Search (387 results, page 1 of 20)

0.06594604 = product of:
  0.13189209 = sum of:
    0.13189209 = sum of:
      0.061305705 = weight(_text_:web in 4884) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.061305705 = score(doc=4884,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052098576 = queryNorm
          0.36057037 = fieldWeight in 4884, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
            0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4884)
      0.07058638 = weight(_text_:22 in 4884) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07058638 = score(doc=4884,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18244034 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052098576 = queryNorm
          0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 4884, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4884)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

9. 7.2000 14:06:22

0.06316184 = product of:
  0.12632369 = sum of:
    0.12632369 = sum of:
      0.09808913 = weight(_text_:web in 1188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.09808913 = score(doc=1188,freq=32.0), product of:
          0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052098576 = queryNorm
          0.5769126 = fieldWeight in 1188, product of:
            5.656854 = tf(freq=32.0), with freq of:
              32.0 = termFreq=32.0
            3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1188)
      0.028234553 = weight(_text_:22 in 1188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.028234553 = score(doc=1188,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18244034 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052098576 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 1188, 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=1188)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Surfing the World Wide Web used to be cool, dude, real cool. But things have gotten hot - so hot that finding something useful an the Web is no longer cool. It is suffocating Web searchers in the smoke and debris of mountain-sized lists of hits, decisions about which search engines they should use, whether they will get lost in the dizzying maze of a subject directory, use the right syntax for the search engine at hand, enter keywords that are likely to retrieve hits an the topics they have in mind, or enlist a browser that has sufficient functionality to display the most promising hits. When it comes to Web searching, in a few short years we have gone from the cool image of surfing the Web into the frying pan of searching the Web. We can turn down the heat by rethinking what Web searchers are doing and introduce some order into the chaos. Web search strategies that are tool-based-oriented to specific Web searching tools such as search en gines, subject directories, and meta search engines-have been widely promoted, and these strategies are just not working. It is time to dissect what Web searching tools expect from searchers and adjust our search strategies to these new tools. This discussion offers Web searchers help in the form of search strategies that are based an strategies that librarians have been using for a long time to search commercial information retrieval systems like Dialog, NEXIS, Wilsonline, FirstSearch, and Data-Star.

Content

"Web searching is different from searching commercial IR systems. We can learn from search strategies recommended for searching IR systems, but most won't be effective for Web searching. Web searchers need strate gies that let search engines do the job they were designed to do. This article presents six new Web searching strategies that do just that."

Date

22. 9.1997 19:16:05

0.0629143 = product of:
  0.1258286 = sum of:
    0.1258286 = sum of:
      0.06935949 = weight(_text_:web in 261) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06935949 = score(doc=261,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052098576 = queryNorm
          0.4079388 = fieldWeight in 261, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=261)
      0.056469105 = weight(_text_:22 in 261) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.056469105 = score(doc=261,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18244034 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052098576 = 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)

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

0.062301032 = product of:
  0.124602064 = sum of:
    0.124602064 = sum of:
      0.08225024 = weight(_text_:web in 5278) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08225024 = score(doc=5278,freq=10.0), product of:
          0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052098576 = queryNorm
          0.48375595 = fieldWeight in 5278, product of:
            3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
              10.0 = termFreq=10.0
            3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5278)
      0.042351827 = weight(_text_:22 in 5278) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042351827 = score(doc=5278,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18244034 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052098576 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 5278, 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=5278)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Most Web search tools integrate sponsored results with results from their internal editorial database in providing results to users. The goal of this research is to get a better idea of how much of the screen real estate displays real editorial results as compared to sponsored results. The overall average results are that 40% of all results presented on the first screen are real results, and when the entire first Web page is considered, 67% of the results are nonsponsored results. For general search tools such as Google, 56% of the first screen and 82% of the first Web page contain nonsponsored results. Other results include that query structure makes a significant difference in the percentage of nonsponsored results returned by a search. Similarly, the topic of the query also can have a significant effect on the percentage of sponsored results displayed by most Web search tools.

Date

22. 7.2006 16:32:57

0.05819651 = product of:
  0.11639302 = sum of:
    0.11639302 = sum of:
      0.08109983 = weight(_text_:web in 5283) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08109983 = score(doc=5283,freq=14.0), product of:
          0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052098576 = queryNorm
          0.47698978 = fieldWeight in 5283, product of:
            3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
              14.0 = termFreq=14.0
            3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5283)
      0.03529319 = weight(_text_:22 in 5283) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03529319 = score(doc=5283,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18244034 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052098576 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5283, 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=5283)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The explosive growth of the Web and the consequent exigency of the Web personalization domain have gained a key position in the direction of customization of the Web information to the needs of specific users, taking advantage of the knowledge acquired from the analysis of the user's navigational behavior (usage data) in correlation with other information collected in the Web context, namely, structure, content, and user profile data. This work presents an agent-based framework designed to help a user in achieving personalized navigation, by recommending related documents according to the user's responses in similar-pages searching mode. Our agent-based approach is grounded in the integration of different techniques and methodologies into a unique platform featuring user profiling, fuzzy multisets, proximity-oriented fuzzy clustering, and knowledge-based discovery technologies. Each of these methodologies serves to solve one facet of the general problem (discovering documents relevant to the user by searching the Web) and is treated by specialized agents that ultimately achieve the final functionality through cooperation and task distribution.

Date

22. 7.2006 16:59:13

Footnote

Beitrag in einer Special Topic Section on Soft Approaches to Information Retrieval and Information Access on the Web

0.057959333 = product of:
  0.115918666 = sum of:
    0.115918666 = sum of:
      0.07356684 = weight(_text_:web in 197) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07356684 = score(doc=197,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052098576 = queryNorm
          0.43268442 = fieldWeight in 197, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=197)
      0.042351827 = weight(_text_:22 in 197) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042351827 = score(doc=197,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18244034 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052098576 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 197, 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=197)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Four focus groups were held with young Web users (10 to 13 years of age) to explore design criteria for Web portals. The focus group participants commented upon four existing portals designed with young users in mind: Ask Jeeves for Kids, KidsClick, Lycos Zone, and Yahooligans! This article reports their first impressions on using these portals, their likes and dislikes, and their suggestions for improvements. Design criteria for children's Web portals are elaborated based upon these comments under four headings: portal goals, visual design, information architecture, and personalization. An ideal portal should cater for both educational and entertainment needs, use attractive screen designs based especially on effective use of color, graphics, and animation, provide both keyword search facilities and browsable subject categories, and allow individual user personalization in areas such as color and graphics

Date

2. 6.2005 10:34:22

0.055050008 = product of:
  0.110100016 = sum of:
    0.110100016 = sum of:
      0.060689554 = weight(_text_:web in 5296) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.060689554 = score(doc=5296,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052098576 = queryNorm
          0.35694647 = fieldWeight in 5296, 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=5296)
      0.049410466 = weight(_text_:22 in 5296) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.049410466 = score(doc=5296,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18244034 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052098576 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 5296, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5296)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

User interfaces of Web search engines reflect attributes of the underlying tools used to create them, rather than what we know about how people look for information. In this article, the author examines several characteristics of user search behavior: the variety of information-seeking goals, the cultural and situational context of search, and the iterative nature of the search task. An analysis of these characteristics suggests ways that interfaces can be redesigned to make searching more effective for users.

Date

22. 7.2006 17:58:06

0.051917527 = product of:
  0.103835054 = sum of:
    0.103835054 = sum of:
      0.06854186 = weight(_text_:web in 5288) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06854186 = score(doc=5288,freq=10.0), product of:
          0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052098576 = queryNorm
          0.40312994 = fieldWeight in 5288, product of:
            3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
              10.0 = termFreq=10.0
            3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5288)
      0.03529319 = weight(_text_:22 in 5288) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03529319 = score(doc=5288,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18244034 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052098576 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This article presents a semantic-based Web retrieval system that is capable of retrieving the Web pages that are conceptually related to the implicit concepts of the query. The concept of concept is managed from a fuzzy point of view by means of semantic areas. In this context, the proposed system improves most search engines that are based on matching words. The key of the system is to use a new version of the Fuzzy Interrelations and Synonymy-Based Concept Representation Model (FIS-CRM) to extract and represent the concepts contained in both the Web pages and the user query. This model, which was integrated into other tools such as the Fuzzy Interrelations and Synonymy based Searcher (FISS) metasearcher and the fz-mail system, considers the fuzzy synonymy and the fuzzy generality interrelations as a means of representing word interrelations (stored in a fuzzy synonymy dictionary and ontologies). The new version of the model, which is based on the study of the cooccurrences of synonyms, integrates a soft method for disambiguating word senses. This method also considers the context of the word to be disambiguated and the thematic ontologies and sets of synonyms stored in the dictionary.

Date

22. 7.2006 17:14:12

Footnote

Beitrag in einer Special Topic Section on Soft Approaches to Information Retrieval and Information Access on the Web

0.04879702 = product of:
  0.09759404 = sum of:
    0.09759404 = sum of:
      0.06935949 = weight(_text_:web in 5285) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06935949 = score(doc=5285,freq=16.0), product of:
          0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052098576 = queryNorm
          0.4079388 = fieldWeight in 5285, product of:
            4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
              16.0 = termFreq=16.0
            3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5285)
      0.028234553 = weight(_text_:22 in 5285) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.028234553 = score(doc=5285,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18244034 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052098576 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 5285, 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=5285)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The World Wide Web is a popular and interactive medium used to collect, disseminate, and access an increasingly huge amount of information, which constitutes the mainstay of the so-called information and knowledge society. Because of its spectacular growth, related to both Web resources (pages, sites, and services) and number of users, the Web is nowadays the main information repository and provides some automatic systems for locating, accessing, and retrieving information. However, an open and crucial question remains: how to provide fast and effective retrieval of the information relevant to specific users' needs. This is a very hard and complex task, since it is pervaded with subjectivity, vagueness, and uncertainty. The expression soft computing refers to techniques and methodologies that work synergistically with the aim of providing flexible information processing tolerant of imprecision, vagueness, partial truth, and approximation. So, soft computing represents a good candidate to design effective systems for information access and retrieval on the Web. One of the most representative tools of soft computing is fuzzy set theory. This special topic section collects research articles witnessing some recent advances in improving the processes of information access and retrieval on the Web by using soft computing tools, and in particular, by using fuzzy sets and/or integrating them with other soft computing tools. In this introductory article, we first review the problem of Web retrieval and the concept of soft computing technology. We then briefly introduce the articles in this section and conclude by highlighting some future research directions that could benefit from the use of soft computing technologies.

Date

22. 7.2006 16:59:33

Footnote

Beitrag in einer Special Topic Section on Soft Approaches to Information Retrieval and Information Access on the Web

0.04718572 = product of:
  0.09437144 = sum of:
    0.09437144 = sum of:
      0.052019615 = weight(_text_:web in 187) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.052019615 = score(doc=187,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052098576 = queryNorm
          0.3059541 = fieldWeight in 187, 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=187)
      0.042351827 = weight(_text_:22 in 187) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042351827 = score(doc=187,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18244034 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052098576 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 187, 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=187)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

"Die Suchmaschine Google gilt oft als der beste Weg, um schnell etwas im Internet zu finden. Das war einmal, behauptet Apostolos Gerasoulis, jetzt gebe es www.teoma. com. "Wir sind die nächste Generation der Suchmaschinen", verspricht der Mathematikprofessor. Die Web-Sites von Google und Teoma sind ähnlich aufgemacht. Beide bieten eine weitgehend weiße Startseite mit wenigen, klaren Farben. Beide Suchmaschinen benutzen bei ihrer Arbeit zur Analyse der Anfragen einen komplizierten Algorithmus. Teoma hält den eigenen Ansatz aber für besser, weil dabei das Internet in Gruppen von Online-Gemeinschaften unterteilt wird. Dies liefere bessere Ergebnisse und erlaube eine nützlichere Auswahl. Zu einem Suchbegriff erscheinen bei Teoma zuerst links oben die bezahlten Verweise, darunter dann' alle anderen gefundenen Web-Seiten. Rechts erscheinen Vorschläge zur Verfeinerung der Suchanfrage, darunter manchmal Links von "Experten und Enthusiasten". Diese qualifizierten Antworten sind eine der Stärken, mit denen Teoma wuchern möchte. Sie sind besonders für Anfänger nützlich, die nach allgemeinen Themen wie Afrika" oder "Fußball" suchen. Allerdings könnte dieser Ergebnisdienst Nutzer auch überfordern, gerade wenn sie an das einfache Google gewöhnt seien, kritsiert Rob Lancaster von der Yankee Group."

Date

3. 5.1997 8:44:22

0.046630893 = product of:
  0.093261786 = sum of:
    0.093261786 = sum of:
      0.04334968 = weight(_text_:web in 4209) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04334968 = score(doc=4209,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052098576 = queryNorm
          0.25496176 = fieldWeight in 4209, 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=4209)
      0.049912106 = weight(_text_:22 in 4209) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.049912106 = score(doc=4209,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.18244034 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052098576 = queryNorm
          0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 4209, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4209)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

"Die Google-Suche nach Dateien im Internet kann nun auch auf en eigenen PC ausgedehnt werden. Ein kleines kostenloses Programm, das sich am unteren Bildschirmrand einnistet, startet die Volltextsuche auf der Festplatte. Google erfasst den Inhalt aller Web-Seiten und Dokumente im Microsoft-Office-Format sowie die Namen sonstiger Dateien und zeigt die Trefferliste im Browser in der vertrauten Liste an - allerdings nur auf Computern mit Windows 2000 oder Windows XE Bei der Entwicklung dieses Werkzeugs hat Google sowohl die eigene Suchtechnologie als auch eine Schwäche von Windows ausgenutzt. Bei der "Desktop-Suche" kommt der gleiche Algorithmus zum Einsatz wie bei der Internet-Suche. Für die dazu benötigte Datenbank wird der Index-Dienst von Windows verwendet, der nur wenigen Anwendern bekannt ist, weil er etwas kompliziert und obendrein ziemlich langsam ist. Das neue Google Tool erstellt selbst diesen Suchindex für die Dateien in der Zeit, wenn der Computer gerade untätig ist. Sobald das 400 KB große Programm heruntergeladen und installiert ist, fängt es damit an, den PC zu durchforsten. Bei gut gefüllten Festplatten dauert es ein paar Stunden oder auch ein paar Tage, bis dieser Vorgang abgeschlossen ist. Sobald der Prozessor 30 Sekunden nichts zu tun hat, wird die Arbeit am Index aufgenommen beziehungsweise fortgesetzt. Ist er fertig, bietet diese Datenbank das Material, auf den sich der Google- Algorithmus stürzt, sobald eine Suchanfrage gestartet wird. Die meisten Google-Tricks für die Suche nach Web-Seiten, Bildern oder Beiträgen in Newsgroups funktionieren auch bei der Desktop-Suche."

Date

3. 5.1997 8:44:22

Source

Bergische Landeszeitung. Nr.247 vom 21.10.2004, S.22

0.046162233 = product of:
  0.092324466 = sum of:
    0.092324466 = sum of:
      0.042913996 = weight(_text_:web in 4866) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042913996 = score(doc=4866,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052098576 = queryNorm
          0.25239927 = fieldWeight in 4866, 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=4866)
      0.049410466 = weight(_text_:22 in 4866) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.049410466 = score(doc=4866,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18244034 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052098576 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 4866, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4866)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Information subject gateways provide targeted discovery services for their users, giving access to Web resources selected according to quality and subject coverage criteria. Information gateways recognise that they must collaborate on a wide range of issues relating to content to ensure continued success. This report is informed by discussion of content activities at the 1999 Imesh Workshop. The author considers the implications for subject based gateways of co-operation regarding coverage policy, creation of metadata, and provision of searching and browsing across services. Other possibilities for co-operation include working more closely with information providers, and diclosure of information in joint metadata registries

Date

22. 6.2002 19:38:54

0.046162233 = product of:
  0.092324466 = sum of:
    0.092324466 = sum of:
      0.042913996 = weight(_text_:web in 238) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042913996 = score(doc=238,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052098576 = queryNorm
          0.25239927 = fieldWeight in 238, 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=238)
      0.049410466 = weight(_text_:22 in 238) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.049410466 = score(doc=238,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18244034 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052098576 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 238, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=238)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This paper analyses the development of the knowledge structures provided as aids to users in searching the Internet. Specific focus is given to web directories, thesauri and gateways and portals. The paper assumes that users need to be able to access information in two ways - to locate information on a subject directly in response to a search term and to be able to browse so as to familiarize themselves with a domain or to refine a request. Emphasis is to the browsing aspect. Background and development are addressed. Structures are analyzed, problems are identified, and future directions discussed.

Date

27.12.2008 15:56:22

0.039567623 = product of:
  0.07913525 = sum of:
    0.07913525 = sum of:
      0.03678342 = weight(_text_:web in 5228) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03678342 = score(doc=5228,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052098576 = queryNorm
          0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 5228, 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=5228)
      0.042351827 = weight(_text_:22 in 5228) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042351827 = score(doc=5228,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18244034 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052098576 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 5228, 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=5228)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Bilal, in this third part of her Yahooligans! study looks at children's performance with self-generated search tasks, as compared to previously assigned search tasks looking for differences in success, cognitive behavior, physical behavior, and task preference. Lotus ScreenCam was used to record interactions and post search interviews to record impressions. The subjects, the same 22 seventh grade children in the previous studies, generated topics of interest that were mediated with the researcher into more specific topics where necessary. Fifteen usable sessions form the basis of the study. Eleven children were successful in finding information, a rate of 73% compared to 69% in assigned research questions, and 50% in assigned fact-finding questions. Eighty-seven percent began using one or two keyword searches. Spelling was a problem. Successful children made fewer keyword searches and the number of search moves averaged 5.5 as compared to 2.4 on the research oriented task and 3.49 on the factual. Backtracking and looping were common. The self-generated task was preferred by 47% of the subjects.

0.039321437 = product of:
  0.078642875 = sum of:
    0.078642875 = sum of:
      0.04334968 = weight(_text_:web in 2117) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04334968 = score(doc=2117,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052098576 = queryNorm
          0.25496176 = fieldWeight in 2117, 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=2117)
      0.03529319 = weight(_text_:22 in 2117) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03529319 = score(doc=2117,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18244034 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052098576 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2117, 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=2117)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This paper presents an application of the model described in Part I to the evaluation of Web search engines by undergraduates. The study observed how 36 undergraduate used four major search engines to find information for their own individual problems and how they evaluated these engines based an actual interaction with the search engines. User evaluation was based an 16 performance measures representing five evaluation criteria: relevance, efficiency, utility, user satisfaction, and connectivity. Non-performance (user-related) measures were also applied. Each participant searched his/ her own topic an all four engines and provided satisfaction ratings for system features and interaction and reasons for satisfaction. Each also made relevance judgements of retrieved items in relation to his/her own information need and participated in post-search Interviews to provide reactions to the search results and overall performance. The study found significant differences in precision PR1 relative recall, user satisfaction with output display, time saving, value of search results, and overall performance among the four engines and also significant engine by discipline interactions an all these measures. In addition, the study found significant differences in user satisfaction with response time among four engines, and significant engine by discipline interaction in user satisfaction with search interface. None of the four search engines dominated in every aspect of the multidimensional evaluation. Content analysis of verbal data identified a number of user criteria and users evaluative comments based an these criteria. Results from both quantitative analysis and content analysis provide insight for system design and development, and useful feedback an strengths and weaknesses of search engines for system improvement

Date

24. 1.2004 18:27:22

0.039321437 = product of:
  0.078642875 = sum of:
    0.078642875 = sum of:
      0.04334968 = weight(_text_:web in 3423) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04334968 = score(doc=3423,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052098576 = queryNorm
          0.25496176 = fieldWeight in 3423, 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=3423)
      0.03529319 = weight(_text_:22 in 3423) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03529319 = score(doc=3423,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18244034 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052098576 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 3423, 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=3423)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Mit über 1100 Delegierten und 85 Ausstellern stellte die zwölfte Information Online auch 2005 wieder die im Raum Asien und Pazifik größte und renommierteste regionale Fachmesse für den Informationsbereich dar. Alle zwei Jahre veranstaltet der australische Informationsberufe-Verband ALIA in Sydney die Tagung mit Fachreferenten aus Australien, Asien, Europa und USA. An drei bis fünf Tagen kommen hier Bibliothekare und Informationsspezialisten aus Australien und Neuseeland, Indien, Malaysien, Amerika, und Europa zusammen, um sich anhand von Vorträgen, Workshops, einer Fachausstellung und reichlich Gelegenheiten für informelles Networking einen Überblick über den sich rasant entwickelnden Markt des elektronischen Informationsmanagement und der Informationsversorgung zu verschaffen. 60 Referenten und neun Hauptredner (Angela Abell, Kate Andrews, Liesle Capper, Peter Crowe, Prof. Brian Fitzgerald, David Hawking, Mary Lee Kennedy, Hemant Manohar, Joan Frye Williams) lieferten Forschungsergebnisse, Fallstudien, Fortschrifttsberichte und programmatische Thesen aus den Themenbereichen Informationsarchitektur, Online Archive, Content Management Systeme, Urheberrecht und WWW, Web Services für Bibliotheken und Informationsstellen, Benutzungsschemata für Web-Technologien, Schnittstellen, Datenpool, Bibliotheksautomation, Referenzservice online, Metadaten für Informationssysteme und für Organisationen, Wissenschaftliches Publizieren, Open Access, Knowledge Management und intellektuelles Kapital, Benutzerpsychologie, Online lernen, Berufsbild Informationsspezialist. Ein Drittel der Beiträge beschäftigte sich mit Fragen rund um Information beziehungsweise Knowledge Discovery Search, Search und nochmals Search. Dreht sich angesichts der kommerziellen Erfolge von Google und Konsorten denn alles nur noch um die Websuche?

Date

22. 5.2005 13:51:43

0.039321437 = product of:
  0.078642875 = sum of:
    0.078642875 = sum of:
      0.04334968 = weight(_text_:web in 2564) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04334968 = score(doc=2564,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052098576 = queryNorm
          0.25496176 = fieldWeight in 2564, 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=2564)
      0.03529319 = weight(_text_:22 in 2564) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03529319 = score(doc=2564,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18244034 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052098576 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2564, 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=2564)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

PageRank is defined as the stationary state of a Markov chain. The chain is obtained by perturbing the transition matrix induced by a web graph with a damping factor alpha that spreads uniformly part of the rank. The choice of alpha is eminently empirical, and in most cases the original suggestion alpha=0.85 by Brin and Page is still used. Recently, however, the behaviour of PageRank with respect to changes in alpha was discovered to be useful in link-spam detection. Moreover, an analytical justification of the value chosen for alpha is still missing. In this paper, we give the first mathematical analysis of PageRank when alpha changes. In particular, we show that, contrarily to popular belief, for real-world graphs values of alpha close to 1 do not give a more meaningful ranking. Then, we give closed-form formulae for PageRank derivatives of any order, and an extension of the Power Method that approximates them with convergence O(t**k*alpha**t) for the k-th derivative. Finally, we show a tight connection between iterated computation and analytical behaviour by proving that the k-th iteration of the Power Method gives exactly the PageRank value obtained using a Maclaurin polynomial of degree k. The latter result paves the way towards the application of analytical methods to the study of PageRank.

Date

16. 1.2016 10:22:28

Source

http://vigna.di.unimi.it/ftp/papers/PageRankAsFunction.pdf [Proceedings of the ACM World Wide Web Conference (WWW), 2005]

0.03675148 = product of:
  0.07350296 = sum of:
    0.07350296 = product of:
      0.14700592 = sum of:
        0.14700592 = weight(_text_:web in 6028) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.14700592 = score(doc=6028,freq=46.0), product of:
            0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052098576 = queryNorm
            0.86461735 = fieldWeight in 6028, product of:
              6.78233 = tf(freq=46.0), with freq of:
                46.0 = termFreq=46.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6028)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This research is part of the ongoing study to better understand web page ranking on the web. It looks at a web page as a graph structure or a web graph, and tries to classify different web graphs in the new coordinate space: (out-degree, in-degree). The out-degree coordinate od is defined as the number of outgoing web pages from a given web page. The in-degree id coordinate is the number of web pages that point to a given web page. In this new coordinate space a metric is built to classify how close or far different web graphs are. Google's web ranking algorithm (Brin & Page, 1998) on ranking web pages is applied in this new coordinate space. The results of the algorithm has been modified to fit different topological web graph structures. Also the algorithm was not successful in the case of general web graphs and new ranking web algorithms have to be considered. This study does not look at enhancing web ranking by adding any contextual information. It only considers web links as a source to web page ranking. The author believes that understanding the underlying web page as a graph will help design better ranking web algorithms, enhance retrieval and web performance, and recommends using graphs as a part of visual aid for browsing engine designers

0.034917906 = product of:
  0.06983581 = sum of:
    0.06983581 = sum of:
      0.0486599 = weight(_text_:web in 3412) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0486599 = score(doc=3412,freq=14.0), product of:
          0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052098576 = queryNorm
          0.28619388 = fieldWeight in 3412, product of:
            3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
              14.0 = termFreq=14.0
            3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3412)
      0.021175914 = weight(_text_:22 in 3412) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.021175914 = score(doc=3412,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18244034 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052098576 = queryNorm
          0.116070345 = fieldWeight in 3412, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3412)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Schluss mit langweiligen Web-Seiten, wenig aussagekräftigen Homepages oder Sites mit mickrigem Hintergrund: Aus dem Internet laden Sie gratis das passende Bildmaterial. Wer viel mit Texten aller Art zutun hat, weiß: Bei manchen Schriftstücken ist es erst die ansprechende Gestaltung mit eingefügten Grafiken, die zum Lesen animiert. Doch Textillustrationen, Fotos und Grafiken dienen nicht nur dazu, die Eintönigkeit des Schriftbilds aufzulockern. Vielmehr unterstreichen passende Bildmotive an der richtigen Stelle die Kernaussagen des Dokuments - gedruckt wie auch im Web. Auch Digitalfotografen benötigen manchmal fremdes Bildmaterial - etwa, um es für eine Bildmontage einzusetzen oder um bestimmte Bildbereiche für eine Retusche zu kopieren. Web-Designer nutzen Bildelemente etwa bei der Seitengestaltung oder für aussagestarke Navigationselemente. Doch längst nicht immer ist im eigenen Fundus das passende Bild für die Dokumentengestaltung oder die kreative Fotobearbeitung vorhanden.

Content

Lizenzfreie Bilder mit einer Suchmaschine aufstöbern Im Internet gibt es fast auf jeder Website Bilder, die Sie im Browser auf Ihrer Festplatte speichern und in anderen Anwendungen weiterverarbeiten können. Entsprechend riesig ist das Gesamtangebot an Fotos, Grafiken und Clipart-Elementen. Allerdings dürfen Sie Grafikelemente, die in eine Website eingebaut sind, nur dann für eigene Zwecke einsetzen, wenn der Urheber das ausdrücklich gestattet. Diese Erlaubnis ist normalerweise mit einem Begriff wie "rechtefrei", "lizenzfrei", "zur freien Nutzung" oder -englischsprachig - "royalty-free" gekennzeichnet. Das Problem: Auf den meisten Websites finden Sie keine Urheberrechtshinweise zu den eingebetteten Bildern. Am einfachsten ist die Suche nach lizenzfreien Web-Bildern mit einer für Grafiken und Fotos optimierten Suchmaschine wie Google (www.google.de), Fotos.de (www. fotos.de) oder Picsearch (www.picsearch. com). Für die Foto-Indizierung verwenden Suchmaschinen normalerweise den Text auf der Web-Seite, auf der sich auch das betreffende Bild befindet. Dabei werden doppelte Fundstellen automatisch aussortiert und Bilder mit der höchsten Qualität an den Anfang der Ergebnisliste gestellt. In Google sind laut Betreiber derzeit 880 Millionen Grafiken registriert. Zum Bildersuchdienst gelangen Sie auf der Google-Startseite per Klick auf die Registerkarte "Bilder". Geben Sie einen oder mehrere Suchbegriffe - durch Leerzeichen getrennt - in das Suchfeld ein, und klicken Sie auf den Button "Google Suche". Die Fundstellenanzeige erfolgt in Form von Miniaturvorschaubildern. Ein Klick auf das gewünschte Motiv öffnet die Website mit dem Foto. Um eine Grafik auf Ihrer Festplatte abzuspeichern, klicken Sie mit der rechten Maustaste darauf und wählen anschlie ßend im Kontextmenü den Befehl "Bild speichern unter". Lizenzfreie Bilder oder ganze Online-Fotogalerien stöbern Sie auch ohne spezielle Bildersuchfunktion mit einer Standardrecherche in einer Suchmaschine wie Alltheweb (www.alltheweb.com) auf. Geben Sie dazu einen Begriff wie "Foto", "Bilder" oder "Picture" in Kombination mit "lizenzfrei" oder "royalty-free" in das Suchfeld der verwendeten Suchmaschine ein.

Date

22. 5.2005 10:06:58

Footnote

Web-Bilderdienste - www.72px.de Das Angebot besteht aus kostenlosen Bildern für nichtkommerzielle Projekte. Als registrierter Nutzer können Sie eigene Fotos veröffentlichen. - www.fotodatabase.net Bei der kostenlosen Foto-Community kann jeder eigene Bilder beisteuern und deren zeitlich und räumlich unbegrenztes Nutzungsrecht für 9,90 Euro an Interessenten weiterverkaufen. - www.fotodatenbank.com Die Foto-Website bietet eine Kommentierungsmöglichkeit. Die private und kommerzielle Weiterverwendung der Bilder ist kostenlos, sofern ein Bildquellnachweis erfolgt. - www.fotos-direkt.de Die Nutzungsrechte an den hochauflösenden Bildern kosten 9,90 Euro, Fotos mit niedriger Auflösung sind kostenlos. Außerdem können Sie thematisch gebundene Foto-CDs für rund 40 Euro bestellen. - www.photobox.ru Auf der Foto-Website mit englischsprachiger Bedienung müssen Sie für die Bilderrechte je nach Auflösung zwischen 5 und 35 Euro bezahlen. - www.photocase.de Die Fotos ambitionierter Hobbyfotografen liegen in einer Mindestauflösungvon 1800 x1400 Pixeln vor. Downloads sind nach einem Bonuspunktesystem eingeschränkt. - www.pixelquelle.de Alle Bilder lassen sich gratis für kommerzielle wie für nichtkommerzielle Projekte nutzen. Außerdem gibt es eine FotoUpload-FUnktion. - www.sxc.hu Bei der Fototausch-Community für lizenzfreie Bilder kann jeder Besucher eigene Bilder beisteuern und Fotos anderer Anwender herunterladen und nutzen. - www.visipix.ch Die Website bietet Fotoreproduktionen von Gemälden. Insgesamt umfasst der Bestand an Bildern rund 90.000 Aufnahmen. Die meisten Motive sind sowohl für die private als auch für die kommerzielle Nutzung kostenlos. Eine Suchmaschine erleichtert das Aufspüren von Motiven.

0.03297302 = product of:
  0.06594604 = sum of:
    0.06594604 = sum of:
      0.030652853 = weight(_text_:web in 5773) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.030652853 = score(doc=5773,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052098576 = queryNorm
          0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 5773, 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=5773)
      0.03529319 = weight(_text_:22 in 5773) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03529319 = score(doc=5773,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18244034 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052098576 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5773, 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=5773)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Suchmaschinen im World Wide Web wird nachgesagt, dass sie - insbesondere im Vergleich zur Retrievalsoftware kommerzieller Online-Archive suboptimale Methoden und Werkzeuge einsetzen. Elaborierte befehlsorientierte Retrievalsysteme sind vom Laien gar nicht und vom Professional nur dann zu bedienen, wenn man stets damit arbeitet. Die Suchsysteme einiger "independents", also isolierter Informationsproduzenten im Internet, zeichnen sich durch einen Minimalismus aus, der an den Befehlsumfang anfangs der 70er Jahre erinnert. Retrievalsoftware in Intranets, wenn sie denn überhaupt benutzt wird, setzt fast ausnahmslos auf automatische Methoden von Indexierung und Retrieval und ignoriert dabei nahezu vollständig dokumentarisches Know how. Suchmaschinen bzw. Retrievalsysteme - wir wollen beide Bezeichnungen synonym verwenden - bereiten demnach, egal wo sie vorkommen, Schwierigkeiten. An ihrer Qualität wird gezweifelt. Aber was heißt überhaupt: Qualität von Suchmaschinen? Was zeichnet ein gutes Retrievalsystem aus? Und was fehlt einem schlechten? Wir wollen eine Liste von Kriterien entwickeln, die für gutes Suchen (und Finden!) wesentlich sind. Es geht also ausschließlich um Quantität und Qualität der Suchoptionen, nicht um weitere Leistungsindikatoren wie Geschwindigkeit oder ergonomische Benutzerschnittstellen. Stillschweigend vorausgesetzt wirdjedoch der Abschied von ausschließlich befehlsorientierten Systemen, d.h. wir unterstellen Bildschirmgestaltungen, die die Befehle intuitiv einleuchtend darstellen. Unsere Checkliste enthält nur solche Optionen, die entweder (bei irgendwelchen Systemen) schon im Einsatz sind (und wiederholt damit zum Teil Altbekanntes) oder deren technische Realisierungsmöglichkeit bereits in experimentellen Umgebungen aufgezeigt worden ist. insofern ist die Liste eine Minimalforderung an Retrievalsysteme, die durchaus erweiterungsfähig ist. Gegliedert wird der Kriterienkatalog nach (1.) den Basisfunktionen zur Suche singulärer Datensätze, (2.) den informetrischen Funktionen zur Charakterisierunggewisser Nachweismengen sowie (3.) den Kriterien zur Mächtigkeit automatischer Indexierung und natürlichsprachiger Suche

Source

Password. 2000, H.5, S.22-31