Search (10 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Lewandowski, D."
  1. Lewandowski, D.; Sünkler, S.: What does Google recommend when you want to compare insurance offerings? (2019) 0.02 
    0.017601274 = product of:
  0.070405096 = sum of:
    0.070405096 = sum of:
      0.03957187 = weight(_text_:software in 5288) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03957187 = score(doc=5288,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18056466 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045514934 = queryNorm
          0.21915624 = fieldWeight in 5288, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5288)
      0.030833228 = weight(_text_:22 in 5288) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.030833228 = score(doc=5288,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15938555 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045514934 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5288, 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=5288)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Purpose The purpose of this paper is to describe a new method to improve the analysis of search engine results by considering the provider level as well as the domain level. This approach is tested by conducting a study using queries on the topic of insurance comparisons. Design/methodology/approach The authors conducted an empirical study that analyses the results of search queries aimed at comparing insurance companies. The authors used a self-developed software system that automatically queries commercial search engines and automatically extracts the content of the returned result pages for further data analysis. The data analysis was carried out using the KNIME Analytics Platform. Findings Google's top search results are served by only a few providers that frequently appear in these results. The authors show that some providers operate several domains on the same topic and that these domains appear for the same queries in the result lists. Research limitations/implications The authors demonstrate the feasibility of this approach and draw conclusions for further investigations from the empirical study. However, the study is a limited use case based on a limited number of search queries. Originality/value The proposed method allows large-scale analysis of the composition of the top results from commercial search engines. It allows using valid empirical data to determine what users actually see on the search engine result pages.
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22
  2. Lewandowski, D.; Sünkler, S.: ¬Das Relevance Assessment Tool : eine modulare Software zur Unterstützung bei der Durchführung vielfältiger Studien mit Suchmaschinen (2019) 0.01 
    0.011871561 = product of:
  0.047486246 = sum of:
    0.047486246 = product of:
      0.09497249 = sum of:
        0.09497249 = weight(_text_:software in 5026) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09497249 = score(doc=5026,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.18056466 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045514934 = queryNorm
            0.525975 = fieldWeight in 5026, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5026)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    In diesem Artikel stellen wir eine Software vor, mit der sich Studien zu Such- und Informationssystemen realisieren lassen. Das Relevance Assessment Tool (RAT) soll umfangreiche Untersuchungen mit Daten von kommerziellen Suchmaschinen unterstützen. Die Software ist modular und webbasiert. Es lassen sich damit automatisiert Daten von Suchmaschinen erfassen. Dazu können Studien mit Fragen und Skalen flexibel gestaltet und die Informationsobjekte anhand der Fragen durch Juroren bewertet werden. Durch die Modularität lassen sich die einzelnen Komponenten für eine Vielzahl von Studien nutzen, die sich auf Web-Inhalte beziehen. So kann die Software auch für qualitative Inhaltsanalysen eingesetzt werden oder durch das automatisierte Scraping eine große Datenbasis an Web-Dokumenten liefern, die sich quantitativ in empirischen Studien analysieren lassen.
  3. Lewandowski, D.; Krewinkel, A.; Gleissner, M.; Osterode, D.; Tolg, B.; Holle, M.; Sünkler, S.: Entwicklung und Anwendung einer Software zur automatisierten Kontrolle des Lebensmittelmarktes im Internet mit informationswissenschaftlichen Methoden (2019) 0.01 
    0.010281074 = product of:
  0.041124295 = sum of:
    0.041124295 = product of:
      0.08224859 = sum of:
        0.08224859 = weight(_text_:software in 5025) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08224859 = score(doc=5025,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.18056466 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045514934 = queryNorm
            0.4555077 = fieldWeight in 5025, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5025)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    In diesem Artikel präsentieren wir die Durchführung und die Ergebnisse eines interdisziplinären Forschungsprojekts zum Thema automatisierte Lebensmittelkontrolle im Web. Es wurden Kompetenzen aus den Disziplinen Lebensmittelwissenschaft, Rechtswissenschaft, Informationswissenschaft und Informatik dazu genutzt, ein detailliertes Konzept und einen Software-Prototypen zu entwickeln, um das Internet nach Produktangeboten zu durchsuchen, die gegen das Lebensmittelrecht verstoßen. Dabei wird deutlich, wie ein solcher Anwendungsfall von den Methoden der Information-Retrieval-Evaluierung profitiert, und wie sich mit relativ geringem Aufwand eine flexible Software programmieren lässt, die auch für eine Vielzahl anderer Fragestellungen einsetzbar ist. Die Ergebnisse des Projekts zeigen, wie komplexe Arbeitsprozesse einer Behörde mit Hilfe der Methoden von Retrieval-Tests und gängigen Verfahren aus dem maschinellen Lernen effektiv und effizient unterstützt werden können.
  4. Behnert, C.; Plassmeier, K.; Borst, T.; Lewandowski, D.: Evaluierung von Rankingverfahren für bibliothekarische Informationssysteme (2019) 0.01 
    0.006925077 = product of:
  0.027700309 = sum of:
    0.027700309 = product of:
      0.055400617 = sum of:
        0.055400617 = weight(_text_:software in 5023) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.055400617 = score(doc=5023,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18056466 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045514934 = queryNorm
            0.30681872 = fieldWeight in 5023, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5023)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Dieser Beitrag beschreibt eine Studie zur Entwicklung und Evaluierung von Rankingverfahren für bibliothekarische Informationssysteme. Dazu wurden mögliche Faktoren für das Relevanzranking ausgehend von den Verfahren in Websuchmaschinen identifiziert, auf den Bibliothekskontext übertragen und systematisch evaluiert. Mithilfe eines Testsystems, das auf dem ZBW-Informationsportal EconBiz und einer web-basierten Software zur Evaluierung von Suchsystemen aufsetzt, wurden verschiedene Relevanzfaktoren (z. B. Popularität in Verbindung mit Aktualität) getestet. Obwohl die getesteten Rankingverfahren auf einer theoretischen Ebene divers sind, konnten keine einheitlichen Verbesserungen gegenüber den Baseline-Rankings gemessen werden. Die Ergebnisse deuten darauf hin, dass eine Adaptierung des Rankings auf individuelle Nutzer bzw. Nutzungskontexte notwendig sein könnte, um eine höhere Performance zu erzielen.
  5. Lewandowski, D.: Alles nur noch Google? : Entwicklungen im Bereich der WWW-Suchmaschinen (2002) 0.01 
    0.0061666453 = product of:
  0.024666581 = sum of:
    0.024666581 = product of:
      0.049333163 = sum of:
        0.049333163 = weight(_text_:22 in 997) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049333163 = score(doc=997,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15938555 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045514934 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 997, 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=997)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Date
    29. 9.2002 18:49:22
  6. Lewandowski, D.: Abfragesprachen und erweiterte Funktionen von WWW-Suchmaschinen (2004) 0.01 
    0.0061666453 = product of:
  0.024666581 = sum of:
    0.024666581 = product of:
      0.049333163 = sum of:
        0.049333163 = weight(_text_:22 in 2314) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049333163 = score(doc=2314,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15938555 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045514934 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 2314, 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=2314)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Date
    28.11.2004 13:11:22
  7. Lewandowski, D.: Query understanding (2011) 0.01 
    0.0061666453 = product of:
  0.024666581 = sum of:
    0.024666581 = product of:
      0.049333163 = sum of:
        0.049333163 = weight(_text_:22 in 344) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049333163 = score(doc=344,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15938555 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045514934 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 344, 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=344)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Date
    18. 9.2018 18:22:18
  8. Lewandowski, D.: Evaluating the retrieval effectiveness of web search engines using a representative query sample (2015) 0.01 
    0.0059357807 = product of:
  0.023743123 = sum of:
    0.023743123 = product of:
      0.047486246 = sum of:
        0.047486246 = weight(_text_:software in 2157) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047486246 = score(doc=2157,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18056466 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045514934 = queryNorm
            0.2629875 = fieldWeight in 2157, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2157)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Search engine retrieval effectiveness studies are usually small scale, using only limited query samples. Furthermore, queries are selected by the researchers. We address these issues by taking a random representative sample of 1,000 informational and 1,000 navigational queries from a major German search engine and comparing Google's and Bing's results based on this sample. Jurors were found through crowdsourcing, and data were collected using specialized software, the Relevance Assessment Tool (RAT). We found that although Google outperforms Bing in both query types, the difference in the performance for informational queries was rather low. However, for navigational queries, Google found the correct answer in 95.3% of cases, whereas Bing only found the correct answer 76.6% of the time. We conclude that search engine performance on navigational queries is of great importance, because users in this case can clearly identify queries that have returned correct results. So, performance on this query type may contribute to explaining user satisfaction with search engines.
  9. Lewandowski, D.: ¬Die Macht der Suchmaschinen und ihr Einfluss auf unsere Entscheidungen (2014) 0.00 
    0.0046249838 = product of:
  0.018499935 = sum of:
    0.018499935 = product of:
      0.03699987 = sum of:
        0.03699987 = weight(_text_:22 in 1491) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03699987 = score(doc=1491,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15938555 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045514934 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1491, 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=1491)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Date
    22. 9.2014 18:54:11
  10. Lewandowski, D.; Spree, U.: Ranking of Wikipedia articles in search engines revisited : fair ranking for reasonable quality? (2011) 0.00 
    0.0038541534 = product of:
  0.015416614 = sum of:
    0.015416614 = product of:
      0.030833228 = sum of:
        0.030833228 = weight(_text_:22 in 444) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030833228 = score(doc=444,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15938555 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045514934 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 444, 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=444)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Date
    30. 9.2012 19:27:22

Authors

Years

Languages

Themes