Search (3 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × language_ss:"e"
  • × author_ss:"Lewandowski, D."
  1. Lewandowski, D.; Spree, U.: Ranking of Wikipedia articles in search engines revisited : fair ranking for reasonable quality? (2011) 0.04 
    0.03779368 = product of:
  0.11338104 = sum of:
    0.10491812 = weight(_text_:ranking in 444) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10491812 = score(doc=444,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.20271951 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.4090285 = idf(docFreq=537, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03747799 = queryNorm
        0.51755315 = fieldWeight in 444, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          5.4090285 = idf(docFreq=537, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=444)
    0.008462917 = product of:
      0.025388751 = sum of:
        0.025388751 = weight(_text_:22 in 444) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025388751 = score(doc=444,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13124153 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03747799 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Abstract
    This paper aims to review the fiercely discussed question of whether the ranking of Wikipedia articles in search engines is justified by the quality of the articles. After an overview of current research on information quality in Wikipedia, a summary of the extended discussion on the quality of encyclopedic entries in general is given. On this basis, a heuristic method for evaluating Wikipedia entries is developed and applied to Wikipedia articles that scored highly in a search engine retrieval effectiveness test and compared with the relevance judgment of jurors. In all search engines tested, Wikipedia results are unanimously judged better by the jurors than other results on the corresponding results position. Relevance judgments often roughly correspond with the results from the heuristic evaluation. Cases in which high relevance judgments are not in accordance with the comparatively low score from the heuristic evaluation are interpreted as an indicator of a high degree of trust in Wikipedia. One of the systemic shortcomings of Wikipedia lies in its necessarily incoherent user model. A further tuning of the suggested criteria catalog, for instance, the different weighing of the supplied criteria, could serve as a starting point for a user model differentiated evaluation of Wikipedia articles. Approved methods of quality evaluation of reference works are applied to Wikipedia articles and integrated with the question of search engine evaluation.
    Date
    30. 9.2012 19:27:22
  2. Lewandowski, D.: How can library materials be ranked in the OPAC? (2009) 0.03 
    0.03348382 = product of:
  0.2009029 = sum of:
    0.2009029 = weight(_text_:ranking in 2810) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.2009029 = score(doc=2810,freq=22.0), product of:
        0.20271951 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.4090285 = idf(docFreq=537, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03747799 = queryNorm
        0.9910388 = fieldWeight in 2810, product of:
          4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
            22.0 = termFreq=22.0
          5.4090285 = idf(docFreq=537, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2810)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Abstract
    Some Online Public Access Catalogues offer a ranking component. However, ranking there is merely text-based and is doomed to fail due to limited text in bibliographic data. The main assumption for the talk is that we are in a situation where the appropriate ranking factors for OPACs should be defined, while the implementation is no major problem. We must define what we want, and not so much focus on the technical work. Some deep thinking is necessary on the "perfect results set" and how we can achieve it through ranking. The talk presents a set of potential ranking factors and clustering possibilities for further discussion. A look at commercial Web search engines could provide us with ideas how ranking can be improved with additional factors. Search engines are way beyond pure text-based ranking and apply ranking factors in the groups like popularity, freshness, personalisation, etc. The talk describes the main factors used in search engines and how derivatives of these could be used for libraries' purposes. The goal of ranking is to provide the user with the best-suitable results on top of the results list. How can this goal be achieved with the library catalogue and also concerning the library's different collections and databases? The assumption is that ranking of such materials is a complex problem and is yet nowhere near solved. Libraries should focus on ranking to improve user experience.
  3. Lewandowski, D.; Sünkler, S.: What does Google recommend when you want to compare insurance offerings? (2019) 0.00 
    0.0014104862 = product of:
  0.008462917 = sum of:
    0.008462917 = product of:
      0.025388751 = sum of:
        0.025388751 = weight(_text_:22 in 5288) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025388751 = score(doc=5288,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13124153 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03747799 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22

Authors

Years

Types

Themes