-
Day, M.; Koch, T.: ¬The role of classification schemes in Internet resource description and discovery : DESIRE - Development of a European Service for Information on Research and Education. Specification for resource description methods, part 3 (1997)
0.02
0.024597658 = product of:
0.11478907 = sum of:
0.03364573 = weight(_text_:classification in 3067) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03364573 = score(doc=3067,freq=2.0), product of:
0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.35186368 = fieldWeight in 3067, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3067)
0.0474976 = product of:
0.0949952 = sum of:
0.0949952 = weight(_text_:schemes in 3067) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0949952 = score(doc=3067,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16067243 = queryWeight, product of:
5.3512506 = idf(docFreq=569, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.5912352 = fieldWeight in 3067, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.3512506 = idf(docFreq=569, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3067)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.03364573 = weight(_text_:classification in 3067) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03364573 = score(doc=3067,freq=2.0), product of:
0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.35186368 = fieldWeight in 3067, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3067)
0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
-
Place, E.: Internationale Zusammenarbeit bei Internet Subject Gateways (1999)
0.01
0.009876773 = product of:
0.06913741 = sum of:
0.056933407 = weight(_text_:subject in 4189) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.056933407 = score(doc=4189,freq=10.0), product of:
0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.5301652 = fieldWeight in 4189, product of:
3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
10.0 = termFreq=10.0
3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4189)
0.0122040035 = product of:
0.024408007 = sum of:
0.024408007 = weight(_text_:22 in 4189) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.024408007 = score(doc=4189,freq=2.0), product of:
0.10514317 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4189, 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=4189)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
- Abstract
- Eine ganze Anzahl von Bibliotheken in Europa befaßt sich mit der Entwicklung von Internet Subject Gateways - einer Serviceleistung, die den Nutzern helfen soll, qualitativ hochwertige Internetquellen zu finden. Subject Gateways wie SOSIG (The Social Science Information Gateway) sind bereits seit einigen Jahren im Internet verfügbar und stellen eine Alternative zu Internet-Suchmaschinen wie AltaVista und Verzeichnissen wie Yahoo dar. Bezeichnenderweise stützen sich Subject Gateways auf die Fertigkeiten, Verfahrensweisen und Standards der internationalen Bibliothekswelt und wenden diese auf Informationen aus dem Internet an. Dieses Referat will daher betonen, daß Bibliothekare/innen idealerweise eine vorherrschende Rolle im Aufbau von Suchservices für Internetquellen spielen und daß Information Gateways eine Möglichkeit dafür darstellen. Es wird einige der Subject Gateway-Initiativen in Europa umreißen und die Werkzeuge und Technologien beschreiben, die vom Projekt DESIRE entwickelt wurden, um die Entwicklung neuer Gateways in anderen Ländern zu unterstützen. Es wird auch erörtert, wie IMesh, eine Gruppe für Gateways aus der ganzen Welt eine internationale Strategie für Gateways anstrebt und versucht, Standards zur Umsetzung dieses Projekts zu entwickeln
- Date
- 22. 6.2002 19:35:09
-
Bauckhage, C.: Marginalizing over the PageRank damping factor (2014)
0.01
0.009613066 = product of:
0.06729146 = sum of:
0.03364573 = weight(_text_:classification in 928) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03364573 = score(doc=928,freq=2.0), product of:
0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.35186368 = fieldWeight in 928, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=928)
0.03364573 = weight(_text_:classification in 928) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03364573 = score(doc=928,freq=2.0), product of:
0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.35186368 = fieldWeight in 928, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=928)
0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
- Abstract
- In this note, we show how to marginalize over the damping parameter of the PageRank equation so as to obtain a parameter-free version known as TotalRank. Our discussion is meant as a reference and intended to provide a guided tour towards an interesting result that has applications in information retrieval and classification.
-
Dodge, M.: ¬A map of Yahoo! (2000)
0.01
0.009222456 = product of:
0.04303813 = sum of:
0.024005229 = weight(_text_:subject in 1555) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.024005229 = score(doc=1555,freq=16.0), product of:
0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.22353725 = fieldWeight in 1555, product of:
4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
16.0 = termFreq=16.0
3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=1555)
0.00951645 = weight(_text_:classification in 1555) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.00951645 = score(doc=1555,freq=4.0), product of:
0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.099522084 = fieldWeight in 1555, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=1555)
0.00951645 = weight(_text_:classification in 1555) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.00951645 = score(doc=1555,freq=4.0), product of:
0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.099522084 = fieldWeight in 1555, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=1555)
0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
- Content
- "Introduction Yahoo! is the undisputed king of the Web directories, providing one of the key information navigation tools on the Internet. It has maintained its popularity over many Internet-years as the most visited Web site, against intense competition. This is because it does a good job of shifting, cataloguing and organising the Web [1] . But what would a map of Yahoo!'s hierarchical classification of the Web look like? Would an interactive map of Yahoo!, rather than the conventional listing of sites, be more useful as navigational tool? We can get some idea what a map of Yahoo! might be like by taking a look at ET-Map, a prototype developed by Hsinchun Chen and colleagues in the Artificial Intelligence Lab [2] at the University of Arizona. ET-Map was developed in 1995 as part of innovative research in automatic Internet homepage categorization and it charts a large chunk of Yahoo!, from the entertainment section representing some 110,000 different Web links. The map is a two-dimensional, multi-layered category map; its aim is to provide an intuitive visual information browsing tool. ET-Map can be browsed interactively, explored and queried, using the familiar point-and-click navigation style of the Web to find information of interest.
The View From Above Browsing for a particular piece on information on the Web can often feel like being stuck in an unfamiliar part of town walking around at street level looking for a particular store. You know the store is around there somewhere, but your viewpoint at ground level is constrained. What you really want is to get above the streets, hovering half a mile or so up in the air, to see the whole neighbourhood. This kind of birds-eye view function has been memorably described by David D. Clark, Senior Research Scientist at MIT's Laboratory for Computer Science and the Chairman of the Invisible Worlds Protocol Advisory Board, as the missing "up button" on the browser [3] . ET-Map is a nice example of a prototype for Clark's "up-button" view of an information space. The goal of information maps, like ET-Map, is to provide the browser with a sense of the lie of the information landscape, what is where, the location of clusters and hotspots, what is related to what. Ideally, this 'big-picture' all-in-one visual summary needs to fit on a single standard computer screen. ET-Map is one of my favourite examples, but there are many other interesting information maps being developed by other researchers and companies (see inset at the bottom of this page). How does ET-Map work? Here is a sequence of screenshots of a typical browsing session with ET-Map, which ends with access to Web pages on jazz musician Miles Davis. You can also tryout ET-Map for yourself, using a fully working demo on the AI Lab's website [4] . We begin with the top-level map showing forty odd broad entertainment 'subject regions' represented by regularly shaped tiles. Each tile is a visual summary of a group of Web pages with similar content. These tiles are shaded different colours to differentiate them, while labels identify the subject of the tile and the number in brackets telling you how many individual Web page links it contains. ET-Map uses two important, but common-sense, spatial concepts in its organisation and representation of the Web. Firstly, the 'subject regions' size is directly related to the number of Web pages in that category. For example, the 'MUSIC' subject area contains over 11,000 pages and so has a much larger area than the neighbouring area of 'LIVE' which only has 4,300 odd pages. This is intuitively meaningful, as the largest tiles are visually more prominent on the map and are likely to be more significant as they contain the most links. In addition, a second spatial concept, that of neighbourhood proximity, is applied so 'subject regions' closely related in term of content are plotted close to each other on the map. For example, 'FILM' and 'YEAR'S OSCARS', at the bottom left, are neighbours in both semantic and spatial space. This make senses as many things in the real-world are ordered in this way, with things that are alike being spatially close together (e.g. layout of goods in a store, or books in a library). Importantly, ET-Map is also a multi-layer map, with sub-maps showing greater informational resolution through a finer degree of categorization. So for any subject region that contains more than two hundred Web pages, a second-level map, with more detailed categories is generated. This subdivision of information space is repeated down the hierarchy as far as necessary. In the example, the user selected the 'MUSIC' subject region which, not surprisingly, contained many thousands of pages. A second-level map with numerous different music categories is then presented to the user. Delving deeper, the user wants to learn more about jazz music, so clicking on the 'JAZZ' tile leads to a third-level map, a fine-grained map of jazz related Web pages. Finally, selecting the 'MILES DAVIS' subject region leads to more a conventional looking ranking of pages from which the user selects one to download.
ET-Map was created using a sophisticated AI technique called Kohonen self-organizing map, a neural network approach that has been used for automatic analysis and classification of semantic content of text documents like Web pages. I do not pretend to fully understand how this technique works; I tend to think of it as a clever 'black-box' that group together things that are alike [5] . It is a real challenge to automatically classify pages from a very heterogeneous information collection like the Web into categories that will match the conceptions of a typical user. Directories like Yahoo! tend to rely on the skill of human editors to achieve this. ET-Map is an interesting prototype that I think highlights well the potential for a map-based approach to Web browsing. I am surprised none of the major search engines or directories have introduced the option of mapping results. Although, I am sure many are working on ideas. People certainly need all the help they get, as Web growth shows no sign of slowing. Just last month it was reported that the Web had surpassed one billion indexable pages [6].
-
Summann, F.; Lossau, N.: Search engine technology and digital libraries : moving from theory to practice (2004)
0.01
0.006302292 = product of:
0.044116043 = sum of:
0.024005229 = weight(_text_:subject in 1196) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.024005229 = score(doc=1196,freq=4.0), product of:
0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.22353725 = fieldWeight in 1196, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1196)
0.020110816 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 1196) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.020110816 = score(doc=1196,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11688946 = queryWeight, product of:
3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.17204987 = fieldWeight in 1196, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1196)
0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
- Abstract
- This article describes the journey from the conception of and vision for a modern search-engine-based search environment to its technological realisation. In doing so, it takes up the thread of an earlier article on this subject, this time from a technical viewpoint. As well as presenting the conceptual considerations of the initial stages, this article will principally elucidate the technological aspects of this journey. The starting point for the deliberations about development of an academic search engine was the experience we gained through the generally successful project "Digital Library NRW", in which from 1998 to 2000-with Bielefeld University Library in overall charge-we designed a system model for an Internet-based library portal with an improved academic search environment at its core. At the heart of this system was a metasearch with an availability function, to which we added a user interface integrating all relevant source material for study and research. The deficiencies of this approach were felt soon after the system was launched in June 2001. There were problems with the stability and performance of the database retrieval system, with the integration of full-text documents and Internet pages, and with acceptance by users, because users are increasingly performing the searches themselves using search engines rather than going to the library for help in doing searches. Since a long list of problems are also encountered using commercial search engines for academic use (in particular the retrieval of academic information and long-term availability), the idea was born for a search engine configured specifically for academic use. We also hoped that with one single access point founded on improved search engine technology, we could access the heterogeneous academic resources of subject-based bibliographic databases, catalogues, electronic newspapers, document servers and academic web pages.
-
Lim, E.: Subject Gateways in Südostasien : Anwendung von Klassifikationen (1999)
0.00
0.0036373418 = product of:
0.05092278 = sum of:
0.05092278 = weight(_text_:subject in 4188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05092278 = score(doc=4188,freq=2.0), product of:
0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.4741941 = fieldWeight in 4188, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4188)
0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
-
Matrix of WWW indices : a comparison of Internet indexing tools (1995)
0.00
0.0030311183 = product of:
0.042435654 = sum of:
0.042435654 = weight(_text_:subject in 3165) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.042435654 = score(doc=3165,freq=2.0), product of:
0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.39516178 = fieldWeight in 3165, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3165)
0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
- Object
- Subject Clearinghouse
-
Dunning, A.: Do we still need search engines? (1999)
0.00
0.0020340008 = product of:
0.02847601 = sum of:
0.02847601 = product of:
0.05695202 = sum of:
0.05695202 = weight(_text_:22 in 6021) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05695202 = score(doc=6021,freq=2.0), product of:
0.10514317 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 6021, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6021)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
- Source
- Ariadne. 1999, no.22
-
Birmingham, J.: Internet search engines (1996)
0.00
0.0017434291 = product of:
0.024408007 = sum of:
0.024408007 = product of:
0.048816014 = sum of:
0.048816014 = weight(_text_:22 in 5664) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.048816014 = score(doc=5664,freq=2.0), product of:
0.10514317 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 5664, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=5664)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
- Date
- 10.11.1996 16:36:22
-
Rogers, I.: ¬The Google Pagerank algorithm and how it works (2002)
0.00
0.0015155592 = product of:
0.021217827 = sum of:
0.021217827 = weight(_text_:subject in 2548) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.021217827 = score(doc=2548,freq=2.0), product of:
0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.19758089 = fieldWeight in 2548, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2548)
0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
- Abstract
- Page Rank is a topic much discussed by Search Engine Optimisation (SEO) experts. At the heart of PageRank is a mathematical formula that seems scary to look at but is actually fairly simple to understand. Despite this many people seem to get it wrong! In particular "Chris Ridings of www.searchenginesystems.net" has written a paper entitled "PageRank Explained: Everything you've always wanted to know about PageRank", pointed to by many people, that contains a fundamental mistake early on in the explanation! Unfortunately this means some of the recommendations in the paper are not quite accurate. By showing code to correctly calculate real PageRank I hope to achieve several things in this response: - Clearly explain how PageRank is calculated. - Go through every example in Chris' paper, and add some more of my own, showing the correct PageRank for each diagram. By showing the code used to calculate each diagram I've opened myself up to peer review - mostly in an effort to make sure the examples are correct, but also because the code can help explain the PageRank calculations. - Describe some principles and observations on website design based on these correctly calculated examples. Any good web designer should take the time to fully understand how PageRank really works - if you don't then your site's layout could be seriously hurting your Google listings! [Note: I have nothing in particular against Chris. If I find any other papers on the subject I'll try to comment evenly]
-
Bensman, S.J.: Eugene Garfield, Francis Narin, and PageRank : the theoretical bases of the Google search engine (2013)
0.00
0.0011622861 = product of:
0.016272005 = sum of:
0.016272005 = product of:
0.03254401 = sum of:
0.03254401 = weight(_text_:22 in 1149) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03254401 = score(doc=1149,freq=2.0), product of:
0.10514317 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 1149, 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=1149)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
- Date
- 17.12.2013 11:02:22
-
Schaat, S.: Von der automatisierten Manipulation zur Manipulation der Automatisierung (2019)
0.00
0.0011622861 = product of:
0.016272005 = sum of:
0.016272005 = product of:
0.03254401 = sum of:
0.03254401 = weight(_text_:22 in 4996) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03254401 = score(doc=4996,freq=2.0), product of:
0.10514317 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 4996, 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=4996)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
- Date
- 19. 2.2019 17:22:00
-
Boldi, P.; Santini, M.; Vigna, S.: PageRank as a function of the damping factor (2005)
0.00
7.264289E-4 = product of:
0.010170003 = sum of:
0.010170003 = product of:
0.020340007 = sum of:
0.020340007 = weight(_text_:22 in 2564) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.020340007 = score(doc=2564,freq=2.0), product of:
0.10514317 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2564, 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=2564)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
- Date
- 16. 1.2016 10:22:28
-
Baeza-Yates, R.; Boldi, P.; Castillo, C.: Generalizing PageRank : damping functions for linkbased ranking algorithms (2006)
0.00
7.264289E-4 = product of:
0.010170003 = sum of:
0.010170003 = product of:
0.020340007 = sum of:
0.020340007 = weight(_text_:22 in 2565) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.020340007 = score(doc=2565,freq=2.0), product of:
0.10514317 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2565, 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=2565)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
- Date
- 16. 1.2016 10:22:28
-
Gillitzer, B.: Yewno (2017)
0.00
5.811431E-4 = product of:
0.008136002 = sum of:
0.008136002 = product of:
0.016272005 = sum of:
0.016272005 = weight(_text_:22 in 3447) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.016272005 = score(doc=3447,freq=2.0), product of:
0.10514317 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 3447, 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=3447)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
- Date
- 22. 2.2017 10:16:49
