Search (5 results, page 1 of 1)

0.028140724 = product of:
  0.08442217 = sum of:
    0.08442217 = weight(_text_:title in 3453) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08442217 = score(doc=3453,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.27436262 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.570018 = idf(docFreq=457, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049257044 = queryNorm
        0.3077029 = fieldWeight in 3453, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.570018 = idf(docFreq=457, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3453)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

In this article, we describe the results of an experiment designed to understand the effects of background information and social interaction on image tagging. The participants in the experiment were asked to tag 12 preselected images of Jewish cultural heritage. The users were partitioned into three groups: the first group saw only the images with no additional information whatsoever, the second group saw the images plus a short, descriptive title, and the third group saw the images, the titles, and the URL of the page in which the image appeared. In the first stage of the experiment, each user tagged the images without seeing the tags provided by the other users. In the second stage, the users saw the tags assigned by others and were encouraged to interact. Results show that after the social interaction phase, the tag sets converged and the popular tags became even more popular. Although in all cases the total number of assigned tags increased after the social interaction phase, the number of distinct tags decreased in most cases. When viewing the image only, in some cases the users were not able to correctly identify what they saw in some of the pictures, but they overcame the initial difficulties after interaction. We conclude from this experiment that social interaction may lead to convergence in tagging and that the wisdom of the crowds helps overcome the difficulties due to the lack of information.

0.028140724 = product of:
  0.08442217 = sum of:
    0.08442217 = weight(_text_:title in 455) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08442217 = score(doc=455,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.27436262 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.570018 = idf(docFreq=457, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049257044 = queryNorm
        0.3077029 = fieldWeight in 455, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.570018 = idf(docFreq=457, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=455)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This experiment studied the impact of various task phrasings on the search process. Eighty-eight searchers performed four web search tasks prescribed by the researchers. Each task was linked to an existing target web page, containing a piece of text that served as the basis for the task. A matching phrasing was a task whose wording matched the text of the target page. A nonmatching phrasing was synonymous with the matching phrasing, but had no match with the target page. Searchers received tasks for both types in English and in Hebrew. The search process was logged. The findings confirm that task phrasing shapes the search process and outcome, and also user satisfaction. Each search stage-retrieval of the target page, visiting the target page, and finding the target answer-was associated with different phenomena; for example, target page retrieval was negatively affected by persistence in search patterns (e.g., use of phrases), user-originated keywords, shorter queries, and omitting key keywords from the queries. Searchers were easily driven away from the top-ranked target pages by lower-ranked pages with title tags matching the queries. Some searchers created consistently longer queries than other searchers, regardless of the task length. Several consistent behavior patterns that characterized the Hebrew language were uncovered, including the use of keyword modifications (replacing infinitive forms with nouns), omitting prefixes and articles, and preferences for the common language. The success self-assessment also depended on whether the wording of the answer matched the task phrasing.

0.005561375 = product of:
  0.016684124 = sum of:
    0.016684124 = product of:
      0.03336825 = sum of:
        0.03336825 = weight(_text_:22 in 3364) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03336825 = score(doc=3364,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17248978 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049257044 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 3364, 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=3364)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.0044491 = product of:
  0.013347299 = sum of:
    0.013347299 = product of:
      0.026694598 = sum of:
        0.026694598 = weight(_text_:22 in 1634) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026694598 = score(doc=1634,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17248978 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049257044 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 1634, 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=1634)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.0044491 = product of:
  0.013347299 = sum of:
    0.013347299 = product of:
      0.026694598 = sum of:
        0.026694598 = weight(_text_:22 in 3071) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026694598 = score(doc=3071,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17248978 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049257044 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 3071, 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=3071)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22