Search (23 results, page 1 of 2)

  • × year_i:[2010 TO 2020}
  • × author_ss:"Lewandowski, D."
  1. Behnert, C.; Lewandowski, D.: ¬A framework for designing retrieval effectiveness studies of library information systems using human relevance assessments (2017) 0.02 
    0.018491494 = product of:
  0.08629364 = sum of:
    0.02465703 = weight(_text_:web in 3700) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02465703 = score(doc=3700,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09670874 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.25496176 = fieldWeight in 3700, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3700)
    0.014268933 = weight(_text_:information in 3700) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014268933 = score(doc=3700,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.27429342 = fieldWeight in 3700, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3700)
    0.047367673 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3700) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.047367673 = score(doc=3700,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.5284309 = fieldWeight in 3700, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3700)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
    Abstract
    Purpose This paper demonstrates how to apply traditional information retrieval evaluation methods based on standards from the Text REtrieval Conference (TREC) and web search evaluation to all types of modern library information systems including online public access catalogs, discovery systems, and digital libraries that provide web search features to gather information from heterogeneous sources. Design/methodology/approach We apply conventional procedures from information retrieval evaluation to the library information system context considering the specific characteristics of modern library materials. Findings We introduce a framework consisting of five parts: (1) search queries, (2) search results, (3) assessors, (4) testing, and (5) data analysis. We show how to deal with comparability problems resulting from diverse document types, e.g., electronic articles vs. printed monographs and what issues need to be considered for retrieval tests in the library context. Practical implications The framework can be used as a guideline for conducting retrieval effectiveness studies in the library context. Originality/value Although a considerable amount of research has been done on information retrieval evaluation, and standards for conducting retrieval effectiveness studies do exist, to our knowledge this is the first attempt to provide a systematic framework for evaluating the retrieval effectiveness of twenty-first-century library information systems. We demonstrate which issues must be considered and what decisions must be made by researchers prior to a retrieval test.
  2. Lewandowski, D.: ¬A framework for evaluating the retrieval effectiveness of search engines (2012) 0.01 
    0.012989305 = product of:
  0.060616758 = sum of:
    0.020922182 = weight(_text_:web in 106) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020922182 = score(doc=106,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09670874 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 106, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=106)
    0.00856136 = weight(_text_:information in 106) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.00856136 = score(doc=106,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 106, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=106)
    0.031133216 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 106) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.031133216 = score(doc=106,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.34732026 = fieldWeight in 106, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=106)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
    Abstract
    This chapter presents a theoretical framework for evaluating next generation search engines. The author focuses on search engines whose results presentation is enriched with additional information and does not merely present the usual list of "10 blue links," that is, of ten links to results, accompanied by a short description. While Web search is used as an example here, the framework can easily be applied to search engines in any other area. The framework not only addresses the results presentation, but also takes into account an extension of the general design of retrieval effectiveness tests. The chapter examines the ways in which this design might influence the results of such studies and how a reliable test is best designed.
    Source
    Next generation search engines: advanced models for information retrieval. Eds.: C. Jouis, u.a
  3. Lewandowski, D.; Krewinkel, A.; Gleissner, M.; Osterode, D.; Tolg, B.; Holle, M.; Sünkler, S.: Entwicklung und Anwendung einer Software zur automatisierten Kontrolle des Lebensmittelmarktes im Internet mit informationswissenschaftlichen Methoden (2019) 0.01 
    0.01176508 = product of:
  0.054903705 = sum of:
    0.020922182 = weight(_text_:web in 5025) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020922182 = score(doc=5025,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09670874 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 5025, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5025)
    0.00856136 = weight(_text_:information in 5025) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.00856136 = score(doc=5025,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 5025, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5025)
    0.025420163 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5025) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025420163 = score(doc=5025,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.2835858 = fieldWeight in 5025, 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=5025)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
    Abstract
    In diesem Artikel präsentieren wir die Durchführung und die Ergebnisse eines interdisziplinären Forschungsprojekts zum Thema automatisierte Lebensmittelkontrolle im Web. Es wurden Kompetenzen aus den Disziplinen Lebensmittelwissenschaft, Rechtswissenschaft, Informationswissenschaft und Informatik dazu genutzt, ein detailliertes Konzept und einen Software-Prototypen zu entwickeln, um das Internet nach Produktangeboten zu durchsuchen, die gegen das Lebensmittelrecht verstoßen. Dabei wird deutlich, wie ein solcher Anwendungsfall von den Methoden der Information-Retrieval-Evaluierung profitiert, und wie sich mit relativ geringem Aufwand eine flexible Software programmieren lässt, die auch für eine Vielzahl anderer Fragestellungen einsetzbar ist. Die Ergebnisse des Projekts zeigen, wie komplexe Arbeitsprozesse einer Behörde mit Hilfe der Methoden von Retrieval-Tests und gängigen Verfahren aus dem maschinellen Lernen effektiv und effizient unterstützt werden können.
    Source
    Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis. 70(2019) H.1, S.33-45
  4. Lewandowski, D.: Evaluating the retrieval effectiveness of web search engines using a representative query sample (2015) 0.01 
    0.011227745 = product of:
  0.05239614 = sum of:
    0.020922182 = weight(_text_:web in 2157) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020922182 = score(doc=2157,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09670874 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 2157, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2157)
    0.0060537956 = weight(_text_:information in 2157) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0060537956 = score(doc=2157,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 2157, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2157)
    0.025420163 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2157) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025420163 = score(doc=2157,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.2835858 = fieldWeight in 2157, 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=2157)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
    Abstract
    Search engine retrieval effectiveness studies are usually small scale, using only limited query samples. Furthermore, queries are selected by the researchers. We address these issues by taking a random representative sample of 1,000 informational and 1,000 navigational queries from a major German search engine and comparing Google's and Bing's results based on this sample. Jurors were found through crowdsourcing, and data were collected using specialized software, the Relevance Assessment Tool (RAT). We found that although Google outperforms Bing in both query types, the difference in the performance for informational queries was rather low. However, for navigational queries, Google found the correct answer in 95.3% of cases, whereas Bing only found the correct answer 76.6% of the time. We conclude that search engine performance on navigational queries is of great importance, because users in this case can clearly identify queries that have returned correct results. So, performance on this query type may contribute to explaining user satisfaction with search engines.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 66(2015) no.9, S.1763-1775
  5. Lewandowski, D.; Spree, U.: Ranking of Wikipedia articles in search engines revisited : fair ranking for reasonable quality? (2011) 0.01 
    0.0061724912 = product of:
  0.028804958 = sum of:
    0.0071344664 = weight(_text_:information in 444) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0071344664 = score(doc=444,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 444, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=444)
    0.014978974 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 444) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014978974 = score(doc=444,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 444, 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=444)
    0.0066915164 = product of:
      0.020074548 = sum of:
        0.020074548 = weight(_text_:22 in 444) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020074548 = score(doc=444,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.103770934 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 444, 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=444)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
    Abstract
    This paper aims to review the fiercely discussed question of whether the ranking of Wikipedia articles in search engines is justified by the quality of the articles. After an overview of current research on information quality in Wikipedia, a summary of the extended discussion on the quality of encyclopedic entries in general is given. On this basis, a heuristic method for evaluating Wikipedia entries is developed and applied to Wikipedia articles that scored highly in a search engine retrieval effectiveness test and compared with the relevance judgment of jurors. In all search engines tested, Wikipedia results are unanimously judged better by the jurors than other results on the corresponding results position. Relevance judgments often roughly correspond with the results from the heuristic evaluation. Cases in which high relevance judgments are not in accordance with the comparatively low score from the heuristic evaluation are interpreted as an indicator of a high degree of trust in Wikipedia. One of the systemic shortcomings of Wikipedia lies in its necessarily incoherent user model. A further tuning of the suggested criteria catalog, for instance, the different weighing of the supplied criteria, could serve as a starting point for a user model differentiated evaluation of Wikipedia articles. Approved methods of quality evaluation of reference works are applied to Wikipedia articles and integrated with the question of search engine evaluation.
    Date
    30. 9.2012 19:27:22
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.1, S.117-132
  6. Lewandowski, D.: Perspektiven eines Open Web Index (2016) 0.01 
    0.0059403726 = product of:
  0.041582607 = sum of:
    0.034519844 = weight(_text_:web in 2935) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.034519844 = score(doc=2935,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09670874 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.35694647 = fieldWeight in 2935, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2935)
    0.0070627616 = weight(_text_:information in 2935) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0070627616 = score(doc=2935,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 2935, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2935)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    Abstract
    Der Suchmaschinenmarkt wird seit vielen Jahren von nur einer einzigen Suchmaschine, Google, dominiert. Es wurde mittlerweile erkannt, dass diese Situation nicht wünschenswert ist. Wir sprechen nun über mögliche Lösungen. Der Artikel diskutiert unterschiedliche Lösungsansätze und fokussiert dabei auf die Idee einen Offenen Web-Index (OWI), der als öffentliche Infrastruktur verfügbar gemacht werden soll. Die Grundidee ist die Trennung von Datenbestand (Index) und darauf aufsetzenden Diensten, welche in großer Zahl in privater Initiative betrieben werden können. Es geht also darum, die Basis für Vielfalt zu schaffen.
    Source
    Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis. 67(2016) H.1, S.15-21
  7. Lewandowski, D.: ¬The retrieval effectiveness of search engines on navigational queries (2011) 0.01 
    0.005516946 = product of:
  0.03861862 = sum of:
    0.017435152 = weight(_text_:web in 4537) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017435152 = score(doc=4537,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09670874 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 4537, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4537)
    0.021183468 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4537) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021183468 = score(doc=4537,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.23632148 = fieldWeight in 4537, 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=4537)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    Abstract
    Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to test major web search engines on their performance on navigational queries, i.e. searches for homepages. Design/methodology/approach - In total, 100 user queries are posed to six search engines (Google, Yahoo!, MSN, Ask, Seekport, and Exalead). Users described the desired pages, and the results position of these was recorded. Measured success and mean reciprocal rank are calculated. Findings - The performance of the major search engines Google, Yahoo!, and MSN was found to be the best, with around 90 per cent of queries answered correctly. Ask and Exalead performed worse but received good scores as well. Research limitations/implications - All queries were in German, and the German-language interfaces of the search engines were used. Therefore, the results are only valid for German queries. Practical implications - When designing a search engine to compete with the major search engines, care should be taken on the performance on navigational queries. Users can be influenced easily in their quality ratings of search engines based on this performance. Originality/value - This study systematically compares the major search engines on navigational queries and compares the findings with studies on the retrieval effectiveness of the engines on informational queries.
  8. Lewandowski, D.: Query understanding (2011) 0.01 
    0.005514668 = product of:
  0.038602673 = sum of:
    0.027896244 = weight(_text_:web in 344) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027896244 = score(doc=344,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09670874 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.2884563 = fieldWeight in 344, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=344)
    0.010706427 = product of:
      0.032119278 = sum of:
        0.032119278 = weight(_text_:22 in 344) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.032119278 = score(doc=344,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.103770934 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 344, 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=344)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    Date
    18. 9.2018 18:22:18
    Source
    Handbuch Internet-Suchmaschinen, 2: Neue Entwicklungen in der Web-Suche. Hrsg.: D. Lewandowski
  9. Lewandowski, D.; Sünkler, S.: ¬Das Relevance Assessment Tool : eine modulare Software zur Unterstützung bei der Durchführung vielfältiger Studien mit Suchmaschinen (2019) 0.01 
    0.0050917473 = product of:
  0.03564223 = sum of:
    0.029588435 = weight(_text_:web in 5026) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029588435 = score(doc=5026,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09670874 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.3059541 = fieldWeight in 5026, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5026)
    0.0060537956 = weight(_text_:information in 5026) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0060537956 = score(doc=5026,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 5026, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5026)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    Abstract
    In diesem Artikel stellen wir eine Software vor, mit der sich Studien zu Such- und Informationssystemen realisieren lassen. Das Relevance Assessment Tool (RAT) soll umfangreiche Untersuchungen mit Daten von kommerziellen Suchmaschinen unterstützen. Die Software ist modular und webbasiert. Es lassen sich damit automatisiert Daten von Suchmaschinen erfassen. Dazu können Studien mit Fragen und Skalen flexibel gestaltet und die Informationsobjekte anhand der Fragen durch Juroren bewertet werden. Durch die Modularität lassen sich die einzelnen Komponenten für eine Vielzahl von Studien nutzen, die sich auf Web-Inhalte beziehen. So kann die Software auch für qualitative Inhaltsanalysen eingesetzt werden oder durch das automatisierte Scraping eine große Datenbasis an Web-Dokumenten liefern, die sich quantitativ in empirischen Studien analysieren lassen.
    Source
    Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis. 70(2019) H.1, S.46-56
  10. Schaer, P.; Mayr, P.; Sünkler, S.; Lewandowski, D.: How relevant is the long tail? : a relevance assessment study on million short (2016) 0.01 
    0.0050347717 = product of:
  0.0352434 = sum of:
    0.03019857 = weight(_text_:web in 3144) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03019857 = score(doc=3144,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.09670874 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.3122631 = fieldWeight in 3144, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3144)
    0.0050448296 = weight(_text_:information in 3144) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0050448296 = score(doc=3144,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 3144, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3144)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    Abstract
    Users of web search engines are known to mostly focus on the top ranked results of the search engine result page. While many studies support this well known information seeking pattern only few studies concentrate on the question what users are missing by neglecting lower ranked results. To learn more about the relevance distributions in the so-called long tail we conducted a relevance assessment study with the Million Short long-tail web search engine. While we see a clear difference in the content between the head and the tail of the search engine result list we see no statistical significant differences in the binary relevance judgments and weak significant differences when using graded relevance. The tail contains different but still valuable results. We argue that the long tail can be a rich source for the diversification of web search engine result lists but it needs more evaluation to clearly describe the differences.
  11. Behnert, C.; Plassmeier, K.; Borst, T.; Lewandowski, D.: Evaluierung von Rankingverfahren für bibliothekarische Informationssysteme (2019) 0.00 
    0.0044959965 = product of:
  0.031471975 = sum of:
    0.024409214 = weight(_text_:web in 5023) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024409214 = score(doc=5023,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09670874 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.25239927 = fieldWeight in 5023, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5023)
    0.0070627616 = weight(_text_:information in 5023) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0070627616 = score(doc=5023,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 5023, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5023)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    Abstract
    Dieser Beitrag beschreibt eine Studie zur Entwicklung und Evaluierung von Rankingverfahren für bibliothekarische Informationssysteme. Dazu wurden mögliche Faktoren für das Relevanzranking ausgehend von den Verfahren in Websuchmaschinen identifiziert, auf den Bibliothekskontext übertragen und systematisch evaluiert. Mithilfe eines Testsystems, das auf dem ZBW-Informationsportal EconBiz und einer web-basierten Software zur Evaluierung von Suchsystemen aufsetzt, wurden verschiedene Relevanzfaktoren (z. B. Popularität in Verbindung mit Aktualität) getestet. Obwohl die getesteten Rankingverfahren auf einer theoretischen Ebene divers sind, konnten keine einheitlichen Verbesserungen gegenüber den Baseline-Rankings gemessen werden. Die Ergebnisse deuten darauf hin, dass eine Adaptierung des Rankings auf individuelle Nutzer bzw. Nutzungskontexte notwendig sein könnte, um eine höhere Performance zu erzielen.
    Source
    Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis. 70(2019) H.1, S.14-23
  12. Lewandowski, D.; Drechsler, J.; Mach, S. von: Deriving query intents from web search engine queries (2012) 0.00 
    0.004243123 = product of:
  0.029701859 = sum of:
    0.02465703 = weight(_text_:web in 385) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02465703 = score(doc=385,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09670874 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.25496176 = fieldWeight in 385, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=385)
    0.0050448296 = weight(_text_:information in 385) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0050448296 = score(doc=385,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 385, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=385)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    Abstract
    The purpose of this article is to test the reliability of query intents derived from queries, either by the user who entered the query or by another juror. We report the findings of three studies. First, we conducted a large-scale classification study (~50,000 queries) using a crowdsourcing approach. Next, we used clickthrough data from a search engine log and validated the judgments given by the jurors from the crowdsourcing study. Finally, we conducted an online survey on a commercial search engine's portal. Because we used the same queries for all three studies, we also were able to compare the results and the effectiveness of the different approaches. We found that neither the crowdsourcing approach, using jurors who classified queries originating from other users, nor the questionnaire approach, using searchers who were asked about their own query that they just entered into a Web search engine, led to satisfying results. This leads us to conclude that there was little understanding of the classification tasks, even though both groups of jurors were given detailed instructions. Although we used manual classification, our research also has important implications for automatic classification. We must question the success of approaches using automatic classification and comparing its performance to a baseline from human jurors.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 63(2012) no.9, S.1773-1788
  13. Lewandowski, D.: ¬Die Macht der Suchmaschinen und ihr Einfluss auf unsere Entscheidungen (2014) 0.00 
    0.002011945 = product of:
  0.014083615 = sum of:
    0.0060537956 = weight(_text_:information in 1491) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0060537956 = score(doc=1491,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 1491, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1491)
    0.008029819 = product of:
      0.024089456 = sum of:
        0.024089456 = weight(_text_:22 in 1491) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024089456 = score(doc=1491,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.103770934 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1491, 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=1491)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    Date
    22. 9.2014 18:54:11
    Source
    Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis. 65(2014) H.4/5, S.231-238
  14. Lewandowski, D.: Evaluierung von Suchmaschinen (2011) 0.00 
    0.0019925889 = product of:
  0.027896244 = sum of:
    0.027896244 = weight(_text_:web in 349) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027896244 = score(doc=349,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09670874 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.2884563 = fieldWeight in 349, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=349)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
    Source
    Handbuch Internet-Suchmaschinen, 2: Neue Entwicklungen in der Web-Suche. Hrsg.: D. Lewandowski
  15. Lewandowski, D.; Sünkler, S.: What does Google recommend when you want to compare insurance offerings? (2019) 0.00 
    0.0019751405 = product of:
  0.013825983 = sum of:
    0.0071344664 = weight(_text_:information in 5288) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0071344664 = score(doc=5288,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 5288, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5288)
    0.0066915164 = product of:
      0.020074548 = sum of:
        0.020074548 = weight(_text_:22 in 5288) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020074548 = score(doc=5288,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.103770934 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5288, 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=5288)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22
    Footnote
    Beitrag in einem Special Issue: Information Science in the German-speaking Countries
    Source
    Aslib journal of information management. 71(2019) no.3, S.310-324
  16. Lewandowski, D.: Suchmaschinen verstehen (2015) 0.00 
    0.0014944416 = product of:
  0.020922182 = sum of:
    0.020922182 = weight(_text_:web in 337) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020922182 = score(doc=337,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09670874 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 337, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=337)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
    Abstract
    Das Buch betrachtet das Thema Suchmaschinen ausgehend von der täglichen Recherche und führt in die technischen Grundlagen, in Recherchetechniken sowie die gesellschaftlichen und wirtschaftlichen Bedingungen der Recherche im Web ein. Suchmaschinen sind heute die wichtigsten Werkzeuge, um an Informationen zu gelangen. Wir verwenden Suchmaschinen täglich, meist ohne weiter darüber nachzudenken. Doch wie funktionieren diese Suchwerkzeuge eigentlich genau? Neben einer ausführlichen Darstellung der in den bekannten Suchmaschinen verwendeten Rankingverfahren wird auch ausführlich auf das Nutzerverhalten eingegangen, das wiederum die Ergebnisdarstellung prägt. Dazu kommen grundlegende Betrachtungen des Suchmaschinenmarkts, der Bedeutung der Suchmaschinenoptimierung und der Rolle der Suchmaschinen als technische Informationsvermittler. Nicht zuletzt wird auch die Seite der Recherche betrachtet und gezeigt, wie man mit den bekannten Suchmaschinen effizient recherchieren kann. Das Buch verhilft allen, die mit Suchmaschinen recherchieren oder sich beruflich mit der Optimierung, Aufbereitung und Sichtbarmachung von Inhalten beschäftigen, zu einem umfassenden Verständnis der Ansätze, Stärken und Schwächen verschiedener Suchmaschinen und der ihnen zugrunde liegenden Technologien.
  17. Lewandowski, D.; Haustein, S.: What does the German-language information science community cite? (2015) 0.00 
    0.0012482718 = product of:
  0.017475804 = sum of:
    0.017475804 = weight(_text_:information in 2987) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017475804 = score(doc=2987,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.3359395 = fieldWeight in 2987, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2987)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
    Source
    Re:inventing information science in the networked society: Proceedings of the 14th International Symposium on Information Science, Zadar/Croatia, 19th-21st May 2015. Eds.: F. Pehar, C. Schloegl u. C. Wolff
  18. Lewandowski, D.; Spree, U.: ¬Die Forschungsgruppe Search Studies an der HAW Hamburg (2019) 0.00 
    8.64828E-4 = product of:
  0.012107591 = sum of:
    0.012107591 = weight(_text_:information in 5021) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012107591 = score(doc=5021,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 5021, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=5021)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
    Source
    Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis. 70(2019) H.1, S.1-2
  19. Lewandowski, D.: Suchmaschinen (2013) 0.00 
    7.2068995E-4 = product of:
  0.010089659 = sum of:
    0.010089659 = weight(_text_:information in 731) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010089659 = score(doc=731,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.19395474 = fieldWeight in 731, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=731)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
    Source
    Grundlagen der praktischen Information und Dokumentation. Handbuch zur Einführung in die Informationswissenschaft und -praxis. 6., völlig neu gefaßte Ausgabe. Hrsg. von R. Kuhlen, W. Semar u. D. Strauch. Begründet von Klaus Laisiepen, Ernst Lutterbeck, Karl-Heinrich Meyer-Uhlenried
  20. Lewandowski, D.; Sünkler, S.; Kerkmann, F.: Are ads on Google search engine results pages labeled clearly enough? : the influence of knowledge on search ads on users' selection behaviour (2017) 0.00 
    6.241359E-4 = product of:
  0.008737902 = sum of:
    0.008737902 = weight(_text_:information in 3567) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008737902 = score(doc=3567,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.16796975 = fieldWeight in 3567, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3567)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
    Abstract
    In an online experiment using a representative sample of the German online population (n = 1.000), we compare users' selection behaviour on two versions of the same Google search engine results page (SERP), one showing advertisements and organic results, the other showing organic results only. Selection behaviour is analyzed in relation to users' knowledge on Google's business model, on SERP design, and on these users' actual performance in marking advertisements on SERPs correctly. We find that users who were not able to mark ads correctly selected ads significantly more often. This leads to the conclusion that ads need to be labeled more clearly, and that there is a need for more information literacy in search engine users.
    Source
    Everything changes, everything stays the same? - Understanding information spaces : Proceedings of the 15th International Symposium of Information Science (ISI 2017), Berlin/Germany, 13th - 15th March 2017. Eds.: M. Gäde, V. Trkulja u. V. Petras

Authors

Languages

  • d 12
  • e 11

Types

  • a 22
  • el 2
  • m 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Classifications