing a consistent job of practical precision ranking that is not improved by reformulation.
-
Airio, E.: Who benefits from CLIR in web retrieval? (2008)
0.11
0.11020951 = product of:
0.14694601 = sum of:
0.060458954 = weight(_text_:web in 2342) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.060458954 = score(doc=2342,freq=6.0), product of:
0.16134618 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.049439456 = queryNorm
0.37471575 = fieldWeight in 2342, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2342)
0.03959212 = weight(_text_:search in 2342) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03959212 = score(doc=2342,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17183559 = queryWeight, product of:
3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
0.049439456 = queryNorm
0.230407 = fieldWeight in 2342, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2342)
0.04689494 = product of:
0.09378988 = sum of:
0.09378988 = weight(_text_:engine in 2342) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.09378988 = score(doc=2342,freq=2.0), product of:
0.26447627 = queryWeight, product of:
5.349498 = idf(docFreq=570, maxDocs=44218)
0.049439456 = queryNorm
0.35462496 = fieldWeight in 2342, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.349498 = idf(docFreq=570, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2342)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.75 = coord(3/4)
- Abstract
- Purpose - The aim of the current paper is to test whether query translation is beneficial in web retrieval. Design/methodology/approach - The language pairs were Finnish-Swedish, English-German and Finnish-French. A total of 12-18 participants were recruited for each language pair. Each participant performed four retrieval tasks. The author's aim was to compare the performance of the translated queries with that of the target language queries. Thus, the author asked participants to formulate a source language query and a target language query for each task. The source language queries were translated into the target language utilizing a dictionary-based system. In English-German, also machine translation was utilized. The author used Google as the search engine. Findings - The results differed depending on the language pair. The author concluded that the dictionary coverage had an effect on the results. On average, the results of query-translation were better than in the traditional laboratory tests. Originality/value - This research shows that query translation in web is beneficial especially for users with moderate and non-active language skills. This is valuable information for developers of cross-language information retrieval systems.
-
MacFarlane, A.: Evaluation of web search for the information practitioner (2007)
0.11
0.10877693 = product of:
0.21755385 = sum of:
0.09235258 = weight(_text_:web in 817) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.09235258 = score(doc=817,freq=14.0), product of:
0.16134618 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.049439456 = queryNorm
0.57238775 = fieldWeight in 817, product of:
3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
14.0 = termFreq=14.0
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=817)
0.12520128 = weight(_text_:search in 817) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.12520128 = score(doc=817,freq=20.0), product of:
0.17183559 = queryWeight, product of:
3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
0.049439456 = queryNorm
0.72861093 = fieldWeight in 817, product of:
4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
20.0 = termFreq=20.0
3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=817)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Abstract
- Purpose - The aim of the paper is to put forward a structured mechanism for web search evaluation. The paper seeks to point to useful scientific research and show how information practitioners can use these methods in evaluation of search on the web for their users. Design/methodology/approach - The paper puts forward an approach which utilizes traditional laboratory-based evaluation measures such as average precision/precision at N documents, augmented with diagnostic measures such as link broken, etc., which are used to show why precision measures are depressed as well as the quality of the search engines crawling mechanism. Findings - The paper shows how to use diagnostic measures in conjunction with precision in order to evaluate web search. Practical implications - The methodology presented in this paper will be useful to any information professional who regularly uses web search as part of their information seeking and needs to evaluate web search services. Originality/value - The paper argues that the use of diagnostic measures is essential in web search, as precision measures on their own do not allow a searcher to understand why search results differ between search engines.
-
Balog, K.; Schuth, A.; Dekker, P.; Tavakolpoursaleh, N.; Schaer, P.; Chuang, P.-Y.: Overview of the TREC 2016 Open Search track Academic Search Edition (2016)
0.11
0.105918914 = product of:
0.21183783 = sum of:
0.14931124 = weight(_text_:search in 43) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.14931124 = score(doc=43,freq=16.0), product of:
0.17183559 = queryWeight, product of:
3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
0.049439456 = queryNorm
0.86891925 = fieldWeight in 43, product of:
4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
16.0 = termFreq=16.0
3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=43)
0.06252659 = product of:
0.12505318 = sum of:
0.12505318 = weight(_text_:engine in 43) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.12505318 = score(doc=43,freq=2.0), product of:
0.26447627 = queryWeight, product of:
5.349498 = idf(docFreq=570, maxDocs=44218)
0.049439456 = queryNorm
0.47283328 = fieldWeight in 43, 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=43)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Abstract
- We present the TREC Open Search track, which represents a new evaluation paradigm for information retrieval. It offers the possibility for researchers to evaluate their approaches in a live setting, with real, unsuspecting users of an existing search engine. The first edition of the track focuses on the academic search domain and features the ad-hoc scientific literature search task. We report on experiments with three different academic search engines: Cite-SeerX, SSOAR, and Microsoft Academic Search.
-
Landoni, M.; Bell, S.: Information retrieval techniques for evaluating search engines : a critical overview (2000)
0.10
0.103344485 = product of:
0.13779265 = sum of:
0.03490599 = weight(_text_:web in 716) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03490599 = score(doc=716,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16134618 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.049439456 = queryNorm
0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 716, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=716)
0.055991717 = weight(_text_:search in 716) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.055991717 = score(doc=716,freq=4.0), product of:
0.17183559 = queryWeight, product of:
3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
0.049439456 = queryNorm
0.3258447 = fieldWeight in 716, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=716)
0.04689494 = product of:
0.09378988 = sum of:
0.09378988 = weight(_text_:engine in 716) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.09378988 = score(doc=716,freq=2.0), product of:
0.26447627 = queryWeight, product of:
5.349498 = idf(docFreq=570, maxDocs=44218)
0.049439456 = queryNorm
0.35462496 = fieldWeight in 716, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.349498 = idf(docFreq=570, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=716)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.75 = coord(3/4)
- Abstract
- The objective of this paper is to highlight the importance of a scientifically sounded approach to search engine evaluation. Nowadays there is a flourishing literature which describes various attempts at conducting such evaluation by following all sort of approaches, but very often only the final results are published with little, if any, information about the methodology and the procedures adopted. These various experiments have been critically investigated and catalogued according to their scientific foundation by Bell [1] in the attempt to provide a valuable framework for future studies in this area. This paper reconsiders some of Bell's ideas in the light of the crisis of classic evaluation techniques for information retrieval and tries to envisage some form of collaboration between the IR and web communities in order to design a better and more consistent platform for the evaluation of tools for interactive information retrieval.
-
Vegt, A. van der; Zuccon, G.; Koopman, B.: Do better search engines really equate to better clinical decisions? : If not, why not? (2021)
0.10
0.100029156 = product of:
0.20005831 = sum of:
0.10433441 = weight(_text_:search in 150) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.10433441 = score(doc=150,freq=20.0), product of:
0.17183559 = queryWeight, product of:
3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
0.049439456 = queryNorm
0.60717577 = fieldWeight in 150, product of:
4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
20.0 = termFreq=20.0
3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=150)
0.095723905 = product of:
0.19144781 = sum of:
0.19144781 = weight(_text_:engine in 150) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.19144781 = score(doc=150,freq=12.0), product of:
0.26447627 = queryWeight, product of:
5.349498 = idf(docFreq=570, maxDocs=44218)
0.049439456 = queryNorm
0.72387516 = fieldWeight in 150, product of:
3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
12.0 = termFreq=12.0
5.349498 = idf(docFreq=570, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=150)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Abstract
- Previous research has found that improved search engine effectiveness-evaluated using a batch-style approach-does not always translate to significant improvements in user task performance; however, these prior studies focused on simple recall and precision-based search tasks. We investigated the same relationship, but for realistic, complex search tasks required in clinical decision making. One hundred and nine clinicians and final year medical students answered 16 clinical questions. Although the search engine did improve answer accuracy by 20 percentage points, there was no significant difference when participants used a more effective, state-of-the-art search engine. We also found that the search engine effectiveness difference, identified in the lab, was diminished by around 70% when the search engines were used with real users. Despite the aid of the search engine, half of the clinical questions were answered incorrectly. We further identified the relative contribution of search engine effectiveness to the overall end task success. We found that the ability to interpret documents correctly was a much more important factor impacting task success. If these findings are representative, information retrieval research may need to reorient its emphasis towards helping users to better understand information, rather than just finding it for them.
-
Clarke, S.J.; Willett, P.: Estimating the recall performance of Web search engines (1997)
0.10
0.09933082 = product of:
0.19866164 = sum of:
0.093082644 = weight(_text_:web in 760) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.093082644 = score(doc=760,freq=8.0), product of:
0.16134618 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.049439456 = queryNorm
0.5769126 = fieldWeight in 760, 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=760)
0.105578996 = weight(_text_:search in 760) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.105578996 = score(doc=760,freq=8.0), product of:
0.17183559 = queryWeight, product of:
3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
0.049439456 = queryNorm
0.6144187 = fieldWeight in 760, 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=760)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Abstract
- Reports a comparison of the retrieval effectiveness of the AltaVista, Excite and Lycos Web search engines. Describes a method for comparing the recall of the 3 sets of searches, despite the fact that they are carried out on non identical sets of Web pages. It is thus possible, unlike previous comparative studies of Web search engines, to consider both recall and precision when evaluating the effectiveness of search engines
-
Pemberton, J.K.; Ojala, M.; Garman, N.: Head to head : searching the Web versus traditional services (1998)
0.09
0.09459321 = product of:
0.12612428 = sum of:
0.046541322 = weight(_text_:web in 3572) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.046541322 = score(doc=3572,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16134618 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.049439456 = queryNorm
0.2884563 = fieldWeight in 3572, 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=3572)
0.052789498 = weight(_text_:search in 3572) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.052789498 = score(doc=3572,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17183559 = queryWeight, product of:
3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
0.049439456 = queryNorm
0.30720934 = fieldWeight in 3572, 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=3572)
0.026793454 = product of:
0.053586908 = sum of:
0.053586908 = weight(_text_:22 in 3572) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.053586908 = score(doc=3572,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17312855 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.049439456 = queryNorm
0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 3572, 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=3572)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.75 = coord(3/4)
- Abstract
- Describes of 3 searches on the topic of virtual communities done on the WWW using HotBot and traditional databases using LEXIS-NEXIS and ABI/Inform. Concludes that the WWW is a good starting place for a broad concept search but the traditional services are better for more precise topics
- Source
- Online. 22(1998) no.3, S.24-26,28
-
Palmquist, R.A.; Kim, K.-S.: Cognitive style and on-line database search experience as predictors of Web search performance (2000)
0.09
0.09283012 = product of:
0.18566024 = sum of:
0.060458954 = weight(_text_:web in 4605) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.060458954 = score(doc=4605,freq=6.0), product of:
0.16134618 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.049439456 = queryNorm
0.37471575 = fieldWeight in 4605, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4605)
0.12520128 = weight(_text_:search in 4605) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.12520128 = score(doc=4605,freq=20.0), product of:
0.17183559 = queryWeight, product of:
3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
0.049439456 = queryNorm
0.72861093 = fieldWeight in 4605, product of:
4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
20.0 = termFreq=20.0
3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4605)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Abstract
- This study sought to investigate the effects of cognitive style (field dependent and field independent) and on-line database search experience (novice and experienced) on the WWW search performance of undergraduate college students (n=48). It also attempted to find user factors that could be used to predict search efficiency. search performance, the dependent variable was defined in 2 ways: (1) time required for retrieving a relevant information item, and (2) the number of nodes traversed for retrieving a relevant information item. the search tasks required were carried out on a University Web site, and included a factual task and a topical search task of interest to the participant. Results indicated that while cognitive style (FD/FI) significantly influenced the search performance of novice searchers, the influence was greatly reduced in those searchers who had on-line database search experience. Based on the findings, suggestions for possible changes to the design of the current Web interface and to user training programs are provided
-
Agata, T.: ¬A measure for evaluating search engines on the World Wide Web : retrieval test with ESL (Expected Search Length) (1997)
0.09
0.09089771 = product of:
0.18179542 = sum of:
0.06981198 = weight(_text_:web in 3892) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06981198 = score(doc=3892,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16134618 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.049439456 = queryNorm
0.43268442 = fieldWeight in 3892, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3892)
0.11198343 = weight(_text_:search in 3892) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.11198343 = score(doc=3892,freq=4.0), product of:
0.17183559 = queryWeight, product of:
3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
0.049439456 = queryNorm
0.6516894 = fieldWeight in 3892, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3892)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
-
Iivonen, M.: Consistency in the selection of search concepts and search terms (1995)
0.09
0.08671737 = product of:
0.17343473 = sum of:
0.15333964 = weight(_text_:search in 1757) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.15333964 = score(doc=1757,freq=30.0), product of:
0.17183559 = queryWeight, product of:
3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
0.049439456 = queryNorm
0.89236253 = fieldWeight in 1757, product of:
5.477226 = tf(freq=30.0), with freq of:
30.0 = termFreq=30.0
3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1757)
0.02009509 = product of:
0.04019018 = sum of:
0.04019018 = weight(_text_:22 in 1757) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04019018 = score(doc=1757,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17312855 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.049439456 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1757, 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=1757)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Abstract
- Considers intersearcher and intrasearcher consistency in the selection of search terms. Based on an empirical study where 22 searchers from 4 different types of search environments analyzed altogether 12 search requests of 4 different types in 2 separate test situations between which 2 months elapsed. Statistically very significant differences in consistency were found according to the types of search environments and search requests. Consistency was also considered according to the extent of the scope of search concept. At level I search terms were compared character by character. At level II different search terms were accepted as the same search concept with a rather simple evaluation of linguistic expressions. At level III, in addition to level II, the hierarchical approach of the search request was also controlled. At level IV different search terms were accepted as the same search concept with a broad interpretation of the search concept. Both intersearcher and intrasearcher consistency grew most immediately after a rather simple evaluation of linguistic impressions
-
Bar-Ilan, J.: ¬The Web as an information source on informetrics? : A content analysis (2000)
0.08
0.077360384 = product of:
0.15472077 = sum of:
0.09872905 = weight(_text_:web in 4587) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.09872905 = score(doc=4587,freq=16.0), product of:
0.16134618 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.049439456 = queryNorm
0.6119082 = fieldWeight in 4587, product of:
4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
16.0 = termFreq=16.0
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4587)
0.055991717 = weight(_text_:search in 4587) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.055991717 = score(doc=4587,freq=4.0), product of:
0.17183559 = queryWeight, product of:
3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
0.049439456 = queryNorm
0.3258447 = fieldWeight in 4587, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4587)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Abstract
- This article addresses the question of whether the Web can serve as an information source for research. Specifically, it analyzes by way of content analysis the Web pages retrieved by the major search engines on a particular date (June 7, 1998), as a result of the query 'informetrics OR informetric'. In 807 out of the 942 retrieved pages, the search terms were mentioned in the context of information science. Over 70% of the pages contained only indirect information on the topic, in the form of hypertext links and bibliographical references without annotation. The bibliographical references extracted from the Web pages were analyzed, and lists of most productive authors, most cited authors, works, and sources were compiled. The list of reference obtained from the Web was also compared to data retrieved from commercial databases. For most cases, the list of references extracted from the Web outperformed the commercial, bibliographic databases. The results of these comparisons indicate that valuable, freely available data is hidden in the Web waiting to be extracted from the millions of Web pages
-
Mettrop, W.; Nieuwenhuysen, P.: Internet search engines : fluctuations in document accessibility (2001)
0.07
0.074252054 = product of:
0.14850411 = sum of:
0.08081709 = weight(_text_:search in 4481) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08081709 = score(doc=4481,freq=12.0), product of:
0.17183559 = queryWeight, product of:
3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
0.049439456 = queryNorm
0.47031635 = fieldWeight in 4481, product of:
3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
12.0 = termFreq=12.0
3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4481)
0.06768702 = product of:
0.13537404 = sum of:
0.13537404 = weight(_text_:engine in 4481) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.13537404 = score(doc=4481,freq=6.0), product of:
0.26447627 = queryWeight, product of:
5.349498 = idf(docFreq=570, maxDocs=44218)
0.049439456 = queryNorm
0.51185703 = fieldWeight in 4481, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
5.349498 = idf(docFreq=570, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4481)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Abstract
- An empirical investigation of the consistency of retrieval through Internet search engines is reported. Thirteen engines are evaluated: AltaVista, EuroFerret, Excite, HotBot, InfoSeek, Lycos, MSN, NorthernLight, Snap, WebCrawler and three national Dutch engines: Ilse, Search.nl and Vindex. The focus is on a characteristics related to size: the degree of consistency to which an engine retrieves documents. Does an engine always present the same relevant documents that are, or were, available in its databases? We observed and identified three types of fluctuations in the result sets of several kinds of searches, many of them significant. These should be taken into account by users who apply an Internet search engine, for instance to retrieve as many relevant documents as possible, or to retrieve a document that was already found in a previous search, or to perform scientometric/bibliometric measurements. The fluctuations should also be considered as a complication of other research on the behaviour and performance of Internet search engines. In conclusion: in view of the increasing importance of the Internet as a publication/communication medium, the fluctuations in the result sets of Internet search engines can no longer be neglected.
-
Lazonder, A.W.; Biemans, H.J.A.; Wopereis, I.G.J.H.: Differences between novice and experienced users in searching information on the World Wide Web (2000)
0.07
0.07331388 = product of:
0.14662775 = sum of:
0.07805218 = weight(_text_:web in 4598) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07805218 = score(doc=4598,freq=10.0), product of:
0.16134618 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.049439456 = queryNorm
0.48375595 = fieldWeight in 4598, product of:
3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
10.0 = termFreq=10.0
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4598)
0.068575576 = weight(_text_:search in 4598) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.068575576 = score(doc=4598,freq=6.0), product of:
0.17183559 = queryWeight, product of:
3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
0.049439456 = queryNorm
0.39907667 = fieldWeight in 4598, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4598)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Abstract
- Searching for information on the WWW basically comes down to locating an appropriate Web site and to retrieving relevant information from that site. This study examined the effect of a user's WWW experience on both phases of the search process. 35 students from 2 schools for Dutch pre-university education were observed while performing 3 search tasks. The results indicate that subjects with WWW-experience are more proficient in locating Web sites than are novice WWW-users. The observed differences were ascribed to the experts' superior skills in operating Web search engines. However, on tasks that required subjects to locate information on specific Web sites, the performance of experienced and novice users was equivalent - a result that is in line with hypertext research. Based on these findings, implications for training and supporting students in searching for information on the WWW are identified. Finally, the role of the subjects' level of domain expertise is discussed and directions for future research are proposed
-
Khan, K.; Locatis, C.: Searching through cyberspace : the effects of link display and link density on information retrieval from hypertext on the World Wide Web (1998)
0.06
0.061718337 = product of:
0.123436674 = sum of:
0.03490599 = weight(_text_:web in 446) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03490599 = score(doc=446,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16134618 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.049439456 = queryNorm
0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 446, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=446)
0.08853068 = weight(_text_:search in 446) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08853068 = score(doc=446,freq=10.0), product of:
0.17183559 = queryWeight, product of:
3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
0.049439456 = queryNorm
0.51520574 = fieldWeight in 446, product of:
3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
10.0 = termFreq=10.0
3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=446)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Abstract
- This study investigated information retrieval from hypertext on the WWW. Significant main and interaction effects were found for both link density (number of links per display) and display format (in paragraphs or lists) on search performance. Low link densities displayed in list format produced the best overall results, in terms of search accuracy, search time, number of links explored, and search task prioritization. Lower densities affected user ability to prioritize search tasks and produced more accurate searches, while list displays positively affected all aspects of searching except task prioritization. The performance of novices and experts, in terms of their previous experience browsing hypertext on the WWW, was compared. Experts performed better, mostly because of their superior task prioritization
