7862366418

BIBLIOGRAFIA

Ding, Wei and Marchionini, Gary. “A Comparative Study of Web Search Service Performance.” In ASIS ‘96- Proceedings of 49th ASIS Annual Meeting: Global Complexity - Information, Chaos and Control. Medford, NJ: Information Today, Inc.: 136-142.

Glossbrenner Alfred and Glossbrenner, Emily. Search Engines for the World Wide Web, 2^nci edition. Berkeley, CA: Peachpit Press, 1999.

Hock, Randolph. The Extreme Searcher’s Guide to Web Search Engines: A Handbook for the Serious Searcher. Medford NJ: CyberAge Books, 1999.

Maże, Susan, Moxley, David and Smith, Donna. Authoritative Guide to Web Search Engines. New York: Neal-Schuman Publishers, Inc., 1997.

Sullivan, Danny. Search Engine Watch.http://searchenginewatch.com/.

tłumaczenie: Wiesław Gliński opracowanie: Bożenna Bojar

Summary

Many comparative or evaluative schemes focus only on such things as search capabilities and flexibility, variety of input interfaces, and naturę of output, particularly the display aspects. But such schemes are rather shallow in naturę as we tried to establish. The focus of this paper is to provide the evaluation criteria that could be applied to search engines. Evaluation criteria can be divided into 5 aspects: (1) naturę and quality of the search engine database; (2) naturę of the input interface; (3) naturę of search capabilities; (4) naturę of the display output, particularly of the relevance ranking, if one is employed and (5) other considerations like e.g.: the speed of the response or difficulty in accessing the engine, visual clarity, navigation aids, subject directory. Different criteria or sets of criteria should have different weights Criteria should have two types. Some criteria have a discrete answer: (i) yes, (ii) no, (iii) not available or not applicable, or (iv) content related to the feature of concern. Other criteria, sets of criteria or overall impressions, should be scored with a rangę of values, indicating a position on a continuum. An efficient and effective evaluation instrument should accommodate both sets of criteria. As the conclusion, a fairly robust example of a checklist is provided.

20