Search (14 results, page 1 of 1)

0.007873362 = product of:
  0.027556766 = sum of:
    0.013324033 = product of:
      0.03331008 = sum of:
        0.02537033 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 312) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02537033 = score(doc=312,freq=24.0), product of:
            0.109568894 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.23154683 = fieldWeight in 312, product of:
              4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
                24.0 = termFreq=24.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=312)
        0.007939752 = weight(_text_:system in 312) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007939752 = score(doc=312,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11408355 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.06959594 = fieldWeight in 312, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=312)
      0.4 = coord(2/5)
    0.014232732 = product of:
      0.028465465 = sum of:
        0.028465465 = weight(_text_:zugriff in 312) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028465465 = score(doc=312,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2160124 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.963546 = idf(docFreq=308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.13177699 = fieldWeight in 312, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.963546 = idf(docFreq=308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=312)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Footnote

Das zweite Kapitel ("A Brief History of Wayfinding") beschreibt, wie Menschen sich in Umgebungen zurechtfinden. Dies ist insofern interessant, als hier nicht erst bei Informationssystemen oder dem WWW begonnen wird, sondern allgemeine Erkenntnisse beispielsweise über die Orientierung in natürlichen Umgebungen präsentiert werden. Viele typische Verhaltensweisen der Nutzer von Informationssystemen können so erklärt werden. So interessant dieses Thema allerdings ist, wirkt das Kapitel leider doch nur wie eine Zusammenstellung von Informationen aus zweiter Hand. Offensichtlich ist, dass Morville nicht selbst an diesen Themen geforscht hat, sondern die Ergebnisse (wenn auch auf ansprechende Weise) zusammengeschrieben hat. Dieser Eindruck bestätigt sich auch in weiteren Kapiteln: Ein flüssig geschriebener Text, der es jedoch an einigen Stellen an Substanz fehlen lässt. Kapitel drei, "Information Interaction" beginnt mit einem Rückgriff auf Calvin Mooers zentrale Aussage aus dem Jahre 1959: "An information retrieval system will tend not to be used whenever it is more painful and troublesome for a customer to have information than for him not to have it." In der Tat sollte man sich dies bei der Erstellung von Informationssystemen immer vergegenwärtigen; die Reihe der Systeme, die gerade an dieser Hürde gescheitert sind, ist lang. Das weitere Kapitel führt in einige zentrale Konzepte der Informationswissenschaft (Definition des Begriffs Information, Erläuterung des Information Retrieval, Wissensrepräsentation, Information Seeking Behaviour) ein, allerdings ohne jeden Anspruch auf Vollständigkeit. Es wirkt vielmehr so, dass der Autor sich die gerade für sein Anliegen passenden Konzepte auswählt und konkurrierende Ansätze beiseite lässt. Nur ein Beispiel: Im Abschnitt "Information Interaction" wird relativ ausführlich das Konzept des Berrypicking nach Marcia J. Bates präsentiert, allerdings wird es geradezu als exklusiv verkauft, was es natürlich bei weitem nicht ist. Natürlich kann es nicht Aufgabe dieses Buchs sein, einen vollständigen Überblick über alle Theorien des menschlichen Suchverhaltens zu geben (dies ist an anderer Stelle vorbildlich geleistet worden'), aber doch wenigstens der Hinweis auf einige zentrale Ansätze wäre angebracht gewesen. Spätestens in diesem Kapitel wird klar, dass das Buch sich definitiv nicht an Informationswissenschaftler wendet, die auf der einen Seite mit den grundlegenden Themen vertraut sein dürften, andererseits ein wenig mehr Tiefgang erwarten würden. Also stellt sich die Frage - und diese ist zentral für die Bewertung des gesamten Werks.
Für wen wurde dieses Buch eigentlich geschrieben? Der Verlag, sonst für eher praktisch orientierte Computerbücher bekannt, ordnet es auf dem Umschlag den Bereichen "Marketing" sowie "Technology & Society" zu. Für letztere Zielgruppe ist es aber sicher weniger geeignet, da auch der gesellschaftliche Hintergrund zu dünn ist. So bleibt der Bereich Marketing oder doch eher die Zielgruppe derjenigen, die ohne fachbezogenes Studium in den Bereich Informationssysteme bzw. Informationsarchitektur "hineingeschlittert" sind. Für diese mag auch das Kapitel über "Information Interaction" (bedingt) geeignet sein, bietet es doch zumindest einen gut lesbaren Einblick in einige zentrale Punkte. Das vierte Kapitel ("Intertwingled") beschreibt den Zugriff auf Informationen mittels verschiedener Erdgeräte in unterschiedlichen Kontexten. Es geht hier neben neuen Ansätzen des Wegefindens, um lokalisierbare Objekte und Kleidung, in die Informationstechnologie mit eingebaut ist. Dabei handelt es sich um einen guten (und vor allem beispielreichen) Überblick der aufkommenden Technologien. Kapitel s behandelt die Integration von Push- und PullAnsätzen, wobei die zentrale Aussage lautet, dass beide Ansätze immer mehr zusammenwachsen und die Entscheidung für den einen oder den anderen Ansatz vom Nutzer spontan gemäß seinen Informationsbedürfnissen getroffen wird. In diesem Kapitel wird auch das Thema Personalisierung abgehandelt und auf die bei der Personalisierung entstehenden Probleme eingegangen. Lange Zeit wurde Personalisierung schlicht als ein Verfahren gesehen, aus einmal erfassten Nutzerdaten Empfehlungen abzuleiten. Dass dies nicht problemlos möglich ist, erläutert Morville an einigen Punkten. Etwas bedauerlich ist hier, dass die Erläuterungen sehr knapp gehalten sind. Gerade zu diesem interessanten Thema hätte man gerne mehr Details erfahren.

LCSH

Information storage and retrieval systems

RSWK

Information Retrieval (GBV)
Information Retrieval / Ubiquitous Computing (GBV)
Information Retrieval / Datenbanksystem / Suchmaschine (GBV)
Information Retrieval / Datenbanksystem (BVB)

Subject

Information Retrieval (GBV)
Information Retrieval / Ubiquitous Computing (GBV)
Information Retrieval / Datenbanksystem / Suchmaschine (GBV)
Information Retrieval / Datenbanksystem (BVB)
Information storage and retrieval systems

0.003641347 = product of:
  0.012744714 = sum of:
    0.0029295133 = product of:
      0.014647567 = sum of:
        0.014647567 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.014647567 = score(doc=1188,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.109568894 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.13368362 = fieldWeight in 1188, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1188)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
    0.0098152 = product of:
      0.0196304 = sum of:
        0.0196304 = weight(_text_:22 in 1188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0196304 = score(doc=1188,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12684377 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 1188, 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=1188)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

Surfing the World Wide Web used to be cool, dude, real cool. But things have gotten hot - so hot that finding something useful an the Web is no longer cool. It is suffocating Web searchers in the smoke and debris of mountain-sized lists of hits, decisions about which search engines they should use, whether they will get lost in the dizzying maze of a subject directory, use the right syntax for the search engine at hand, enter keywords that are likely to retrieve hits an the topics they have in mind, or enlist a browser that has sufficient functionality to display the most promising hits. When it comes to Web searching, in a few short years we have gone from the cool image of surfing the Web into the frying pan of searching the Web. We can turn down the heat by rethinking what Web searchers are doing and introduce some order into the chaos. Web search strategies that are tool-based-oriented to specific Web searching tools such as search en gines, subject directories, and meta search engines-have been widely promoted, and these strategies are just not working. It is time to dissect what Web searching tools expect from searchers and adjust our search strategies to these new tools. This discussion offers Web searchers help in the form of search strategies that are based an strategies that librarians have been using for a long time to search commercial information retrieval systems like Dialog, NEXIS, Wilsonline, FirstSearch, and Data-Star.

Date

22. 9.1997 19:16:05

0.003444207 = product of:
  0.024109447 = sum of:
    0.024109447 = product of:
      0.060273618 = sum of:
        0.025893483 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1081) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025893483 = score(doc=1081,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.109568894 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.23632148 = fieldWeight in 1081, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1081)
        0.034380134 = weight(_text_:system in 1081) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034380134 = score(doc=1081,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.11408355 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.30135927 = fieldWeight in 1081, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1081)
      0.4 = coord(2/5)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

The aim of the work described in this paper is to evaluate the influencing effects of query-biased summaries in web searching. For this purpose, a summarisation system has been developed, and a summary tailored to the user's query is generated automatically for each document retrieved. The system aims to provide both a better means of assessing document relevance than titles or abstracts typical of many web search result lists. Through visiting each result page at retrieval-time, the system provides the user with an idea of the current page content and thus deals with the dynamic nature of the web. To examine the effectiveness of this approach, a task-oriented, comparative evaluation between four different web retrieval systems was performed; two that use query-biased summarisation, and two that use the standard ranked titles/abstracts approach. The results from the evaluation indicate that query-biased summarisation techniques appear to be more useful and effective in helping users gauge document relevance than the traditional ranked titles/abstracts approach. The same methodology was used to compare the effectiveness of two of the web's major search engines; AltaVista and Google.

0.003136654 = product of:
  0.021956576 = sum of:
    0.021956576 = product of:
      0.054891437 = sum of:
        0.03107218 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 102) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03107218 = score(doc=102,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.109568894 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.2835858 = fieldWeight in 102, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=102)
        0.023819257 = weight(_text_:system in 102) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023819257 = score(doc=102,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11408355 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.20878783 = fieldWeight in 102, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=102)
      0.4 = coord(2/5)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

People commonly experience difficulties when searching the Web, arising from an incomplete knowledge regarding their information needs, an inability to formulate accurate queries, and a low tolerance for considering the relevance of the search results. While simple and easy to use interfaces have made Web search universally accessible, they provide little assistance for people to overcome the difficulties they experience when their information needs are more complex than simple fact-verification. In human-centred Web search, the purpose of the search engine expands from a simple information retrieval engine to a decision support system. People are empowered to take an active role in the search process, with the search engine supporting them in developing a deeper understanding of their information needs, assisting them in crafting and refining their queries, and aiding them in evaluating and exploring the search results. In this chapter, recent research in this domain is outlined and discussed.

Source

Next generation search engines: advanced models for information retrieval. Eds.: C. Jouis, u.a

0.002650327 = product of:
  0.018552288 = sum of:
    0.018552288 = product of:
      0.04638072 = sum of:
        0.01830946 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2726) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01830946 = score(doc=2726,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.109568894 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 2726, 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=2726)
        0.028071264 = weight(_text_:system in 2726) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028071264 = score(doc=2726,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.11408355 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.24605882 = fieldWeight in 2726, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2726)
      0.4 = coord(2/5)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

This research investigates how people's perceptions of information retrieval (IR) systems, their perceptions of search tasks, and their perceptions of self-efficacy influence the amount of invested mental effort (AIME) they put into using two different IR systems: a Web search engine and a library system. It also explores the impact of mental effort on an end user's search experience. To assess AIME in online searching, two experiments were conducted using these methods: Experiment 1 relied on self-reports and Experiment 2 employed the dual-task technique. In both experiments, data were collected through search transaction logs, a pre-search background questionnaire, a post-search questionnaire and an interview. Important findings are these: (1) subjects invested greater mental effort searching a library system than searching the Web; (2) subjects put little effort into Web searching because of their high sense of self-efficacy in their searching ability and their perception of the easiness of the Web; (3) subjects did not recognize that putting mental effort into searching was something needed to improve the search results; and (4) data collected from multiple sources proved to be effective for assessing mental effort in online searching.

0.0026166062 = product of:
  0.018316243 = sum of:
    0.018316243 = product of:
      0.045790605 = sum of:
        0.02197135 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 6978) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02197135 = score(doc=6978,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.109568894 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.20052543 = fieldWeight in 6978, 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=6978)
        0.023819257 = weight(_text_:system in 6978) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023819257 = score(doc=6978,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11408355 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.20878783 = fieldWeight in 6978, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=6978)
      0.4 = coord(2/5)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

This article reports the results of a study of the role of individual differences in Internet searching. The dimensions of individual differences forming the focus of the research consisted of: cognitive styles; levels of prior experience; Internet perceptions; study approaches; age; and gender. Sixty-nine Masters students searched for information on a prescribed topic using the AItaVista search engine. Results were assessed using simple binary relevance judgements. Factor analysis and multiple regression revealed interesting differences, retrieval effectiveness being linked to: male gender; low cognitive complexity; an imager (as opposed to verbalizer) cognitive style; and a number of Internet perceptions and study approaches grouped here as indicating low self-efficacy. The implications of these findings for system development and for future research are discussed.

0.0019248866 = product of:
  0.0134742055 = sum of:
    0.0134742055 = product of:
      0.067371026 = sum of:
        0.067371026 = weight(_text_:system in 635) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.067371026 = score(doc=635,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.11408355 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.5905411 = fieldWeight in 635, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=635)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

This paper addresses the importance of improving the effectiveness of voice search systems through partial query modification. A user-centered experiment was designed to compare the effectiveness of an experimental system using partial query modification feature to a baseline system in which users could issue complete queries only, with 32 participants each searching on eight different tasks. The results indicate that the participants spent significantly more time preparing the modification but significantly less time speaking the modification by using the experimental system than by using the baseline system. The participants found that the experimental system (a) was more effective, (b) gave them more control, (c) was easier for the search tasks, and (d) saved them time than the baseline system. The results contribute to improving future voice search system design and benefiting the research community in general. System implications and future work were discussed.

0.0017527144 = product of:
  0.0122690005 = sum of:
    0.0122690005 = product of:
      0.024538001 = sum of:
        0.024538001 = weight(_text_:22 in 1177) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024538001 = score(doc=1177,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12684377 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1177, 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=1177)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Date

26. 1.2014 18:48:22

0.0017527144 = product of:
  0.0122690005 = sum of:
    0.0122690005 = product of:
      0.024538001 = sum of:
        0.024538001 = weight(_text_:22 in 5493) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024538001 = score(doc=5493,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12684377 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5493, 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=5493)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

9.0740033E-4 = product of:
  0.006351802 = sum of:
    0.006351802 = product of:
      0.03175901 = sum of:
        0.03175901 = weight(_text_:system in 5142) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03175901 = score(doc=5142,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11408355 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.27838376 = fieldWeight in 5142, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5142)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Examines, from the perspective of professional searchers, WWW search engines that provide advanced search features and search a comprehensive abd authoritative database of Internet sites. Looks at: AltaVista, InfoSeek, Lycos, and OpenText. Gives a detailed description of each of the system, their features, how to use them and how the search engines performed on sample searches

8.3700387E-4 = product of:
  0.0058590267 = sum of:
    0.0058590267 = product of:
      0.029295133 = sum of:
        0.029295133 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4497) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029295133 = score(doc=4497,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.109568894 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.26736724 = fieldWeight in 4497, 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=4497)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Content

Key Features - Importantly, the book enables readers to develop strategies which will continue to be useful despite the rapidly-evolving state of the Internet and Internet technologies - it is not about technological `tricks'. - Enables readers to be aware of and compensate for bias and errors which are ubiquitous an the Internet. - Provides contemporary information an the deficiencies in web skills of novice users as well as practical techniques for teaching such users. The Authors Dr Alison Stacey works at the Learning Resource Centre, Cambridge Regional College. Dr Adrian Stacey, formerly based at Cambridge University, is a software programmer. Readership The book is aimed at a wide range of librarians and other information professionals who need to retrieve information from the Internet efficiently, to evaluate their confidence in the information they retrieve and/or to train others to use the Internet. It is primarily aimed at intermediate to advanced users of the Internet. Contents Fundamentals of information retrieval from the Internet - why learn web searching technique; types of information requests; patterns for information retrieval; leveraging the technology: Search term choice: pinpointing information an the web - why choose queries carefully; making search terms work together; how to pick search terms; finding the 'unfindable': Blas an the Internet - importance of bias; sources of bias; usergenerated bias: selecting information with which you already agree; assessing and compensating for bias; case studies: Query reformulation and longer term strategies - how to interact with your search engine; foraging for information; long term information retrieval: using the Internet to find trends; automating searches: how to make your machine do your work: Assessing the quality of results- how to assess and ensure quality: The novice user and teaching internet skills - novice users and their problems with the web; case study: research in a college library; interpreting 'second hand' web information.

5.6712516E-4 = product of:
  0.003969876 = sum of:
    0.003969876 = product of:
      0.01984938 = sum of:
        0.01984938 = weight(_text_:system in 2046) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01984938 = score(doc=2046,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11408355 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.17398985 = fieldWeight in 2046, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2046)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Web searchers commonly have difficulties crafting queries to fulfill their information needs; even after they are able to craft a query, they often find it challenging to evaluate the results of their Web searches. Sources of these problems include the lack of support for constructing and refining queries, and the static nature of the list-based representations of Web search results. WordBars has been developed to assist users in their Web search and exploration tasks. This system provides a visual representation of the frequencies of the terms found in the first 100 document surrogates returned from an initial query, in the form of a histogram. Exploration of the search results is supported through term selection in the histogram, resulting in a re-sorting of the search results based on the use of the selected terms in the document surrogates. Terms from the histogram can be easily added or removed from the query, generating a new set of search results. Examples illustrate how WordBars can provide valuable support for query refinement and search results exploration, both when vague and specific initial queries are provided. User evaluations with both expert and intermediate Web searchers illustrate the benefits of the interactive exploration features of WordBars in terms of effectiveness as well as subjective measures. Although differences were found in the demographics of these two user groups, both were able to benefit from the features of WordBars.

5.6712516E-4 = product of:
  0.003969876 = sum of:
    0.003969876 = product of:
      0.01984938 = sum of:
        0.01984938 = weight(_text_:system in 5047) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01984938 = score(doc=5047,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11408355 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.17398985 = fieldWeight in 5047, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5047)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

We investigated the searching behaviors of twenty-four children in grades 6, 7, and 8 (ages 11-13) in finding information on three types of search tasks in Google. Children conducted 72 search sessions and issued 150 queries. Children's phrase- and question-like queries combined were much more prevalent than keyword queries (70% vs. 30%, respectively). Fifty two percent of the queries were reformulations (33 sessions). We classified children's query reformulation types into five classes based on the taxonomy by Liu et al. (2010). We found that most query reformulations were by Substitution and Specialization, and that children hardly repeated queries. We categorized children's queries by task facets and examined the way they expressed these facets in their query formulations and reformulations. Oldest children tended to target the general topic of search tasks in their queries most frequently, whereas younger children expressed one of the two facets more often. We assessed children's achieved task outcomes using the search task outcomes measure we developed. Children were mostly more successful on the fact-finding and fully self-generated task and partially successful on the research-oriented task. Query type, reformulation type, achieved task outcomes, and expressing task facets varied by task type and grade level. There was no significant effect of query length in words or of the number of queries issued on search task outcomes. The study findings have implications for human intervention, digital literacy, search task literacy, as well as for system intervention to support children's query formulation and reformulation during interaction with Google.

5.2312744E-4 = product of:
  0.003661892 = sum of:
    0.003661892 = product of:
      0.01830946 = sum of:
        0.01830946 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5613) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01830946 = score(doc=5613,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.109568894 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 5613, 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=5613)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Understanding search engine users' intents has been a popular study in information retrieval, which directly affects the quality of retrieved information. One of the fundamental problems in this field is to find a connection between the entity in a query and the potential intents of the users, the latter of which would further reveal important information for facilitating the users' future actions. In this article, we present a novel research method for mining the actionable intents for search users, by generating a ranked list of the potentially most informative actions based on a massive pool of action samples. We compare different search strategies and their combinations for retrieving the action pool and develop three criteria for measuring the informativeness of the selected action samples, that is, the significance of an action sample within the pool, the representativeness of an action sample for the other candidate samples, and the diverseness of an action sample with respect to the selected actions. Our experiment, based on the Action Mining (AM) query entity data set from the Actionable Knowledge Graph (AKG) task at NTCIR-13, suggests that the proposed approach is effective in generating an informative and early-satisfying ranking of potential actions for search users.