A proposed system for segmentation of information sources in portals and search engines repositories

Author(s):  
I. Anagnostopoulos ◽  
C. Anagnostopoulos ◽  
I. Papaleonidopoulos ◽  
V. Loumos ◽  
E. Kayafas
2003 ◽  
Vol 92 (3_suppl) ◽  
pp. 1091-1096 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nobuhiko Fujihara ◽  
Asako Miura

The influences of task type on search of the World Wide Web using search engines without limitation of search domain were investigated. 9 graduate and undergraduate students studying psychology (1 woman and 8 men, M age = 25.0 yr., SD = 2.1) participated. Their performance to manipulate the search engines on a closed task with only one answer were compared with their performance on an open task with several possible answers. Analysis showed that the number of actions was larger for the closed task ( M = 91) than for the open task ( M = 46.1). Behaviors such as selection of keywords (averages were 7.9% of all actions for the closed task and 16.7% for the open task) and pressing of the browser's back button (averages were 40.3% of all actions for the closed task and 29.6% for the open task) were also different. On the other hand, behaviors such as selection of hyperlinks, pressing of the home button, and number of browsed pages were similar for both tasks. Search behaviors were influenced by task type when the students searched for information without limitation placed on the information sources.


2012 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 7-17
Author(s):  
Vincentas Lamanauskas ◽  
Violeta Šlekienė ◽  
Loreta Ragulienė

Modern society receives a relatively big part of information using information communication devices. Information search possibilities are rapidly growing. On the other hand, the amount of information itself is expanding. One of the quickest ways of finding information is using internet search engines, e.g., “Google”, “Yahoo”, “AltaVista” and others. Their usage undoubtedly makes big influence on education. Pupils’ ability to find the necessary information is highly relevant. Thus, information search literacy is an inseparable component of general education. It is not enough only to find information, it is necessary to use it in the most effective way. Seeking to improve pupils’ information skills, it is necessary to know current position of an analysed question. The object of this research is information search using ICT. The aim of the research is to analyse how comprehensive school upper class students use ICT for information search. It has been ascertained by a research what additional information sources pupils use, where and how they get necessary literature, what information search engines and what electronic information sources they use most frequently. At least a few times per week apart from textbooks respondents use other literature as well (books, dictionaries, handbooks) for learning purposes. They use encyclopaedias very seldom or don’t use them at all. Pupils usually read books and newspapers which they have at home. They also use internet and library service; however, it is not popular to borrow books from friends or buy them. Pupils use internet daily both for leisure and learning. Girls more often than boys use internet for learning and for leisure – they use it equally. Respondents usually search information through Google search engine, less frequently – through Delfi. The other search engines and catalogues mentioned in the questionnaire are used very seldom, especially HotBot, Penki, On.lt and others. Both girls and boys, town and region pupils equally use search engines and catalogues. From electronic information sources respondents most frequently use internet encyclopaedia Wikipedia. Internet books and e magazines are read once a month on average, virtual library is scarcely used. It is absolutely not popular to use such sources as Nerandu.lt, tingiu.lt, Speros.lt. Key words: comprehensive school, electronic information sources, ICT, information search.


Author(s):  
John C. Norcross ◽  
Thomas P. Hogan ◽  
Gerald P. Koocher ◽  
Lauren A. Maggio

This chapter reviews unfiltered information sources, which contain “virtually everything” published, without filter or fetter. Unfiltered information can be found in a wide variety of online search tools and bibliographic databases, such as MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and CINAHL, and is generally the basis for all other kinds of research evidence. This chapter also introduces specialized evidence-based search engines. A weakness of unfiltered information is that it needs to be analyzed and synthesized, which can prove time-consuming. To facilitate the retrieval of unfiltered information, the chapter describes the advanced approach of using controlled vocabularies such as medical subject headings (MeSH). The chapter concludes by covering resources for accessing evidence on behavioral health tests and measures, including test reviews, test information databases, and test publishers.


2011 ◽  
Vol 1 (4) ◽  
pp. 64-74
Author(s):  
Anastasios A. Economides ◽  
Antonia Kontaratou

Web 2.0 applications have been increasingly recognized as important information sources for consumers, including the domain of tourism. In the center of the travelers’ interest is the use of these applications in order to compare and choose hotels for their accommodation at various tourism destinations. It is important to investigate the issues related to the presence of the hotels on some of the most dominant tourism search engines and to the prices that they present. This paper compares the search engines and determines whether the cheapest and to the most complete one can be discovered. This paper focuses on analyzing the hotel prices presented on their official websites and on the following eight tourism search engines: Booking.com, Expedia.com, Hotelclub.com, Hotels.com, Orbitz.com, Priceline.com, Travelocity.com, and Venere.com. The data analysis, by the use of the descriptive statistics, showed that only 23% of the hotels examined are found at all the search engines. Furthermore, the price analysis showed that there are differences among the search engines. Although some search engines statistically give lower prices, there is not a single search engine that always gives the lowest price for every hotel.


AI Magazine ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 36 (4) ◽  
pp. 61-70 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel M. Russell

For the vast majority of queries (for example, navigation, simple fact lookup, and others), search engines do extremely well. Their ability to quickly provide answers to queries is a remarkable testament to the power of many of the fundamental methods of AI. They also highlight many of the issues that are common to sophisticated AI question-answering systems. It has become clear that people think of search programs in ways that are very different from traditional information sources. Rapid and ready-at-hand access, depth of processing, and the way they enable people to offload some ordinary memory tasks suggest that search engines have become more of a cognitive amplifier than a simple repository or front-end to the Internet. Like all sophisticated tools, people still need to learn how to use them. Although search engines are superb at finding and presenting information—up to and including extracting complex relations and making simple inferences—knowing how to frame questions and evaluate their results for accuracy and credibility remains an ongoing challenge. Some questions are still deep and complex, and still require knowledge on the part of the search user to work through to a successful answer. And the fact that the underlying information content, user interfaces, and capabilities are all in a continual state of change means that searchers need to continually update their knowledge of what these programs can (and cannot) do.


2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lucas van der Deijl ◽  
Antal van den Bosch ◽  
Roel Smeets

Literary history is no longer written in books alone. As literary reception thrives in blogs, Wikipedia entries, Amazon reviews, and Goodreads pro les, the Web has become a key platform for the exchange of information on literature. Al- though conventional printed media in the eld—academic monographs, literary supplements, and magazines—may still claim the highest authority, online me- dia presumably provide the rst (and possibly the only) source for many readers casually interested in literary history. Wikipedia o ers quick and free answers to readers’ questions and the range of topics described in its entries dramatically exceeds the volume any printed encyclopedia could possibly cover. While an important share of this expanding knowledge base about literature is produced bottom-up (user based and crowd-sourced), search engines such as Google have become brokers in this online economy of knowledge, organizing information on the Web for its users. Similar to the printed literary histories, search engines prioritize certain information sources over others when ranking and sorting Web pages; as such, their search algorithms create hierarchies of books, authors, and periods.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document