Search (38 results, page 1 of 2)

0.027501125 = product of:
  0.08250337 = sum of:
    0.08250337 = product of:
      0.12375505 = sum of:
        0.07269186 = weight(_text_:online in 7824) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07269186 = score(doc=7824,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.1548489 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.46943733 = fieldWeight in 7824, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=7824)
        0.05106319 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 7824) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05106319 = score(doc=7824,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15433937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.33085006 = fieldWeight in 7824, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=7824)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Reports selected results from a large study, conducted at Rutgers University, NJ, which observed, under real life conditions the interactions between users, intermediaries and information retrieval systems before and during online searching. Examines the stages of the search process at which search terms from different sources were selected and how the search terms selected at different stages of the search process contributed to the retrieval of relevant items as judged by users. Notes the sequences in which terms were selected and analyzes the sequences to determine the types and frequencies of changes that occur in such sequences. Results indicate that there are regular patterns in search term selection during the online search process. Discusses the implications of these findings

Source

Proceedings of the 14th National Online Meeting 1993, New York, 4-6 May 1993. Ed.: M.E. Williams

0.027486354 = product of:
  0.04122953 = sum of:
    0.033784367 = weight(_text_:im in 1443) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033784367 = score(doc=1443,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.1442303 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.8267863 = idf(docFreq=7115, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051022716 = queryNorm
        0.23423903 = fieldWeight in 1443, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          2.8267863 = idf(docFreq=7115, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=1443)
    0.0074451654 = product of:
      0.022335496 = sum of:
        0.022335496 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1443) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.022335496 = score(doc=1443,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.15433937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.14471677 = fieldWeight in 1443, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=1443)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Footnote

Rez. in: Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis 56(2004) H.1, S.61-62 (D. Lewandowski): "Die Autoren des vorliegenden Bandes haben sich in den letzten Jahren durch ihre zahlreichen Veröffentlichungen zum Verhalten von Suchmaschinen-Nutzern einen guten Namen gemacht. Das nun erschienene Buch bietet eine Zusammenfassung der verstreut publizierten Aufsätze und stellt deren Ergebnisse in den Kontext eines umfassenderen Forschungsansatzes. Spink und Jansen verwenden zur Analyse des Nutzungsverhaltens query logs von Suchmaschinen. In diesen werden vom Server Informationen protokolliert, die die Anfragen an diesen Server betreffen. Daten, die aus diesen Dateien gewonnen werden können, sind unter anderem die gestellten Suchanfragen, die Adresse des Rechners, von dem aus die Anfrage gestellt wurde, sowie die aus den Trefferlisten ausgewählten Dokumente. Der klare Vorteil der Analyse von Logfiles liegt in der Möglichkeit, große Datenmengen ohne hohen personellen Aufwand erheben zu können. Die Daten einer Vielzahl anonymer Nutzer können analysiert werden; ohne dass dabei die Datenerhebung das Nutzerverhalten beeinflusst. Dies ist bei Suchmaschinen von besonderer Bedeutung, weil sie im Gegensatz zu den meisten anderen professionellen Information-Retrieval-Systemen nicht nur im beruflichen Kontext, sondern auch (und vor allem) privat genutzt werden. Das Bild des Nutzungsverhaltens wird in Umfragen und Laboruntersuchungen verfälscht, weil Nutzer ihr Anfrageverhalten falsch einschätzen oder aber die Themen ihrer Anfragen nicht nennen möchten. Hier ist vor allem an Suchanfragen, die auf medizinische oder pornographische Inhalte gerichtet sind, zu denken. Die Analyse von Logfiles ist allerdings auch mit Problemen behaftet: So sind nicht alle gewünschten Daten überhaupt in den Logfiles enthalten (es fehlen alle Informationen über den einzelnen Nutzer), es werden keine qualitativen Informationen wie etwa der Grund einer Suche erfasst und die Logfiles sind aufgrund technischer Gegebenheiten teils unvollständig. Die Autoren schließen aus den genannten Vor- und Nachteilen, dass sich Logfiles gut für die Auswertung des Nutzerverhaltens eignen, bei der Auswertung jedoch die Ergebnisse von Untersuchungen, welche andere Methoden verwenden, berücksichtigt werden sollten.
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.
In Hinblick auf die Informationsbedürfnisse ergibt sich eine weitere Besonderheit dadurch, dass Suchmaschinen nicht nur für eine Anfrageform genutzt werden. Eine "Spezialität" der Suchmaschinen ist die Beantwortung von navigationsorientierten Anfragen, beispielsweise nach der Homepage eines Unternehmens. Hier wird keine Menge von Dokumenten oder Fakteninformation verlangt; vielmehr ist eine Navigationshilfe gefragt. Solche Anfragen nehmen weiter zu. Die Untersuchung der Such-Sessions bringt Ergebnisse über die Formulierung und Bearbeitung der Suchanfragen zu einem Informationsbedürfnis zutage. Die Sessions dauern weit überwiegend weniger als 15 Minuten (dies inklusive Sichtung der Dokumente!), wobei etwa fünf Dokumente angesehen werden. Die Anzahl der angesehenen Ergebnisseiten hat im Lauf der Zeit abgenommen; dies könnte darauf zurückzuführen sein, dass es den Suchmaschinen im Lauf der Zeit gelungen ist, die Suchanfragen besser zu beantworten, so dass sich brauchbare Ergebnisse öfter bereits auf der ersten Ergebnisseite finden. Insgesamt bestätigt sich auch hier das Bild vom wenig fortgeschrittenen Suchmaschinen-Nutzer, der nach Eingabe einer unspezifischen Suchanfrage schnelle und gute Ergebnisse erwartet. Der zweite Teil des Buchs widmet sich einigen der bei den Suchmaschinen-Nutzern populären Themen und analysiert das Nutzerverhalten bei solchen Suchen. Dabei werden die eingegebenen Suchbegriffe und Anfragen untersucht. Die Bereiche sind E-Commerce, medizinische Themen, Sex und Multimedia. Anfragen aus dem Bereich E-Commerce sind in der Regel länger als allgemeine Anfragen. Sie werden seltener modifiziert und pro Anfrage werden weniger Dokumente angesehen. Einige generische Ausdrücke wie "shopping" werden sehr häufig verwendet. Der Anteil der E-Commerce-Anfragen ist hoch und die Autoren sehen die Notwendigkeit, spezielle Suchfunktionen für die Suche nach Unternehmenshomepages und Produkten zu erstellen bzw. zu verbessern. Nur zwischen drei und neun Prozent der Anfragen beziehen sich auf medizinische Themen, der Anteil dieser Anfragen nimmt tendenziell ab. Auch der Anteil der Anfragen nach sexuellen Inhalten dürfte mit einem Wert zwischen drei und knapp 1'7 Prozent geringer ausfallen als allgemein angenommen.
Der relativ hohe Wert von 17 Prozent stammt allerdings aus dem Jahr 1997; seitdem ist eine deutliche Abnahme zu verzeichnen. Betont werden muss außerdem, dass Anfragen nach sexuellen Inhalten nicht mit denen nach Pornographie gleichzusetzen sind. Die Suche nach Multimedia-Inhalten hat sich von den allgemeinen Suchinterfaces der Suchmaschinen hin zu speziellen Suchmasken verschoben, die inzwischen von allen großen Suchmaschinen angeboten werden. Die wichtigste Aussage aus den untersuchten Daten lautet, dass die Suche nach Multimedia-Inhalten komplexer und vor allem interaktiver ist als die übliche Websuche. Die Anfragen sind länger und enthalten zu einem deutlich größeren Teil Operatoren. Bei der Bildersuche stellen weiterhin sexuell orientierte Anfragen den höchsten Anteil. Bei der Bilderund Video-Suche sind die Anfragen deutlich länger als bei der regulären Suche; bei der Audio-Suche sind sie dagegen kürzer. Das vorliegende Werk bietet die bisher umfassendste Analyse des Nutzerverhaltens bezüglich der Web-Suche; insbesondere wurden bisher keine umfassenden, auf längere Zeiträume angelegten Studien vorgelegt, deren Ergebnisse wie im vorliegenden Fall direkt vergleichbar sind. Die Ergebnisse sind valide und ermöglichen es Suchmaschinen-Anbietern wie auch Forschern, künftige Entwicklungen stärker als bisher am tatsächlichen Verhalten der Nutzer auszurichten. Das Buch beschränkt sich allerdings auf die US-amerikanischen Suchmaschinen und deren Nutzer und bezieht nur bei All the Web die europäischen Nutzer ein. Insbesondere die Frage, ob die europäischen oder auch deutschsprachigen Nutzer anders suchen als die amerikanischen, bleibt unbeantwortet. Hier wären weitere Forschungen zu leisten."

RSWK

Internet / Information Retrieval (BVB)

Subject

Internet / Information Retrieval (BVB)

0.026022632 = product of:
  0.07806789 = sum of:
    0.07806789 = product of:
      0.11710183 = sum of:
        0.058743894 = weight(_text_:online in 4032) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.058743894 = score(doc=4032,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1548489 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.37936267 = fieldWeight in 4032, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4032)
        0.058357935 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4032) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.058357935 = score(doc=4032,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15433937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.37811437 = fieldWeight in 4032, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4032)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Presents selected results from a large study which observed under real-life conditions the interaction between users, intermediaries and computers before and during online searching. Concentrates on the sources of search terms and the relation between given search terms and retrieval of relevant and nonrelevant items as answers. Users provided the largest proportion of search terms (61%), followed by the thesuaurs (19%), relevance feedback (11%), and intermediary (9%). Only 4% of search terms resulted in retrieval of relevant items only; 60% retrieved relevant and nonrelevant items; 25% retrieved nonrelevant items only; and 11% retrieved nothing.

Source

13th National Online Meeting. Ed.: M.E. Williams

0.0227698 = product of:
  0.0683094 = sum of:
    0.0683094 = product of:
      0.102464095 = sum of:
        0.051400907 = weight(_text_:online in 4523) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.051400907 = score(doc=4523,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1548489 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.33194235 = fieldWeight in 4523, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4523)
        0.05106319 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4523) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05106319 = score(doc=4523,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15433937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.33085006 = fieldWeight in 4523, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4523)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Reports selected results from a larger study whose objectives are to observe, under real life conditions, the nature and patterns of interaction between users, intermediaries, and computer sysrtems in the context of online information searching and retrieval. Reports various analyses on the relation of search term sources and the retrieval of items judges as to their relevance. While the users generated the largest proportion of search terms (61%) which were responsible for 68% of retrieved items judges relevant, other sources in the interaction process played an important role

0.022199143 = product of:
  0.066597424 = sum of:
    0.066597424 = product of:
      0.09989613 = sum of:
        0.0415382 = weight(_text_:online in 4518) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0415382 = score(doc=4518,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1548489 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.2682499 = fieldWeight in 4518, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4518)
        0.058357935 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4518) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.058357935 = score(doc=4518,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15433937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.37811437 = fieldWeight in 4518, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4518)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

0.018868595 = product of:
  0.056605786 = sum of:
    0.056605786 = product of:
      0.08490868 = sum of:
        0.053959712 = weight(_text_:online in 7968) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.053959712 = score(doc=7968,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.1548489 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.34846687 = fieldWeight in 7968, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=7968)
        0.03094897 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 7968) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03094897 = score(doc=7968,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15433937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.20052543 = fieldWeight in 7968, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=7968)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

One in a series of studies on the selection of search terms during an online search involving users and intermediaries in real online interactive situations. Considers: during what stage of the search process were search terms from different sources selected?; how were the search terms selected at different stages of the search process connected with retrieval of relevant answers as judges by users?; and in what sequences were the search terms selected, in respect to their sources. Sequences of selected search terms were analyzed to describe the types and frequencies of changes that occur in such sequences. Results indicate that search term selection follows regular patterns in the dynamics of the search process. Discusses implications of findings

0.016094714 = product of:
  0.048284143 = sum of:
    0.048284143 = product of:
      0.072426215 = sum of:
        0.03094897 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2742) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03094897 = score(doc=2742,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15433937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.20052543 = fieldWeight in 2742, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2742)
        0.04147724 = weight(_text_:22 in 2742) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04147724 = score(doc=2742,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17867287 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = 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)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

In this research, we aim to identify factors that significantly affect the clickthrough of Web searchers. Our underlying goal is determine more efficient methods to optimize the clickthrough rate. We devise a clickthrough metric for measuring customer satisfaction of search engine results using the number of links visited, number of queries a user submits, and rank of clicked links. We use a neural network to detect the significant influence of searching characteristics on future user clickthrough. Our results show that high occurrences of query reformulation, lengthy searching duration, longer query length, and the higher ranking of prior clicked links correlate positively with future clickthrough. We provide recommendations for leveraging these findings for improving the performance of search engine retrieval and result ranking, along with implications for search engine marketing.

Date

22. 3.2009 17:49:11

0.015314843 = product of:
  0.045944527 = sum of:
    0.045944527 = product of:
      0.06891679 = sum of:
        0.041265294 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 642) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041265294 = score(doc=642,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.15433937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.26736724 = fieldWeight in 642, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=642)
        0.027651496 = weight(_text_:22 in 642) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027651496 = score(doc=642,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17867287 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 642, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=642)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Information retrieval (IR) research has developed considerably since the 1950's to include consideration of more cognitive, interactive and iterative processes during the interaction between humans and IR or Web systems (Ingwersen, 1992, 1996). Interactive search sessions by humans with IR systems have been depicted as interactive IR models (Saracevic, 1997). Human-IR system interaction is also modeled as taking place within the context of broader human information behavior (HIB) processes (Spink et al., 2002). Research into the human or cognitive (user modeling) aspects of IR is a growing body of research on user interactivity, task performance and measures for observing user interactivity. The task context and situational characteristics of users' searches and evaluation have also been identified as key elements in a user's interaction with an IR system (Cool and Spink, 2002; Vakkari, 2003). Major theorized interactive IR models have been proposed relating to the single search episode, including Ingwersen's (1992,1996) Cognitive Model of IR Interaction, Belkin et al.'s (1995) Episodic Interaction Model, and Saracevic's (1996,1997) Stratified Model of IR Interaction. In this chapter we examine Saracevic's Stratified Model of IR Interaction and extend the model within the framework of cognitive IR (CIR) to depict CIR as a multitasking process. This chapter provides a new direction for CIR research by conceptualizing IR with a multitasking context. The next section of the chapter defines the concept of multitasking in the cognitive sciences and Section 3 discusses the emerging understanding of multitasking information behavior. In Section 4, cognitive IR is depicted within a multitasking framework using Saracevic's (1996, 1997) Stratified Model of IR Interaction. In Section 5, we link information searching and seeking models together, via Saracevic's Stratified Model of IR Interaction, but starting with a unitask model of HIB. We begin to model multitasking in cognitive IR in Section 6. In Sections 7 and 8, we increase the complexity of our developing multitasking model of cognitive IR by adding coordinating mechanisms, including feedback loops. Finally, in Section 9, we conclude the chapter and indicate future directions for further research.

Date

19. 1.2007 12:55:22

Series

The information retrieval series, vol. 19

Source

New directions in cognitive information retrieval. Eds.: A. Spink, C. Cole

0.013800584 = product of:
  0.04140175 = sum of:
    0.04140175 = product of:
      0.062102623 = sum of:
        0.031153653 = weight(_text_:online in 3877) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031153653 = score(doc=3877,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1548489 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.20118743 = fieldWeight in 3877, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3877)
        0.03094897 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3877) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03094897 = score(doc=3877,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15433937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.20052543 = fieldWeight in 3877, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3877)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Reports from a study investigating the extent to which academic end users conduct multiple search sessions, over time woth OPAC or CD-ROM databases at different stages of their information seeking related to a current research project. Interviews were conducted using a questionnaire with 200 academic end users at Rutgers University Alexander Library, NJ and University of North Texas, to investigate the occurrence of multiple search sessions. Results show that at the time of the survey interview, 57% of end users had conducted multiple search sessions during their research project and 86% of end users conducted their 1st search session at the beginning stage of their information seeking process. 49% of end users had conducted between 1 and 6 search sessions and 8% more than 6 search sessions. 70% of multiple search sessionss end users had modified their search terms since their 1st search session. Discusses the implications of the findings for end user training, information retrieval systems design and further research

0.012211084 = product of:
  0.036633253 = sum of:
    0.036633253 = product of:
      0.10989976 = sum of:
        0.10989976 = weight(_text_:online in 6739) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10989976 = score(doc=6739,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.1548489 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.7097226 = fieldWeight in 6739, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6739)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The relationship between user characteristics and the outcome of an online search is a growing area of investigation. Reports results of a study which examined use characteristics during mediated online searching in an academic environment, which related to online search outcome. Results of the study indicate that the academic status of the users and their experience of a prior online search on their information problem was significantly related to the online search outcome

Source

Online and CD-ROM review. 17(1993) no.5, S.275-278

0.010614499 = product of:
  0.0318435 = sum of:
    0.0318435 = product of:
      0.09553049 = sum of:
        0.09553049 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09553049 = score(doc=3763,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.15433937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.61896384 = fieldWeight in 3763, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3763)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Develops a theoretical framework for expressing the nature of feedback as a critical process in interactive information retrieval. Feedback concepts from cybernetics and social sciences perspectives are used to develop a concept of information feedback applicable to information retrieval. Adapts models from human-computer interaction and interactive information retrieval as a framework for studying the manifestations of feedback in information retrieval. Presents results from an empirical study of real-life interactions between users, professional mediators and an information retrieval system computer. Presents data involving 885 feedback loops classified in 5 categories. Presents a connection between the theoretical framework and empirical observations and provides a number of pragmatic and research suggestions

Footnote

Contribution to a special section of articles related to human-computer interaction and information retrieval

0.010252445 = product of:
  0.030757334 = sum of:
    0.030757334 = product of:
      0.092272 = sum of:
        0.092272 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 158) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.092272 = score(doc=158,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.15433937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.59785134 = fieldWeight in 158, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=158)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Reports results from a study exploring the information retrieval and types of interactive feedback during mediated information retrieval. Identifies 5 different types of interactive feedback, extending the interactive information retrieval model to include relevance, magnitude, and strategy interactive feedback. Discusses implications for further research, investigating the nature and model of interactive feedback in information retrieval

0.00979065 = product of:
  0.029371947 = sum of:
    0.029371947 = product of:
      0.08811584 = sum of:
        0.08811584 = weight(_text_:online in 316) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08811584 = score(doc=316,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1548489 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.569044 = fieldWeight in 316, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=316)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source

Proceedings of the 18th National Online Meeting 1997, New York, 13.-15.5.1997. Ed.: M.E. Williams

0.008076874 = product of:
  0.02423062 = sum of:
    0.02423062 = product of:
      0.07269186 = sum of:
        0.07269186 = weight(_text_:online in 623) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07269186 = score(doc=623,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.1548489 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.46943733 = fieldWeight in 623, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=623)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Reports results of research to examine users conducting their initial online search on a particular information problem. Findings from 3 separate studies of relevance judgements by 44 initial search users were examined, including 2 studies of 13 end users and a study of 18 user engaged in mediated online searches. Number of items was judged on the scale 'relevant', 'patially relevant' and 'not rlevant'. Results suggest that: a relationship exists between partially rlevant items retrieved anch changes in the users' information problem or question during an information seeking process; partial relevance judgements play an important role for users in the early stages of seeking information on a particular information problem; and 'highly' relevant items may or may not be the only items useful at the early stages of users' information seeking processes

Source

Online and CD-ROM review. 21(1997) no.5, S.271-280

0.008023808 = product of:
  0.024071421 = sum of:
    0.024071421 = product of:
      0.07221426 = sum of:
        0.07221426 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3265) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07221426 = score(doc=3265,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.15433937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.46789268 = fieldWeight in 3265, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3265)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Considers what elicitation or requests for information search intermediaries make of users with information requests during an information retrieval interaction - including prior to and during an information retrieval interaction - and for what purpose. Reports a study of elicitations during 40 mediated information retrieval interactions. Identifies a total of 1.557 search intermediary elicitations within 15 purpose categories. The elicitation purposes of search intermediaries included requests for information on search terms and strategies, database selection, search procedures, system's outputs and relevance of retrieved items, and users' knowledge and previous information seeking. Investigates the transition sequences from 1 type of search intermediary elicitation to another. Compares these findings with results from a study of end user questions

0.007689334 = product of:
  0.023068001 = sum of:
    0.023068001 = product of:
      0.069204 = sum of:
        0.069204 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1756) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.069204 = score(doc=1756,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.15433937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.44838852 = fieldWeight in 1756, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1756)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Research into both the algorithmic and human approaches to information retrieval is required to improve information retrieval system design and database searching effectiveness. Uses the human approach to examine the sources and effectiveness of search terms selected during mediated interactive information retrieval. Focuses on determining the retrieval effectiveness of search terms identified by users and intermediaries from retrieved items during term relevance feedback. Results show that termns selected from particular database fields of retrieved items during term relevance feedback (TRF) were more effective than search terms from the intermediarity, database thesauri or users' domain knowledge during the interaction, but not as effective as terms from the users' written question statements. Implications for the design and testing of automatic relevance feedback techniques that place greater emphasis on these sources and the practice of database searching are also discussed

0.006994778 = product of:
  0.020984333 = sum of:
    0.020984333 = product of:
      0.062952995 = sum of:
        0.062952995 = weight(_text_:online in 3872) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.062952995 = score(doc=3872,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.1548489 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.4065447 = fieldWeight in 3872, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3872)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Investigates search intermediary elicitations during mediated online searching. A study of 40 online reference interviews involving 1.557 search intermediary elicitation, found 15 different types of search intermediary elicitation to users. The elicitation purpose included search terms and strategies, database selection, relevance of retrieved items, users' knowledge and previous information seeking. Analysis of the patterns in the types and sequencing of elicitation showed significant strings of multiple elicitation regarding search terms and strategies, and relevance judgements. Discusses the implications of the findings for training search intermediaries and the design of interfaces eliciting information from end users

0.006877549 = product of:
  0.020632647 = sum of:
    0.020632647 = product of:
      0.06189794 = sum of:
        0.06189794 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 206) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06189794 = score(doc=206,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.15433937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.40105087 = fieldWeight in 206, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=206)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

We investigated the sources and effectiveness of search terms used during mediated on-line searching under real-life (as opposed to laboratory) circumstances. A stratified model of information retrieval (IR) interaction served as a framework for the analysis. For the analysis, we used the on-line transaction logs, videotapes, and transcribed dialogue of the presearch and on-line interaction between 40 users and 4 professional intermediaries. Each user provided one question and interacted with one of the four intermediaries. Searching was done using DIALOG. Five sources of search terms were identified: (1) the users' written question statements, (2) terms derived from users' domain knowledge during the interaction, (3) terms extracted from retrieved items as relevance feedback, (4) database thesaurus, and (5) terms derived by intermediaries during the interaction. Distribution, retrieval effectiveness, transition sequences, and correlation of search terms from different sources were investigated. Search terms from users' written question statements and term relevance feedback were the most productive sources of terms contributing to the retrieval of items judged relevant by users. Implications of the findings are discussed

0.006877549 = product of:
  0.020632647 = sum of:
    0.020632647 = product of:
      0.06189794 = sum of:
        0.06189794 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2587) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06189794 = score(doc=2587,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.15433937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.40105087 = fieldWeight in 2587, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2587)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The subject of context has received a great deal of attention in the information retrieval (IR) literature over the past decade, primarily in studies of information seeking and IR interactions. Recently, attention to context in IR has expanded to address new problems in new environments. In this paper we outline five overlapping dimensions of context which we believe to be important constituent elements and we discuss how they are related to different issues in IR research. The papers in this special issue are summarized with respect to how they represent work that is being conducted within these dimensions of context. We conclude with future areas of research which are needed in order to fully understand the multidimensional nature of context in IR.

Footnote

Einführung in ein Themenheft: "Issues of context in information retrieval (IR)"

Theme

Semantisches Umfeld in Indexierung u. Retrieval

0.0064842156 = product of:
  0.019452646 = sum of:
    0.019452646 = product of:
      0.058357935 = sum of:
        0.058357935 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 7441) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.058357935 = score(doc=7441,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15433937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.37811437 = fieldWeight in 7441, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=7441)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

State of the art review of the mechanisms of feedback in information retrieval (IR) in terms of feedback concepts and models in cybernetics and social sciences. Critically evaluates feedback research based on the traditional IR models and comparing the different approaches to automatic relevance feedback techniques, and feedback research within the framework of interactive IR models. Calls for an extension of the concept of feedback beyond relevance feedback to interactive feedback. Cites specific examples of feedback models used within IR research and presents 6 challenges to future research