Search (5 results, page 1 of 1)

0.032291643 = product of:
  0.09687492 = sum of:
    0.05764047 = weight(_text_:problem in 5228) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05764047 = score(doc=5228,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20485485 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04826377 = queryNorm
        0.28137225 = fieldWeight in 5228, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5228)
    0.03923445 = weight(_text_:22 in 5228) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03923445 = score(doc=5228,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1690115 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04826377 = queryNorm
        0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 5228, 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=5228)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

Bilal, in this third part of her Yahooligans! study looks at children's performance with self-generated search tasks, as compared to previously assigned search tasks looking for differences in success, cognitive behavior, physical behavior, and task preference. Lotus ScreenCam was used to record interactions and post search interviews to record impressions. The subjects, the same 22 seventh grade children in the previous studies, generated topics of interest that were mediated with the researcher into more specific topics where necessary. Fifteen usable sessions form the basis of the study. Eleven children were successful in finding information, a rate of 73% compared to 69% in assigned research questions, and 50% in assigned fact-finding questions. Eighty-seven percent began using one or two keyword searches. Spelling was a problem. Successful children made fewer keyword searches and the number of search moves averaged 5.5 as compared to 2.4 on the research oriented task and 3.49 on the factual. Backtracking and looping were common. The self-generated task was preferred by 47% of the subjects.

0.0065390747 = product of:
  0.03923445 = sum of:
    0.03923445 = weight(_text_:22 in 197) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03923445 = score(doc=197,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1690115 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04826377 = queryNorm
        0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 197, 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=197)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

2. 6.2005 10:34:22

0.0064044963 = product of:
  0.038426977 = sum of:
    0.038426977 = weight(_text_:problem in 6546) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.038426977 = score(doc=6546,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20485485 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04826377 = queryNorm
        0.1875815 = fieldWeight in 6546, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=6546)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

This research continues to explore the user's evaluation of Web search engines using a methodology proposed by Su (1997) and tested in a pilot study (Su, Chen, & Dong, 1998). It seeks to generate useful insight for system design and improvement, and for engine choice. The researchers were interested in how undergraduate students used four selected engines to retrieve information for their studies or personal interests and how they evaluated the interaction and search results retrieved by the four engines. Measures used were based on five evaluation criteria: relevance, efficiency, utility, user satisfaction, and connectivity. Thirty-six undergraduate juniors and seniors were recruited from the disciplines of sciences, social sciences and humanities. Each searched his/her own topic on all four engines in an assigned order and each made relevance judgements of retrieved items in relation to his/her information need or problem. The study found some significant differences among the four engines but none dominated in every aspect of the multidimensional evaluation. Alta Vista had the highest number of relevant and partially relevant documents, the best relative recall and the highest precision ratio based on PR1, Alter Vista had significantly better scores for these three measures than for Lycos. Infoseek had the highest satisfaction rating for response time. Both Infoseek and Excite had significantly higher satisfaction ratings for response time than Lycos. Excite had the best score for output display. Excite and Alta Vista had significantly better scores for output display than Lycos. Excite had the best rating for time saving while Alta Vista achieved the best score for value of search results as a whole and for overall performance. Alta Vista and Excite had significantly better ratings for these three measures than Lycos. Lycos achieved the best relevance ranking performance. Further work will provide more complete picture for engine comparison and choice by taking into account participant characteristics and identify factors contributing to the user's satisfaction to gain better insight for system design and improvement

0.0054492294 = product of:
  0.032695375 = sum of:
    0.032695375 = weight(_text_:22 in 2117) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032695375 = score(doc=2117,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1690115 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04826377 = queryNorm
        0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2117, 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=2117)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

24. 1.2004 18:27:22

0.0054492294 = product of:
  0.032695375 = sum of:
    0.032695375 = weight(_text_:22 in 1177) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032695375 = score(doc=1177,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1690115 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04826377 = 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)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

26. 1.2014 18:48:22