Search (5 results, page 1 of 1)

0.016862115 = product of:
  0.04215529 = sum of:
    0.022345824 = weight(_text_:of in 5296) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022345824 = score(doc=5296,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.34207192 = fieldWeight in 5296, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5296)
    0.019809462 = product of:
      0.039618924 = sum of:
        0.039618924 = weight(_text_:22 in 5296) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.039618924 = score(doc=5296,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14628662 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04177434 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 5296, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5296)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

User interfaces of Web search engines reflect attributes of the underlying tools used to create them, rather than what we know about how people look for information. In this article, the author examines several characteristics of user search behavior: the variety of information-seeking goals, the cultural and situational context of search, and the iterative nature of the search task. An analysis of these characteristics suggests ways that interfaces can be redesigned to make searching more effective for users.

Date

22. 7.2006 17:58:06

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 57(2006) no.6, S.797-799

0.0030284445 = product of:
  0.015142222 = sum of:
    0.015142222 = weight(_text_:of in 6207) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015142222 = score(doc=6207,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.23179851 = fieldWeight in 6207, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=6207)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Clustering is an effective way of organizing documents into collections for ease of browsing. Recently with the growth of WWW, clustering has become a paradigm for organizing search results. Online systems face many new challenges, including the need for fast response time, generating high quality clusters with simple descriptions for novice users, and working with document distributions that violates many traditional assumptions. How do different clustering algorithms trade off quality of clusters and speed? What modifications are necessary to adapt traditional clustering algorithm to the WWW? How do these system scale to larger document collection? How do these systems evaluate the quality of the cluster they generate? How are the clusters generated in each case, and are there any processing after cluster generation to improve on the cluster quality?

0.0029860863 = product of:
  0.014930432 = sum of:
    0.014930432 = weight(_text_:of in 697) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014930432 = score(doc=697,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.22855641 = fieldWeight in 697, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=697)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Those seeking information from the Internet often start from a search engine, using either its organised directory structure or its text query facility. In response to the difficulty in identifying the most relevant pages for some information needs, many search engines offer Boolean text matching and some, including Google, AltaVista and HotBot, offer the facility to integrate additional information into a more advanced request. Amongst web users, however, it is known that the employment of complex enquiries is far from universal, with very short queries being the norm. It is demonstrated that the gap between the provision of advanced search facilities and their use can be bridged, for specific information needs, by the construction of a simple interface in the form of a website that automatically formulates the necessary requests. It is argued that this kind of resource, perhaps employing additional knowledge domain specific information, is one that could be useful for websites or portals of common interest groups. The approach is illustrated by a website that enables a user to search the individual websites of university level institutions in European Union associated countries.

0.0025538085 = product of:
  0.0127690425 = sum of:
    0.0127690425 = weight(_text_:of in 4722) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0127690425 = score(doc=4722,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.19546966 = fieldWeight in 4722, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4722)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Despite development of the WWW searchers still experience difficulties following links between sites and cannot be sure that a site contains the required information. 3 software programs developed to guide users through the maze of hyperlinks are: Dynamic diagrams, the Hyperbolic tree, and the Brain. in contrast to the other programs which operate on webservers and display hyperlinks in diagrammatic form the Brain is installed on individual PCs and can be customised to meet users' requirements

0.0018058153 = product of:
  0.009029076 = sum of:
    0.009029076 = weight(_text_:of in 1258) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009029076 = score(doc=1258,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.13821793 = fieldWeight in 1258, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1258)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Current user interfaces for textual database searching leave much to be desired: individually, they are often confusing, and as a group, they are seriously inconsistent. We propose a four- phase framework for user-interface design: the framework provides common structure and terminology for searching while preserving the distinct features of individual collections and search mechanisms. Users will benefit from faster learning, increased comprehension, and better control, leading to more effective searches and higher satisfaction.