Search (12 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × theme_ss:"Suchmaschinen"
  • × theme_ss:"Retrievalalgorithmen"
  1. Back, J.: ¬An evaluation of relevancy ranking techniques used by Internet search engines (2000) 0.01 
    0.013677319 = product of:
  0.07522525 = sum of:
    0.044159535 = weight(_text_:internet in 3445) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.044159535 = score(doc=3445,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09670297 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0327558 = queryNorm
        0.45665127 = fieldWeight in 3445, 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=3445)
    0.03106571 = product of:
      0.06213142 = sum of:
        0.06213142 = weight(_text_:22 in 3445) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06213142 = score(doc=3445,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11470523 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0327558 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 3445, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=3445)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.18181819 = coord(2/11)
    Date
    25. 8.2005 17:42:22
  2. Kanaeva, Z.: Ranking: Google und CiteSeer (2005) 0.01 
    0.0068386593 = product of:
  0.037612624 = sum of:
    0.022079768 = weight(_text_:internet in 3276) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022079768 = score(doc=3276,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09670297 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0327558 = queryNorm
        0.22832564 = fieldWeight in 3276, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3276)
    0.015532855 = product of:
      0.03106571 = sum of:
        0.03106571 = weight(_text_:22 in 3276) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03106571 = score(doc=3276,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11470523 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0327558 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 3276, 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=3276)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.18181819 = coord(2/11)
    Abstract
    Im Rahmen des klassischen Information Retrieval wurden verschiedene Verfahren für das Ranking sowie die Suche in einer homogenen strukturlosen Dokumentenmenge entwickelt. Die Erfolge der Suchmaschine Google haben gezeigt dass die Suche in einer zwar inhomogenen aber zusammenhängenden Dokumentenmenge wie dem Internet unter Berücksichtigung der Dokumentenverbindungen (Links) sehr effektiv sein kann. Unter den von der Suchmaschine Google realisierten Konzepten ist ein Verfahren zum Ranking von Suchergebnissen (PageRank), das in diesem Artikel kurz erklärt wird. Darüber hinaus wird auf die Konzepte eines Systems namens CiteSeer eingegangen, welches automatisch bibliographische Angaben indexiert (engl. Autonomous Citation Indexing, ACI). Letzteres erzeugt aus einer Menge von nicht vernetzten wissenschaftlichen Dokumenten eine zusammenhängende Dokumentenmenge und ermöglicht den Einsatz von Banking-Verfahren, die auf den von Google genutzten Verfahren basieren.
    Date
    20. 3.2005 16:23:22
  3. Weinstein, A.: Hochprozentig : Tipps and tricks für ein Top-Ranking (2002) 0.00 
    0.004055261 = product of:
  0.04460787 = sum of:
    0.04460787 = weight(_text_:internet in 1083) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04460787 = score(doc=1083,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09670297 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0327558 = queryNorm
        0.46128747 = fieldWeight in 1083, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1083)
  0.09090909 = coord(1/11)
    Abstract
    Die Suchmaschinen haben in den letzten Monaten an ihren Ranking-Algorithmen gefeilt, um Spamern das Handwerk zu erschweren. Internet Pro beleuchtet die Trends im Suchmaschinen-Marketing
    Source
    Internet Professionell. 2002, H.9, S.66-71
  4. Zhang, D.; Dong, Y.: ¬An effective algorithm to rank Web resources (2000) 0.00 
    0.004014503 = product of:
  0.044159535 = sum of:
    0.044159535 = weight(_text_:internet in 3662) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.044159535 = score(doc=3662,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09670297 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0327558 = queryNorm
        0.45665127 = fieldWeight in 3662, 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=3662)
  0.09090909 = coord(1/11)
    Theme
    Internet
  5. Notess, G.R.: Search engine relevance : the never-ending quest (2000) 0.00 
    0.004014503 = product of:
  0.044159535 = sum of:
    0.044159535 = weight(_text_:internet in 4797) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.044159535 = score(doc=4797,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09670297 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0327558 = queryNorm
        0.45665127 = fieldWeight in 4797, 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=4797)
  0.09090909 = coord(1/11)
    Abstract
    Bericht über verschiedene Relevanzverfahren der Suchdienste des Internet
  6. Wills, R.S.: Google's PageRank : the math behind the search engine (2006) 0.00 
    0.002294002 = product of:
  0.025234021 = sum of:
    0.025234021 = weight(_text_:internet in 5954) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025234021 = score(doc=5954,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.09670297 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0327558 = queryNorm
        0.2609436 = fieldWeight in 5954, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5954)
  0.09090909 = coord(1/11)
    Abstract
    Approximately 91 million American adults use the Internet on a typical day The number-one Internet activity is reading and writing e-mail. Search engine use is next in line and continues to increase in popularity. In fact, survey findings indicate that nearly 60 million American adults use search engines on a given day. Even though there are many Internet search engines, Google, Yahoo!, and MSN receive over 81% of all search requests. Despite claims that the quality of search provided by Yahoo! and MSN now equals that of Google, Google continues to thrive as the search engine of choice, receiving over 46% of all search requests, nearly double the volume of Yahoo! and over four times that of MSN. I use Google's search engine on a daily basis and rarely request information from other search engines. One day, I decided to visit the homepages of Google. Yahoo!, and MSN to compare the quality of search results. Coffee was on my mind that day, so I entered the simple query "coffee" in the search box at each homepage. Table 1 shows the top ten (unsponsored) results returned by each search engine. Although ordered differently, two webpages, www.peets.com and www.coffeegeek.com, appear in all three top ten lists. In addition, each pairing of top ten lists has two additional results in common. Depending on the information I hoped to obtain about coffee by using the search engines, I could argue that any one of the three returned better results: however, I was not looking for a particular webpage, so all three listings of search results seemed of equal quality. Thus, I plan to continue using Google. My decision is indicative of the problem Yahoo!, MSN, and other search engine companies face in the quest to obtain a larger percentage of Internet search volume. Search engine users are loyal to one or a few search engines and are generally happy with search results. Thus, as long as Google continues to provide results deemed high in quality, Google likely will remain the top search engine. But what set Google apart from its competitors in the first place? The answer is PageRank. In this article I explain this simple mathematical algorithm that revolutionized Web search.
  7. Chakrabarti, S.; Dom, B.; Kumar, S.R.; Raghavan, P.; Rajagopalan, S.; Tomkins, A.; Kleinberg, J.M.; Gibson, D.: Neue Pfade durch den Internet-Dschungel : Die zweite Generation von Web-Suchmaschinen (1999) 0.00 
    0.002294002 = product of:
  0.025234021 = sum of:
    0.025234021 = weight(_text_:internet in 3) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025234021 = score(doc=3,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09670297 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0327558 = queryNorm
        0.2609436 = fieldWeight in 3, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3)
  0.09090909 = coord(1/11)
  8. Stock, M.; Stock, W.G.: Internet-Suchwerkzeuge im Vergleich (IV) : Relevance Ranking nach "Popularität" von Webseiten: Google (2001) 0.00 
    0.0017205015 = product of:
  0.018925516 = sum of:
    0.018925516 = weight(_text_:internet in 5771) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018925516 = score(doc=5771,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09670297 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0327558 = queryNorm
        0.1957077 = fieldWeight in 5771, 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=5771)
  0.09090909 = coord(1/11)
  9. Ding, Y.; Chowdhury, G.; Foo, S.: Organsising keywords in a Web search environment : a methodology based on co-word analysis (2000) 0.00 
    0.0017205015 = product of:
  0.018925516 = sum of:
    0.018925516 = weight(_text_:internet in 105) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018925516 = score(doc=105,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09670297 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0327558 = queryNorm
        0.1957077 = fieldWeight in 105, 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=105)
  0.09090909 = coord(1/11)
    Abstract
    The rapid development of the Internet and World Wide Web has caused some critical problem for information retrieval. Researchers have made several attempts to solve these problems. Thesauri and subject heading lists as traditional information retrieval tools have been criticised for their efficiency to tackle these newly emerging problems. This paper proposes an information retrieval tool generated by cocitation analysis, comprising keyword clusters with relationships based on the co-occurrences of keywords in the literature. Such a tool can play the role of an associative thesaurus that can provide information about the keywords in a domain that might be useful for information searching and query expansion
  10. Tober, M.; Hennig, L.; Furch, D.: SEO Ranking-Faktoren und Rang-Korrelationen 2014 : Google Deutschland (2014) 0.00 
    0.0016138031 = product of:
  0.017751833 = sum of:
    0.017751833 = product of:
      0.035503667 = sum of:
        0.035503667 = weight(_text_:22 in 1484) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035503667 = score(doc=1484,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11470523 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0327558 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 1484, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1484)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.09090909 = coord(1/11)
    Date
    13. 9.2014 14:45:22
  11. Bhansali, D.; Desai, H.; Deulkar, K.: ¬A study of different ranking approaches for semantic search (2015) 0.00 
    0.0014337513 = product of:
  0.015771264 = sum of:
    0.015771264 = weight(_text_:internet in 2696) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015771264 = score(doc=2696,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09670297 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0327558 = queryNorm
        0.16308975 = fieldWeight in 2696, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2696)
  0.09090909 = coord(1/11)
    Abstract
    Search Engines have become an integral part of our day to day life. Our reliance on search engines increases with every passing day. With the amount of data available on Internet increasing exponentially, it becomes important to develop new methods and tools that help to return results relevant to the queries and reduce the time spent on searching. The results should be diverse but at the same time should return results focused on the queries asked. Relation Based Page Rank [4] algorithms are considered to be the next frontier in improvement of Semantic Web Search. The probability of finding relevance in the search results as posited by the user while entering the query is used to measure the relevance. However, its application is limited by the complexity of determining relation between the terms and assigning explicit meaning to each term. Trust Rank is one of the most widely used ranking algorithms for semantic web search. Few other ranking algorithms like HITS algorithm, PageRank algorithm are also used for Semantic Web Searching. In this paper, we will provide a comparison of few ranking approaches.
  12. Furner, J.: ¬A unifying model of document relatedness for hybrid search engines (2003) 0.00 
    0.0012103524 = product of:
  0.0133138755 = sum of:
    0.0133138755 = product of:
      0.026627751 = sum of:
        0.026627751 = weight(_text_:22 in 2717) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026627751 = score(doc=2717,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11470523 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0327558 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2717, 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=2717)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.09090909 = coord(1/11)
    Date
    11. 9.2004 17:32:22

Authors

Years

Languages

Types

  • a 11
  • r 1

Themes