Search (10 results, page 1 of 1)

Dresel, R.; Hörnig, D.; Kaluza, H.; Peter, A.; Roßmann, A.; Sieber, W.: Evaluation deutscher Web-Suchwerkzeuge : Ein vergleichender Retrievaltest (2001) 0.02

0.015049853 = product of:
  0.08653665 = sum of:
    0.022881467 = weight(_text_:und in 261) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022881467 = score(doc=261,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.052235067 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.023567878 = queryNorm
        0.438048 = fieldWeight in 261, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=261)
    0.034237023 = product of:
      0.06847405 = sum of:
        0.06847405 = weight(_text_:kataloge in 261) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06847405 = score(doc=261,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1351219 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.733308 = idf(docFreq=388, maxDocs=44218)
              0.023567878 = queryNorm
            0.5067576 = fieldWeight in 261, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.733308 = idf(docFreq=388, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=261)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.016645677 = weight(_text_:im in 261) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016645677 = score(doc=261,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.066621356 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.8267863 = idf(docFreq=7115, maxDocs=44218)
          0.023567878 = queryNorm
        0.24985497 = fieldWeight in 261, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.8267863 = idf(docFreq=7115, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=261)
    0.012772488 = product of:
      0.025544977 = sum of:
        0.025544977 = weight(_text_:22 in 261) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025544977 = score(doc=261,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08253069 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.023567878 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 261, 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=261)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.17391305 = coord(4/23)

Abstract: Die deutschen Suchmaschinen, Abacho, Acoon, Fireball und Lycos sowie die Web-Kataloge Web.de und Yahoo! werden einem Qualitätstest nach relativem Recall, Precision und Availability unterzogen. Die Methoden der Retrievaltests werden vorgestellt. Im Durchschnitt werden bei einem Cut-Off-Wert von 25 ein Recall von rund 22%, eine Precision von knapp 19% und eine Verfügbarkeit von 24% erreicht
Source: nfd Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis. 52(2001) H.7, S.381-392

Griesbaum, J.; Rittberger, M.; Bekavac, B.: Deutsche Suchmaschinen im Vergleich : AltaVista.de, Fireball.de, Google.de und Lycos.de (2002) 0.01

0.012495836 = product of:
  0.09580141 = sum of:
    0.022154884 = weight(_text_:und in 1159) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022154884 = score(doc=1159,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.052235067 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.023567878 = queryNorm
        0.42413816 = fieldWeight in 1159, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1159)
    0.052839436 = weight(_text_:informationswissenschaft in 1159) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.052839436 = score(doc=1159,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10616633 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
          0.023567878 = queryNorm
        0.49770427 = fieldWeight in 1159, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1159)
    0.020807097 = weight(_text_:im in 1159) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020807097 = score(doc=1159,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.066621356 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.8267863 = idf(docFreq=7115, maxDocs=44218)
          0.023567878 = queryNorm
        0.3123187 = fieldWeight in 1159, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.8267863 = idf(docFreq=7115, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1159)
  0.13043478 = coord(3/23)

Source: Information und Mobilität: Optimierung und Vermeidung von Mobilität durch Information. Proceedings des 8. Internationalen Symposiums für Informationswissenschaft (ISI 2002), 7.-10.10.2002, Regensburg. Hrsg.: Rainer Hammwöhner, Christian Wolff, Christa Womser-Hacker

Günther, M.: Vermitteln Suchmaschinen vollständige Bilder aktueller Themen? : Untersuchung der Gewichtung inhaltlicher Aspekte von Suchmaschinenergebnissen in Deutschland und den USA (2016) 0.01

0.010330131 = product of:
  0.079197675 = sum of:
    0.023059536 = weight(_text_:und in 3068) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023059536 = score(doc=3068,freq=26.0), product of:
        0.052235067 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.023567878 = queryNorm
        0.441457 = fieldWeight in 3068, product of:
          5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
            26.0 = termFreq=26.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3068)
    0.026419718 = weight(_text_:informationswissenschaft in 3068) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026419718 = score(doc=3068,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10616633 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
          0.023567878 = queryNorm
        0.24885213 = fieldWeight in 3068, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3068)
    0.029718421 = sum of:
      0.013607885 = weight(_text_:1 in 3068) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.013607885 = score(doc=3068,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.057894554 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
            0.023567878 = queryNorm
          0.23504603 = fieldWeight in 3068, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3068)
      0.016110536 = weight(_text_:29 in 3068) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.016110536 = score(doc=3068,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.08290443 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
            0.023567878 = queryNorm
          0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 3068, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3068)
  0.13043478 = coord(3/23)

Abstract: Zielsetzung - Vor dem Hintergrund von Suchmaschinenverzerrungen sollte herausgefunden werden, ob sich die von Google und Bing vermittelten Bilder aktueller internationaler Themen in Deutschland und den USA hinsichtlich (1) Vollständigkeit, (2) Abdeckung und (3) Gewichtung der jeweiligen inhaltlichen Aspekte unterscheiden. Forschungsmethoden - Für die empirische Untersuchung wurde eine Methode aus Ansätzen der empirischen Sozialwissenschaften (Inhaltsanalyse) und der Informationswissenschaft (Retrievaltests) entwickelt und angewandt. Ergebnisse - Es zeigte sich, dass Google und Bing in Deutschland und den USA (1) keine vollständigen Bilder aktueller internationaler Themen vermitteln, dass sie (2) auf den ersten Trefferpositionen nicht die drei wichtigsten inhaltlichen Aspekte abdecken, und dass es (3) bei der Gewichtung der inhaltlichen Aspekte keine signifikanten Unterschiede gibt. Allerdings erfahren diese Ergebnisse Einschränkungen durch die Methodik und die Auswertung der empirischen Untersuchung. Schlussfolgerungen - Es scheinen tatsächlich inhaltliche Suchmaschinenverzerrungen vorzuliegen - diese könnten Auswirkungen auf die Meinungsbildung der Suchmaschinennutzer haben. Trotz großem Aufwand bei manueller, und qualitativ schlechteren Ergebnissen bei automatischer Untersuchung sollte dieses Thema weiter erforscht werden.
Content: Vgl.: https://yis.univie.ac.at/index.php/yis/article/view/1355. Diesem Beitrag liegt folgende Abschlussarbeit zugrunde: Günther, Markus: Welches Weltbild vermitteln Suchmaschinen? Untersuchung der Gewichtung inhaltlicher Aspekte von Google- und Bing-Ergebnissen in Deutschland und den USA zu aktuellen internationalen Themen . Masterarbeit (M.A.), Hochschule für Angewandte Wissenschaften Hamburg, 2015. Volltext: http://edoc.sub.uni-hamburg.de/haw/volltexte/2016/332.
Source: Young information scientists. 1(2016), S.13-29

Griesbaum, J.: Evaluierung hybrider Suchsysteme im WWW (2000) 0.01

0.00868956 = product of:
  0.06661996 = sum of:
    0.013292931 = weight(_text_:und in 2482) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013292931 = score(doc=2482,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.052235067 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.023567878 = queryNorm
        0.2544829 = fieldWeight in 2482, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2482)
    0.031703662 = weight(_text_:informationswissenschaft in 2482) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.031703662 = score(doc=2482,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10616633 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
          0.023567878 = queryNorm
        0.29862255 = fieldWeight in 2482, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2482)
    0.02162337 = weight(_text_:im in 2482) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02162337 = score(doc=2482,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.066621356 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.8267863 = idf(docFreq=7115, maxDocs=44218)
          0.023567878 = queryNorm
        0.32457113 = fieldWeight in 2482, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.8267863 = idf(docFreq=7115, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2482)
  0.13043478 = coord(3/23)

Abstract: Der Ausgangspunkt dieser Arbeit ist die Suchproblematik im World Wide Web. Suchmaschinen sind einerseits unverzichtbar für erfolgreiches Information Retrieval, andererseits wird ihnen eine mäßige Leistungsfähigkeit vorgeworfen. Das Thema dieser Arbeit ist die Untersuchung der Retrievaleffektivität deutschsprachiger Suchmaschinen. Es soll festgestellt werden, welche Retrievaleffektivität Nutzer derzeit erwarten können. Ein Ansatz, um die Retrievaleffektivität von Suchmaschinen zu erhöhen besteht darin, redaktionell von Menschen erstellte und automatisch generierte Suchergebnisse in einer Trefferliste zu vermengen. Ziel dieser Arbeit ist es, die Retrievaleffektivität solcher hybrider Systeme im Vergleich zu rein roboterbasierten Suchmaschinen zu evaluieren. Zunächst werden hierzu die grundlegenden Problembereiche bei der Evaluation von Retrievalsystemen analysiert. In Anlehnung an die von Tague-Sutcliff vorgeschlagene Methodik wird unter Beachtung der webspezifischen Besonderheiten eine mögliche Vorgehensweise erschlossen. Darauf aufbauend wird das konkrete Setting für die Durchführung der Evaluation erarbeitet und ein Retrievaleffektivitätstest bei den Suchmaschinen Lycos.de, AItaVista.de und QualiGo durchgeführt.
Imprint: Konstanz : Universität / Informationswissenschaft

Grasso, L.L.; Wahlig, H.: Google und seine Suchparameter : Eine Top 20-Precision Analyse anhand repräsentativ ausgewählter Anfragen (2005) 0.00

0.003826639 = product of:
  0.044006348 = sum of:
    0.020465806 = weight(_text_:und in 3275) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020465806 = score(doc=3275,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.052235067 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.023567878 = queryNorm
        0.39180204 = fieldWeight in 3275, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3275)
    0.023540542 = weight(_text_:im in 3275) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023540542 = score(doc=3275,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.066621356 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.8267863 = idf(docFreq=7115, maxDocs=44218)
          0.023567878 = queryNorm
        0.35334828 = fieldWeight in 3275, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.8267863 = idf(docFreq=7115, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3275)
  0.08695652 = coord(2/23)

Abstract: Im Aufsatz werden zunächst führende Precision-Analysen zusammengefasst und kritisch bewertet. Darauf aufbauend werden Methodik und Ergebnisse dieser auf Google beschränkten Untersuchung vorgestellt. Im Mittelpunkt der Untersuchung werden die von Google angebotenen Retrievaloperatoren einer Qualitätsmessung unterzogen. Als methodisches Mittel dazu dient eine Top20-Precision-Analyse von acht Suchanfragen verschiedener vorab definierter Nutzertypen.
Source: Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis. 56(2005) H.2, S.77-86

Bar-Ilan, J.: Methods for measuring search engine performance over time (2002) 0.00

5.603665E-4 = product of:
  0.012888429 = sum of:
    0.012888429 = product of:
      0.025776858 = sum of:
        0.025776858 = weight(_text_:29 in 305) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025776858 = score(doc=305,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08290443 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.023567878 = queryNorm
            0.31092256 = fieldWeight in 305, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=305)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.04347826 = coord(1/23)

Date: 23. 3.2002 9:50:29

Agata, T.: ¬A measure for evaluating search engines on the World Wide Web : retrieval test with ESL (Expected Search Length) (1997) 0.00

4.0990516E-4 = product of:
  0.0094278185 = sum of:
    0.0094278185 = product of:
      0.018855637 = sum of:
        0.018855637 = weight(_text_:1 in 3892) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018855637 = score(doc=3892,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.057894554 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.023567878 = queryNorm
            0.32568932 = fieldWeight in 3892, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3892)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.04347826 = coord(1/23)

Source: Library and information science. 1997, no.37, S.1-11

Serrano Cobos, J.; Quintero Orta, A.: Design, development and management of an information recovery system for an Internet Website : from documentary theory to practice (2003) 0.00

3.779547E-4 = product of:
  0.008692958 = sum of:
    0.008692958 = product of:
      0.017385917 = sum of:
        0.017385917 = weight(_text_:international in 2726) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017385917 = score(doc=2726,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.078619614 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.33588 = idf(docFreq=4276, maxDocs=44218)
              0.023567878 = queryNorm
            0.22113968 = fieldWeight in 2726, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.33588 = idf(docFreq=4276, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2726)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.04347826 = coord(1/23)

Source: Challenges in knowledge representation and organization for the 21st century: Integration of knowledge across boundaries. Proceedings of the 7th ISKO International Conference Granada, Spain, July 10-13, 2002. Ed.: M. López-Huertas

Schaer, P.; Mayr, P.; Sünkler, S.; Lewandowski, D.: How relevant is the long tail? : a relevance assessment study on million short (2016) 0.00

3.149623E-4 = product of:
  0.0072441325 = sum of:
    0.0072441325 = product of:
      0.014488265 = sum of:
        0.014488265 = weight(_text_:international in 3144) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.014488265 = score(doc=3144,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.078619614 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.33588 = idf(docFreq=4276, maxDocs=44218)
              0.023567878 = queryNorm
            0.18428308 = fieldWeight in 3144, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.33588 = idf(docFreq=4276, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3144)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.04347826 = coord(1/23)

Footnote: To appear in Experimental IR Meets Multilinguality, Multimodality, and Interaction. 7th International Conference of the CLEF Association, CLEF 2016, \'Evora, Portugal, September 5-8, 2016.

Landoni, M.; Bell, S.: Information retrieval techniques for evaluating search engines : a critical overview (2000) 0.00
```
2.0495258E-4 = product of:
  0.0047139092 = sum of:
    0.0047139092 = product of:
      0.0094278185 = sum of:
        0.0094278185 = weight(_text_:1 in 716) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0094278185 = score(doc=716,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.057894554 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.023567878 = queryNorm
            0.16284466 = fieldWeight in 716, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=716)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.04347826 = coord(1/23)
```
Abstract

The objective of this paper is to highlight the importance of a scientifically sounded approach to search engine evaluation. Nowadays there is a flourishing literature which describes various attempts at conducting such evaluation by following all sort of approaches, but very often only the final results are published with little, if any, information about the methodology and the procedures adopted. These various experiments have been critically investigated and catalogued according to their scientific foundation by Bell [1] in the attempt to provide a valuable framework for future studies in this area. This paper reconsiders some of Bell's ideas in the light of the crisis of classic evaluation techniques for information retrieval and tries to envisage some form of collaboration between the IR and web communities in order to design a better and more consistent platform for the evaluation of tools for interactive information retrieval.

Search (10 results, page 1 of 1)

Authors

Years

Languages

Types