Search (9 results, page 1 of 1)

0.010632704 = product of:
  0.021265408 = sum of:
    0.021265408 = product of:
      0.042530816 = sum of:
        0.042530816 = weight(_text_:22 in 2742) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042530816 = score(doc=2742,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18321139 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05231876 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2742, 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=2742)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 3.2009 17:49:11

0.0054596574 = product of:
  0.010919315 = sum of:
    0.010919315 = product of:
      0.02183863 = sum of:
        0.02183863 = weight(_text_:20 in 4429) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02183863 = score(doc=4429,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1438149 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.748821 = idf(docFreq=7692, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05231876 = queryNorm
            0.15185234 = fieldWeight in 4429, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.748821 = idf(docFreq=7692, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4429)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

10. 3.1997 20:31:13

0.0054596574 = product of:
  0.010919315 = sum of:
    0.010919315 = product of:
      0.02183863 = sum of:
        0.02183863 = weight(_text_:20 in 4815) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02183863 = score(doc=4815,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1438149 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.748821 = idf(docFreq=7692, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05231876 = queryNorm
            0.15185234 = fieldWeight in 4815, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.748821 = idf(docFreq=7692, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4815)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

We report quantitative and qualitative results of an empirical evaluation to determine whether automated assistance improves searching performance and when searchers desire system intervention in the search process. Forty participants interacted with two fully functional information retrieval systems in a counterbalanced, within-participant study. The systems were identical in all respects except that one offered automated assistance and the other did not. The study used a client-side automated assistance application, an approximately 500,000-document Text REtrieval Conference content collection, and six topics. Results indicate that automated assistance can improve searching performance. However, the improvement is less dramatic than one might expect, with an approximately 20% performance increase, as measured by the number of userselected relevant documents. Concerning patterns of interaction, we identified 1,879 occurrences of searchersystem interactions and classified them into 9 major categories and 27 subcategories or states. Results indicate that there are predictable patterns of times when searchers desire and implement searching assistance. The most common three-state pattern is Execute Query-View Results: With Scrolling-View Assistance. Searchers appear receptive to automated assistance; there is a 71% implementation rate. There does not seem to be a correlation between the use of assistance and previous searching performance. We discuss the implications for the design of information retrieval systems and future research directions.

0.0054596574 = product of:
  0.010919315 = sum of:
    0.010919315 = product of:
      0.02183863 = sum of:
        0.02183863 = weight(_text_:20 in 221) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02183863 = score(doc=221,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1438149 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.748821 = idf(docFreq=7692, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05231876 = queryNorm
            0.15185234 = fieldWeight in 221, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.748821 = idf(docFreq=7692, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=221)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

3. 1.2007 18:20:16

0.0054596574 = product of:
  0.010919315 = sum of:
    0.010919315 = product of:
      0.02183863 = sum of:
        0.02183863 = weight(_text_:20 in 1015) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02183863 = score(doc=1015,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1438149 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.748821 = idf(docFreq=7692, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05231876 = queryNorm
            0.15185234 = fieldWeight in 1015, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.748821 = idf(docFreq=7692, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1015)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

26.12.2007 20:18:18

0.0054596574 = product of:
  0.010919315 = sum of:
    0.010919315 = product of:
      0.02183863 = sum of:
        0.02183863 = weight(_text_:20 in 1730) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02183863 = score(doc=1730,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1438149 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.748821 = idf(docFreq=7692, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05231876 = queryNorm
            0.15185234 = fieldWeight in 1730, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.748821 = idf(docFreq=7692, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1730)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

10. 3.1997 20:31:13

0.0054596574 = product of:
  0.010919315 = sum of:
    0.010919315 = product of:
      0.02183863 = sum of:
        0.02183863 = weight(_text_:20 in 3157) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02183863 = score(doc=3157,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1438149 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.748821 = idf(docFreq=7692, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05231876 = queryNorm
            0.15185234 = fieldWeight in 3157, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.748821 = idf(docFreq=7692, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3157)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In this paper we report research results investigating microblogging as a form of electronic word-of-mouth for sharing consumer opinions concerning brands. We analyzed more than 150,000 microblog postings containing branding comments, sentiments, and opinions. We investigated the overall structure of these microblog postings, the types of expressions, and the movement in positive or negative sentiment. We compared automated methods of classifying sentiment in these microblogs with manual coding. Using a case study approach, we analyzed the range, frequency, timing, and content of tweets in a corporate account. Our research findings show that 19% of microblogs contain mention of a brand. Of the branding microblogs, nearly 20% contained some expression of brand sentiments. Of these, more than 50% were positive and 33% were critical of the company or product. Our comparison of automated and manual coding showed no significant differences between the two approaches. In analyzing microblogs for structure and composition, the linguistic structure of tweets approximate the linguistic patterns of natural language expressions. We find that microblogging is an online tool for customer word of mouth communications and discuss the implications for corporations using microblogging as part of their overall marketing strategy.

0.004367726 = product of:
  0.008735452 = sum of:
    0.008735452 = product of:
      0.017470904 = sum of:
        0.017470904 = weight(_text_:20 in 6980) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017470904 = score(doc=6980,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1438149 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.748821 = idf(docFreq=7692, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05231876 = queryNorm
            0.12148187 = fieldWeight in 6980, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.748821 = idf(docFreq=7692, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=6980)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In previous articles, we reported the state of Web searching in 1997 (Jansen, Spink, & Saracevic, 2000) and in 1999 (Spink, Wolfram, Jansen, & Saracevic, 2001). Such snapshot studies and statistics on Web use appear regularly (OCLC, 1999), but provide little information about Web searching trends. In this article, we compare and contrast results from our two previous studies of Excite queries' data sets, each containing over 1 million queries submitted by over 200,000 Excite users collected on 16 September 1997 and 20 December 1999. We examine how public Web searching changing during that 2-year time period. As Table 1 shows, the overall structure of Web queries in some areas did not change, while in others we see change from 1997 to 1999. Our comparison shows how Web searching changed incrementally and also dramatically. We see some moves toward greater simplicity, including shorter queries (i.e., fewer terms) and shorter sessions (i.e., fewer queries per user), with little modification (addition or deletion) of terms in subsequent queries. The trend toward shorter queries suggests that Web information content should target specific terms in order to reach Web users. Another trend was to view fewer pages of results per query. Most Excite users examined only one page of results per query, since an Excite results page contains ten ranked Web sites. Were users satisfied with the results and did not need to view more pages? It appears that the public continues to have a low tolerance of wading through retrieved sites. This decline in interactivity levels is a disturbing finding for the future of Web searching. Queries that included Boolean operators were in the minority, but the percentage increased between the two time periods. Most Boolean use involved the AND operator with many mistakes. The use of relevance feedback almost doubled from 1997 to 1999, but overall use was still small. An unusually large number of terms were used with low frequency, such as personal names, spelling errors, non-English words, and Web-specific terms, such as URLs. Web query vocabulary contains more words than found in large English texts in general. The public language of Web queries has its own and unique characteristics. How did Web searching topics change from 1997 to 1999? We classified a random sample of 2,414 queries from 1997 and 2,539 queries from 1999 into 11 categories (Table 2). From 1997 to 1999, Web searching shifted from entertainment, recreation and sex, and pornography, preferences to e-commerce-related topics under commerce, travel, employment, and economy. This shift coincided with changes in information distribution on the publicly indexed Web.

0.0027298287 = product of:
  0.0054596574 = sum of:
    0.0054596574 = product of:
      0.010919315 = sum of:
        0.010919315 = weight(_text_:20 in 1443) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010919315 = score(doc=1443,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1438149 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.748821 = idf(docFreq=7692, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05231876 = queryNorm
            0.07592617 = fieldWeight in 1443, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.748821 = idf(docFreq=7692, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=1443)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Footnote

Den Autoren wurden von den kommerziellen Suchmaschinen AltaVista, Excite und All the Web größere Datenbestände zur Verfügung gestellt. Die ausgewerteten Files umfassten jeweils alle an die jeweilige Suchmaschine an einem bestimmten Tag gestellten Anfragen. Die Daten wurden zwischen 199'] und 2002 erhoben; allerdings liegen nicht von allen Jahren Daten von allen Suchmaschinen vor, so dass einige der festgestellten Unterschiede im Nutzerverhalten sich wohl auf die unterschiedlichen Nutzergruppen der einzelnen Suchmaschinen zurückführen lassen. In einem Fall werden die Nutzergruppen sogar explizit nach den Suchmaschinen getrennt, so dass das Nutzerverhalten der europäischen Nutzer der Suchmaschine All the Web mit dem Verhalten der US-amerikanischen Nutzer verglichen wird. Die Analyse der Logfiles erfolgt auf unterschiedlichen Ebenen: Es werden sowohl die eingegebenen Suchbegriffe, die kompletten Suchanfragen, die Such-Sessions und die Anzahl der angesehenen Ergebnisseiten ermittelt. Bei den Suchbegriffen ist besonders interessant, dass die Spannbreite der Informationsbedürfnisse im Lauf der Jahre deutlich zugenommen hat. Zwar werden 20 Prozent aller eingegebenen Suchbegriffe regelmäßig verwendet, zehn Prozent kamen hingegen nur ein einziges Mal vor. Die thematischen Interessen der Suchmaschinen-Nutzer haben sich im Lauf der letzten Jahre ebenfalls gewandelt. Während in den Anfangsjahren viele Anfragen aus den beiden Themenfeldern Sex und Technologie stammten, gehen diese mittlerweile zurück. Dafür nehmen Anfragen im Bereich E-Commerce zu. Weiterhin zugenommen haben nicht-englischsprachige Begriffe sowie Zahlen und Akronyme. Die Popularität von Suchbegriffen ist auch saisonabhängig und wird durch aktuelle Nachrichten beeinflusst. Auf der Ebene der Suchanfragen zeigt sich weiterhin die vielfach belegte Tatsache, dass Suchanfragen in Web-Suchmaschinen extrem kurz sind. Die durchschnittliche Suchanfrage enthält je nach Suchmaschine zwischen 2,3 und 2,9 Terme. Dies deckt sich mit anderen Untersuchungen zu diesem Thema. Die Länge der Suchanfragen ist in den letzten Jahren leicht steigend; größere Sprünge hin zu längeren Anfragen sind jedoch nicht zu erwarten. Ebenso verhält es sich mit dem Einsatz von Operatoren: Nur etwa in jeder zehnten Anfrage kommen diese vor, wobei die Phrasensuche am häufigsten verwendet wird. Dass die SuchmaschinenNutzer noch weitgehend als Anfänger angesehen werden müssen, zeigt sich auch daran, dass sie pro Suchanfrage nur drei oder vier Dokumente aus der Trefferliste tatsächlich sichten.