Search (26 results, page 2 of 2)

0.0013148742 = product of:
  0.011833867 = sum of:
    0.011833867 = weight(_text_:of in 3144) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011833867 = score(doc=3144,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.19316542 = fieldWeight in 3144, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3144)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

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.

Footnote

To appear in Experimental IR Meets Multilinguality, Multimodality, and Interaction. 7th International Conference of the CLEF Association, CLEF 2016, \'Evora, Portugal, September 5-8, 2016.

0.0013148742 = product of:
  0.011833867 = sum of:
    0.011833867 = weight(_text_:of in 3567) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011833867 = score(doc=3567,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.19316542 = fieldWeight in 3567, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3567)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

In an online experiment using a representative sample of the German online population (n = 1.000), we compare users' selection behaviour on two versions of the same Google search engine results page (SERP), one showing advertisements and organic results, the other showing organic results only. Selection behaviour is analyzed in relation to users' knowledge on Google's business model, on SERP design, and on these users' actual performance in marking advertisements on SERPs correctly. We find that users who were not able to mark ads correctly selected ads significantly more often. This leads to the conclusion that ads need to be labeled more clearly, and that there is a need for more information literacy in search engine users.

Source

Everything changes, everything stays the same? - Understanding information spaces : Proceedings of the 15th International Symposium of Information Science (ISI 2017), Berlin/Germany, 13th - 15th March 2017. Eds.: M. Gäde, V. Trkulja u. V. Petras

0.0011760591 = product of:
  0.010584532 = sum of:
    0.010584532 = weight(_text_:of in 2345) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010584532 = score(doc=2345,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.17277241 = fieldWeight in 2345, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2345)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to compare five major web search engines (Google, Yahoo, MSN, Ask.com, and Seekport) for their retrieval effectiveness, taking into account not only the results, but also the results descriptions. Design/methodology/approach - The study uses real-life queries. Results are made anonymous and are randomized. Results are judged by the persons posing the original queries. Findings - The two major search engines, Google and Yahoo, perform best, and there are no significant differences between them. Google delivers significantly more relevant result descriptions than any other search engine. This could be one reason for users perceiving this engine as superior. Research limitations/implications - The study is based on a user model where the user takes into account a certain amount of results rather systematically. This may not be the case in real life. Practical implications - The paper implies that search engines should focus on relevant descriptions. Searchers are advised to use other search engines in addition to Google. Originality/value - This is the first major study comparing results and descriptions systematically and proposes new retrieval measures to take into account results descriptions.

Source

Journal of documentation. 64(2008) no.6, S.915-937

0.0011760591 = product of:
  0.010584532 = sum of:
    0.010584532 = weight(_text_:of in 2987) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010584532 = score(doc=2987,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.17277241 = fieldWeight in 2987, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2987)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Source

Re:inventing information science in the networked society: Proceedings of the 14th International Symposium on Information Science, Zadar/Croatia, 19th-21st May 2015. Eds.: F. Pehar, C. Schloegl u. C. Wolff

9.979192E-4 = product of:
  0.0089812735 = sum of:
    0.0089812735 = weight(_text_:of in 378) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0089812735 = score(doc=378,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.14660224 = fieldWeight in 378, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=378)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

Suchmaschinen bilden den bedeutendsten Zugang zu den im World Wide Web verfügbaren Informationen und haben andere Zugänge zu diesem Informationsbestand (wie etwa Internetverzeichnisse) weitgehend verdrängt. Der Suchmaschinenmarkt ist stark konzentriert; nur wenige Anbieter mit eigener Technologie bieten selbst Endnutzerlösungen an und lizenzieren ihre Technologie an die bekannten Web-Portale wie AOL oder T-Online. Die im vorliegenden Kapitel dargestellten Kennzahlen zur Messung der Qualität von Suchmaschinen basieren einerseits auf Erkenntnissen über den State of the Art der Suchmaschinentechnologie, andererseits stehen sie im Kontext eines umfassenderen Modells der Qualitätsmessung für Web-Suchmaschinen. Die besondere Bedeutung von Erkenntnissen über die Qualität der bestehenden Suchmaschinen ergibt sich einerseits aus ihrer Bedeutung für die Weiterentwicklung der Suchmaschinentechnologie. Qualitätsuntersuchungen geben Hinweise auf die Schwachstellen der Suchmaschinen im Allgemeinen und die ihrer Ranking-Algorithmen im Besonderen. Letztere sind als zentral für die Ergebnisqualität anzusehen und bilden den >Kern< der technologischen Leistungsfähigkeit einer jeden Suchmaschine.

Source

Macht der Suchmaschinen: The Power of Search Engines. Hrsg.: Machill, M. u. M. Beiler

2.3521183E-4 = product of:
  0.0021169065 = sum of:
    0.0021169065 = weight(_text_:of in 3635) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0021169065 = score(doc=3635,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.03455448 = fieldWeight in 3635, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=3635)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Footnote

Rez. in: Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis. 56(2005) H.7, S.393-394 (J. Griesbaum): "... , das Buch wird seinem Titel und dem formulierten Anspruch sehr gut gerecht. Die 248 Seiten umfängliche Publikation leistet eine umfassende und, für den deutschsprachigen Raum, einzigartige State-of-the-Art-Analyse der Verfahren und auch der Defizite von Suchmaschinen im Internet. Dabei beschränkt sich Lewandowski nicht auf eine technikzentrierte Beschreibung aktueller Retrievalansätze, sondern akzentuiert ebenso deutlich auch die Problemfelder bei der Nutzung von Suchmaschinen. Dieser nutzerzentrierte Ansatz kommt vor allem im konzeptionellen Teil der Arbeit zum Tragen, der das Ziel verfolgt, Suchmaschinennutzern verbesserte Rechercheoptionen zu verschaffen. Angesichts der nur in geringem Maße vorhandenen Recherchekenntnisse der Nutzer liegt die Herausforderung vor allem darin, solche verbesserten Recherchemöglichkeiten derart auszugestalten, dass sie sich in realen Suchkontexten auch tatsächlich auswirken und nicht etwa wie die meist als "Erweitere Suche" bezeichneten Anfragemasken ein kaum beachtetes Dasein fristen. Der Verfasser konzipiert in diesem wichtigen Forschungsfeld neue Ansätze, um die Oualität des Information Retrievals zu verbessern. ... "