Search results

The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate how to apply traditional information retrieval (IR) evaluation methods based on standards from the Text REtrieval Conference and web search evaluation to all types of modern library information systems (LISs) including online public access catalogues, discovery systems, and digital libraries that provide web search features to gather information from heterogeneous sources.

The authors apply conventional procedures from IR evaluation to the LIS context considering the specific characteristics of modern library materials.

The authors introduce a framework consisting of five parts: search queries, search results, assessors, testing, and data analysis. The authors show how to deal with comparability problems resulting from diverse document types, e.g., electronic articles vs printed monographs and what issues need to be considered for retrieval tests in the library context.

The framework can be used as a guideline for conducting retrieval effectiveness studies in the library context.

Although a considerable amount of research has been done on IR evaluation, and standards for conducting retrieval effectiveness studies do exist, to the authors’ knowledge this is the first attempt to provide a systematic framework for evaluating the retrieval effectiveness of twenty-first-century LISs. The authors demonstrate which issues must be considered and what decisions must be made by researchers prior to a retrieval test.

The purpose of this paper is to describe a new method to improve the analysis of search engine results by considering the provider level as well as the domain level. This approach is tested by conducting a study using queries on the topic of insurance comparisons.

The authors conducted an empirical study that analyses the results of search queries aimed at comparing insurance companies. The authors used a self-developed software system that automatically queries commercial search engines and automatically extracts the content of the returned result pages for further data analysis. The data analysis was carried out using the KNIME Analytics Platform.

Google’s top search results are served by only a few providers that frequently appear in these results. The authors show that some providers operate several domains on the same topic and that these domains appear for the same queries in the result lists.

The authors demonstrate the feasibility of this approach and draw conclusions for further investigations from the empirical study. However, the study is a limited use case based on a limited number of search queries.

The proposed method allows large-scale analysis of the composition of the top results from commercial search engines. It allows using valid empirical data to determine what users actually see on the search engine result pages.

In commercial web search engine results rankings, four stakeholder groups are involved: search engine providers, users, content providers and search engine optimizers. Search engine optimization (SEO) is a multi-billion-dollar industry and responsible for making content visible through search engines. Despite this importance, little is known about its role in the interaction of the stakeholder groups.

We conducted expert interviews with 15 German search engine optimizers and content providers, the latter represented by content managers and online journalists. The interviewees were asked about their perspectives on SEO and how they assess the views of users about SEO.

SEO was considered necessary for content providers to ensure visibility, which is why dependencies between both stakeholder groups have evolved. Despite its importance, SEO was seen as largely unknown to users. Therefore, it is assumed that users cannot realistically assess the impact SEO has and that user opinions about SEO depend heavily on their knowledge of the topic.

This study investigated search engine optimization from the perspective of those involved in the optimization business: content providers, online journalists and search engine optimization professionals. The study therefore contributes to a more nuanced view on and a deeper understanding of the SEO domain.

The purpose of this paper is to measure the coverage of Google Scholar for Library and Information Science (LIS) journal literature as identified by a list of core LIS journals from a study by Schlögl and Petschnig.

The paper checked every article from 35 major LIS journals from the years 2004 to 2006 for availability in Google Scholar. It also collected information on the type of availability – whether a certain article was available as a PDF for a fee, as a free PDF or as a preprint.

The paper found that only some journals are completely indexed by Google Scholar, that the ratio of versions available depends on the type of publisher, and that availability varies a lot from journal to journal. Google Scholar cannot substitute for abstracting and indexing services in that it does not cover the complete literature of the field. However, it can be used in many cases to easily find available full texts of articles already identified using another tool.

The study differs from other Google Scholar coverage studies in that it takes into account not only whether an article is indexed in Google Scholar at all, but also the type of availability.

This paper seeks to evaluate to what extent Google retrieved correct answers to queries inferred from factual and topical requests in a digital Ask‐a‐Librarian service.

In total, 100 factual and 100 topical questions were picked from a digital reference service run by public libraries. The inferred queries simulated average web queries. They were expressed as separate keywords and as questions. The top ten retrieval results were observed for each answer. The inspection was stopped when the first correct answer was identified.

Google retrieved correct answers to 42 percent of the topical questions and 29 percent of factual questions by keyword queries. The performance of queries in question form was considerably weaker. The results concerning the characteristics of queries and retrieval effectiveness are also presented. Evaluations indicate that the public library reference services answered at least 55 percent of the questions correctly. Thus Google did not outperform the Ask‐a‐Librarian service.

The study introduces a new way of evaluating search engines by comparing their performance with other related services such as an Ask‐a‐Librarian service.

The purpose of this paper is to discuss ranking factors suitable for library materials and to show that ranking in general is a complex process and that ranking for library materials requires a variety of techniques.

The relevant literature is reviewed to provide a systematic overview of suitable ranking factors. The discussion is based on an overview of ranking factors used in web search engines.

While there are a wide variety of ranking factors applicable to library materials, today's library systems use only some of them. When designing a ranking component for the library catalogue, an individual weighting of applicable factors is necessary.

While the paper discusses different factors, no particular ranking formula is given. However, the paper presents the argument that such a formula must always be individual to a certain use case.

The factors presented can be considered when designing a ranking component for a library's search system or when discussing such a project with an ILS vendor.

The paper is original in that it is the first to systematically discuss ranking of library materials based on the main factors used by web search engines.

The purpose of this paper is to test major web search engines on their performance on navigational queries, i.e. searches for homepages.

In total, 100 user queries are posed to six search engines (Google, Yahoo!, MSN, Ask, Seekport, and Exalead). Users described the desired pages, and the results position of these was recorded. Measured success and mean reciprocal rank are calculated.

The performance of the major search engines Google, Yahoo!, and MSN was found to be the best, with around 90 per cent of queries answered correctly. Ask and Exalead performed worse but received good scores as well.

All queries were in German, and the German‐language interfaces of the search engines were used. Therefore, the results are only valid for German queries.

When designing a search engine to compete with the major search engines, care should be taken on the performance on navigational queries. Users can be influenced easily in their quality ratings of search engines based on this performance.

This study systematically compares the major search engines on navigational queries and compares the findings with studies on the retrieval effectiveness of the engines on informational queries.