Search (47 results, page 1 of 3)

0.023823049 = product of:
  0.055587113 = sum of:
    0.023168506 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2742) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023168506 = score(doc=2742,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11553899 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03819578 = queryNorm
        0.20052543 = fieldWeight in 2742, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2742)
    0.022068607 = weight(_text_:internet in 2742) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022068607 = score(doc=2742,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11276311 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03819578 = queryNorm
        0.1957077 = fieldWeight in 2742, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2742)
    0.010350002 = product of:
      0.031050006 = sum of:
        0.031050006 = weight(_text_:22 in 2742) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031050006 = score(doc=2742,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13375512 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03819578 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2742, 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=2742)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.42857143 = coord(3/7)

Abstract

In this research, we aim to identify factors that significantly affect the clickthrough of Web searchers. Our underlying goal is determine more efficient methods to optimize the clickthrough rate. We devise a clickthrough metric for measuring customer satisfaction of search engine results using the number of links visited, number of queries a user submits, and rank of clicked links. We use a neural network to detect the significant influence of searching characteristics on future user clickthrough. Our results show that high occurrences of query reformulation, lengthy searching duration, longer query length, and the higher ranking of prior clicked links correlate positively with future clickthrough. We provide recommendations for leveraging these findings for improving the performance of search engine retrieval and result ranking, along with implications for search engine marketing.

Date

22. 3.2009 17:49:11

Theme

Internet

0.013521747 = product of:
  0.04732611 = sum of:
    0.021843476 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 6678) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021843476 = score(doc=6678,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.11553899 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03819578 = queryNorm
        0.18905719 = fieldWeight in 6678, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=6678)
    0.025482634 = weight(_text_:internet in 6678) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025482634 = score(doc=6678,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.11276311 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03819578 = queryNorm
        0.22598378 = fieldWeight in 6678, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=6678)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

A growing body of research is beginning to explore the information-seeking behavior of Web users. The vast majority of these studies have concentrated on the area of textual information retrieval (IR). Little research has examined how people search for non-textual information on the Internet, and few large-scale studies have investigated visual information-seeking behavior with Web search engines. This study examined visual information needs as expressed in users' Web image queries. The data set examined consisted of 1,025,908 sequential queries from 211,058 users of EXCITE, a major Internet search service. Twenty-eight (28) terms were used to identify queries for both still and moving images, resulting in a subset of 33,149 image queries by 9,855 users. We provide data on: (1) image queries -- the number of queries and the number of search terms per user, (2) image search sessions -- the number of queries per user, modifications made to subsequent queries in a session, and (3) image terms -- their rank/frequency distribution and the most highly used search terms. On average, there were 3. 36 image queries per user containing an average of 3.74 terms per query. Image queries contained a large number of unique terms. The most frequently occurring image related terms appeared less than 10 percent of the time, with most terms occurring only once. This analysis is contrasted to earlier work by Enser (1995) who examined written queries for pictorial information in a non-digital environment. Implications for the development of models for visual information retrieval, and for the design of Web search engines are discussed

Theme

Internet

0.011212603 = product of:
  0.039244108 = sum of:
    0.016720429 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1443) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016720429 = score(doc=1443,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.11553899 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03819578 = queryNorm
        0.14471677 = fieldWeight in 1443, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=1443)
    0.022523679 = weight(_text_:internet in 1443) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022523679 = score(doc=1443,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.11276311 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03819578 = queryNorm
        0.19974333 = fieldWeight in 1443, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=1443)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Footnote

Rez. in: Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis 56(2004) H.1, S.61-62 (D. Lewandowski): "Die Autoren des vorliegenden Bandes haben sich in den letzten Jahren durch ihre zahlreichen Veröffentlichungen zum Verhalten von Suchmaschinen-Nutzern einen guten Namen gemacht. Das nun erschienene Buch bietet eine Zusammenfassung der verstreut publizierten Aufsätze und stellt deren Ergebnisse in den Kontext eines umfassenderen Forschungsansatzes. Spink und Jansen verwenden zur Analyse des Nutzungsverhaltens query logs von Suchmaschinen. In diesen werden vom Server Informationen protokolliert, die die Anfragen an diesen Server betreffen. Daten, die aus diesen Dateien gewonnen werden können, sind unter anderem die gestellten Suchanfragen, die Adresse des Rechners, von dem aus die Anfrage gestellt wurde, sowie die aus den Trefferlisten ausgewählten Dokumente. Der klare Vorteil der Analyse von Logfiles liegt in der Möglichkeit, große Datenmengen ohne hohen personellen Aufwand erheben zu können. Die Daten einer Vielzahl anonymer Nutzer können analysiert werden; ohne dass dabei die Datenerhebung das Nutzerverhalten beeinflusst. Dies ist bei Suchmaschinen von besonderer Bedeutung, weil sie im Gegensatz zu den meisten anderen professionellen Information-Retrieval-Systemen nicht nur im beruflichen Kontext, sondern auch (und vor allem) privat genutzt werden. Das Bild des Nutzungsverhaltens wird in Umfragen und Laboruntersuchungen verfälscht, weil Nutzer ihr Anfrageverhalten falsch einschätzen oder aber die Themen ihrer Anfragen nicht nennen möchten. Hier ist vor allem an Suchanfragen, die auf medizinische oder pornographische Inhalte gerichtet sind, zu denken. Die Analyse von Logfiles ist allerdings auch mit Problemen behaftet: So sind nicht alle gewünschten Daten überhaupt in den Logfiles enthalten (es fehlen alle Informationen über den einzelnen Nutzer), es werden keine qualitativen Informationen wie etwa der Grund einer Suche erfasst und die Logfiles sind aufgrund technischer Gegebenheiten teils unvollständig. Die Autoren schließen aus den genannten Vor- und Nachteilen, dass sich Logfiles gut für die Auswertung des Nutzerverhaltens eignen, bei der Auswertung jedoch die Ergebnisse von Untersuchungen, welche andere Methoden verwenden, berücksichtigt werden sollten.

LCSH

Internet searching
Internet users

RSWK

Internet / Information Retrieval (BVB)

Subject

Internet / Information Retrieval (BVB)
Internet searching
Internet users

0.010797527 = product of:
  0.03779134 = sum of:
    0.030891342 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 642) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.030891342 = score(doc=642,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.11553899 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03819578 = queryNorm
        0.26736724 = fieldWeight in 642, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=642)
    0.0069000013 = product of:
      0.020700004 = sum of:
        0.020700004 = weight(_text_:22 in 642) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020700004 = score(doc=642,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13375512 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03819578 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 642, 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=642)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

Information retrieval (IR) research has developed considerably since the 1950's to include consideration of more cognitive, interactive and iterative processes during the interaction between humans and IR or Web systems (Ingwersen, 1992, 1996). Interactive search sessions by humans with IR systems have been depicted as interactive IR models (Saracevic, 1997). Human-IR system interaction is also modeled as taking place within the context of broader human information behavior (HIB) processes (Spink et al., 2002). Research into the human or cognitive (user modeling) aspects of IR is a growing body of research on user interactivity, task performance and measures for observing user interactivity. The task context and situational characteristics of users' searches and evaluation have also been identified as key elements in a user's interaction with an IR system (Cool and Spink, 2002; Vakkari, 2003). Major theorized interactive IR models have been proposed relating to the single search episode, including Ingwersen's (1992,1996) Cognitive Model of IR Interaction, Belkin et al.'s (1995) Episodic Interaction Model, and Saracevic's (1996,1997) Stratified Model of IR Interaction. In this chapter we examine Saracevic's Stratified Model of IR Interaction and extend the model within the framework of cognitive IR (CIR) to depict CIR as a multitasking process. This chapter provides a new direction for CIR research by conceptualizing IR with a multitasking context. The next section of the chapter defines the concept of multitasking in the cognitive sciences and Section 3 discusses the emerging understanding of multitasking information behavior. In Section 4, cognitive IR is depicted within a multitasking framework using Saracevic's (1996, 1997) Stratified Model of IR Interaction. In Section 5, we link information searching and seeking models together, via Saracevic's Stratified Model of IR Interaction, but starting with a unitask model of HIB. We begin to model multitasking in cognitive IR in Section 6. In Sections 7 and 8, we increase the complexity of our developing multitasking model of cognitive IR by adding coordinating mechanisms, including feedback loops. Finally, in Section 9, we conclude the chapter and indicate future directions for further research.

Date

19. 1.2007 12:55:22

Series

The information retrieval series, vol. 19

Source

New directions in cognitive information retrieval. Eds.: A. Spink, C. Cole

0.010216352 = product of:
  0.07151446 = sum of:
    0.07151446 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07151446 = score(doc=3763,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.11553899 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03819578 = queryNorm
        0.61896384 = fieldWeight in 3763, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3763)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Develops a theoretical framework for expressing the nature of feedback as a critical process in interactive information retrieval. Feedback concepts from cybernetics and social sciences perspectives are used to develop a concept of information feedback applicable to information retrieval. Adapts models from human-computer interaction and interactive information retrieval as a framework for studying the manifestations of feedback in information retrieval. Presents results from an empirical study of real-life interactions between users, professional mediators and an information retrieval system computer. Presents data involving 885 feedback loops classified in 5 categories. Presents a connection between the theoretical framework and empirical observations and provides a number of pragmatic and research suggestions

Footnote

Contribution to a special section of articles related to human-computer interaction and information retrieval

0.009867877 = product of:
  0.06907514 = sum of:
    0.06907514 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 158) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06907514 = score(doc=158,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.11553899 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03819578 = queryNorm
        0.59785134 = fieldWeight in 158, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=158)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Reports results from a study exploring the information retrieval and types of interactive feedback during mediated information retrieval. Identifies 5 different types of interactive feedback, extending the interactive information retrieval model to include relevance, magnitude, and strategy interactive feedback. Discusses implications for further research, investigating the nature and model of interactive feedback in information retrieval

0.008407089 = product of:
  0.05884962 = sum of:
    0.05884962 = weight(_text_:internet in 910) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05884962 = score(doc=910,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11276311 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03819578 = queryNorm
        0.5218872 = fieldWeight in 910, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=910)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Theme

Internet

0.008002967 = product of:
  0.028010383 = sum of:
    0.019307088 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019307088 = score(doc=5586,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11553899 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03819578 = queryNorm
        0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 5586, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5586)
    0.008703294 = product of:
      0.026109882 = sum of:
        0.026109882 = weight(_text_:29 in 5586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026109882 = score(doc=5586,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13436082 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03819578 = queryNorm
            0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 5586, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5586)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

The dichotomous bipolar approach to relevance has produced an abundance of information retrieval (M) research. However, relevance studies that include consideration of users' partial relevance judgments are moving to a greater relevance clarity and congruity to impact the design of more effective [R systems. The study reported in this paper investigates the various regions of across a distribution of users' relevance judgments, including how these regions may be categorized, measured, and evaluated. An instrument was designed using four scales for collecting, measuring, and describing enduser relevance judgments. The instrument was administered to 21 end-users who conducted searches on their own information problems and made relevance judgments on a total of 1059 retrieved items. Findings include: (1) overlapping regions of relevance were found to impact the usefulness of precision ratios as a measure of IR system effectiveness, (2) both positive and negative levels of relevance are important to users as they make relevance judgments, (3) topicality was used more to reject rather than accept items as highly relevant, (4) utility was more used to judge items highly relevant, and (5) the nature of relevance judgment distribution suggested a new IR evaluation measure-median effect. Findings suggest that the middle region of a distribution of relevance judgments, also called "partial relevance," represents a key avenue for ongoing study. The findings provide implications for relevance theory, and the evaluation of IR systems

Date

29. 9.2001 13:59:20

0.007722836 = product of:
  0.05405985 = sum of:
    0.05405985 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3265) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05405985 = score(doc=3265,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.11553899 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03819578 = queryNorm
        0.46789268 = fieldWeight in 3265, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3265)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Considers what elicitation or requests for information search intermediaries make of users with information requests during an information retrieval interaction - including prior to and during an information retrieval interaction - and for what purpose. Reports a study of elicitations during 40 mediated information retrieval interactions. Identifies a total of 1.557 search intermediary elicitations within 15 purpose categories. The elicitation purposes of search intermediaries included requests for information on search terms and strategies, database selection, search procedures, system's outputs and relevance of retrieved items, and users' knowledge and previous information seeking. Investigates the transition sequences from 1 type of search intermediary elicitation to another. Compares these findings with results from a study of end user questions

0.0074009085 = product of:
  0.051806357 = sum of:
    0.051806357 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1756) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.051806357 = score(doc=1756,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.11553899 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03819578 = queryNorm
        0.44838852 = fieldWeight in 1756, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1756)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Research into both the algorithmic and human approaches to information retrieval is required to improve information retrieval system design and database searching effectiveness. Uses the human approach to examine the sources and effectiveness of search terms selected during mediated interactive information retrieval. Focuses on determining the retrieval effectiveness of search terms identified by users and intermediaries from retrieved items during term relevance feedback. Results show that termns selected from particular database fields of retrieved items during term relevance feedback (TRF) were more effective than search terms from the intermediarity, database thesauri or users' domain knowledge during the interaction, but not as effective as terms from the users' written question statements. Implications for the design and testing of automatic relevance feedback techniques that place greater emphasis on these sources and the practice of database searching are also discussed

0.0073562027 = product of:
  0.051493417 = sum of:
    0.051493417 = weight(_text_:internet in 1774) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.051493417 = score(doc=1774,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11276311 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03819578 = queryNorm
        0.45665127 = fieldWeight in 1774, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=1774)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Theme

Internet

0.0066195736 = product of:
  0.046337012 = sum of:
    0.046337012 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 206) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.046337012 = score(doc=206,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.11553899 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03819578 = queryNorm
        0.40105087 = fieldWeight in 206, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=206)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

We investigated the sources and effectiveness of search terms used during mediated on-line searching under real-life (as opposed to laboratory) circumstances. A stratified model of information retrieval (IR) interaction served as a framework for the analysis. For the analysis, we used the on-line transaction logs, videotapes, and transcribed dialogue of the presearch and on-line interaction between 40 users and 4 professional intermediaries. Each user provided one question and interacted with one of the four intermediaries. Searching was done using DIALOG. Five sources of search terms were identified: (1) the users' written question statements, (2) terms derived from users' domain knowledge during the interaction, (3) terms extracted from retrieved items as relevance feedback, (4) database thesaurus, and (5) terms derived by intermediaries during the interaction. Distribution, retrieval effectiveness, transition sequences, and correlation of search terms from different sources were investigated. Search terms from users' written question statements and term relevance feedback were the most productive sources of terms contributing to the retrieval of items judged relevant by users. Implications of the findings are discussed

0.0066195736 = product of:
  0.046337012 = sum of:
    0.046337012 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2587) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.046337012 = score(doc=2587,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.11553899 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03819578 = queryNorm
        0.40105087 = fieldWeight in 2587, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2587)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

The subject of context has received a great deal of attention in the information retrieval (IR) literature over the past decade, primarily in studies of information seeking and IR interactions. Recently, attention to context in IR has expanded to address new problems in new environments. In this paper we outline five overlapping dimensions of context which we believe to be important constituent elements and we discuss how they are related to different issues in IR research. The papers in this special issue are summarized with respect to how they represent work that is being conducted within these dimensions of context. We conclude with future areas of research which are needed in order to fully understand the multidimensional nature of context in IR.

Footnote

Einführung in ein Themenheft: "Issues of context in information retrieval (IR)"

Theme

Semantisches Umfeld in Indexierung u. Retrieval

0.0063053165 = product of:
  0.044137213 = sum of:
    0.044137213 = weight(_text_:internet in 6949) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.044137213 = score(doc=6949,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11276311 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03819578 = queryNorm
        0.3914154 = fieldWeight in 6949, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6949)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Theme

Internet

0.0063053165 = product of:
  0.044137213 = sum of:
    0.044137213 = weight(_text_:internet in 411) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.044137213 = score(doc=411,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11276311 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03819578 = queryNorm
        0.3914154 = fieldWeight in 411, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=411)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Theme

Internet

0.0062409933 = product of:
  0.043686952 = sum of:
    0.043686952 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4032) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.043686952 = score(doc=4032,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.11553899 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03819578 = queryNorm
        0.37811437 = fieldWeight in 4032, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4032)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Presents selected results from a large study which observed under real-life conditions the interaction between users, intermediaries and computers before and during online searching. Concentrates on the sources of search terms and the relation between given search terms and retrieval of relevant and nonrelevant items as answers. Users provided the largest proportion of search terms (61%), followed by the thesuaurs (19%), relevance feedback (11%), and intermediary (9%). Only 4% of search terms resulted in retrieval of relevant items only; 60% retrieved relevant and nonrelevant items; 25% retrieved nonrelevant items only; and 11% retrieved nothing.

0.0062409933 = product of:
  0.043686952 = sum of:
    0.043686952 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4518) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.043686952 = score(doc=4518,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.11553899 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03819578 = queryNorm
        0.37811437 = fieldWeight in 4518, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4518)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

0.0062409933 = product of:
  0.043686952 = sum of:
    0.043686952 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 7441) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.043686952 = score(doc=7441,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.11553899 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03819578 = queryNorm
        0.37811437 = fieldWeight in 7441, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=7441)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

State of the art review of the mechanisms of feedback in information retrieval (IR) in terms of feedback concepts and models in cybernetics and social sciences. Critically evaluates feedback research based on the traditional IR models and comparing the different approaches to automatic relevance feedback techniques, and feedback research within the framework of interactive IR models. Calls for an extension of the concept of feedback beyond relevance feedback to interactive feedback. Cites specific examples of feedback models used within IR research and presents 6 challenges to future research

0.005460869 = product of:
  0.038226083 = sum of:
    0.038226083 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4523) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.038226083 = score(doc=4523,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.11553899 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03819578 = queryNorm
        0.33085006 = fieldWeight in 4523, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4523)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Reports selected results from a larger study whose objectives are to observe, under real life conditions, the nature and patterns of interaction between users, intermediaries, and computer sysrtems in the context of online information searching and retrieval. Reports various analyses on the relation of search term sources and the retrieval of items judges as to their relevance. While the users generated the largest proportion of search terms (61%) which were responsible for 68% of retrieved items judges relevant, other sources in the interaction process played an important role

0.005460869 = product of:
  0.038226083 = sum of:
    0.038226083 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 7824) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.038226083 = score(doc=7824,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.11553899 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03819578 = queryNorm
        0.33085006 = fieldWeight in 7824, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=7824)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Reports selected results from a large study, conducted at Rutgers University, NJ, which observed, under real life conditions the interactions between users, intermediaries and information retrieval systems before and during online searching. Examines the stages of the search process at which search terms from different sources were selected and how the search terms selected at different stages of the search process contributed to the retrieval of relevant items as judged by users. Notes the sequences in which terms were selected and analyzes the sequences to determine the types and frequencies of changes that occur in such sequences. Results indicate that there are regular patterns in search term selection during the online search process. Discusses the implications of these findings