Author, Subjects, Keywords

Cited Author

 
 
   » By Author or Editor
 » Browse Author by Alphabet
 » By Journal
 » By Subjects
 » Malaysian Journals
 » By Type
 » By Year
 » By Latest Additions
 
 
   » By Author
 » Top 20 Authors
 » Top 20 Article
 » Top Journal Cited
 » Top Article Cited
 » Journal Citation Statistics
 » Usage Since Sept 2007


 
 
 

Login | Create Account

Difference among ranking algorithms of different web search tools: a statistical approach

Isfandyari-Moghaddam, Alireza, and Ranjbar, Vahid, (2008) Difference among ranking algorithms of different web search tools: a statistical approach. Malaysian Journal of Library & Information Science, 13 (2). pp. 15-28. ISSN 1394-6234

[img]
Preview
PDF - Requires a PDF viewer such as GSview, Xpdf or Adobe Acrobat Reader
518Kb

Official URL: http://ejum.fsktm.um.edu.my/ArticleInformation.aspx?ArticleID=657

Affiliations

Islamic Azad University, Department of Library and Information Studies
Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Faculty of Mathematical Sciences, Department of Statistics

Abstract

One of evaluation studies examining web search tools is ranking algorithm area. Accepting the idea that different search tools do use different ranking algorithms, the present research aims to confirm such an idea using a statistical approach. To do this, five metasearch engines (MSEs) namely Ez2find, Dogpile, MetaCrawler, Info and WebCrawler along with their four common underlying single search engines (SEs) – Google, Yahoo!, Msn (currently called Windows Live Search) and Ask – have been applied. To conduct the research five queries have been utilized. For comparing ranking algorithms of these web search tools, statistical tests "Kruskal-Wallis" and "Tukey HSD" were utilized. The findings indicate and confirm that different search tools on the web make use of different ranking algorithms. In other words, this research supports findings of previous studies.

Item Type:Journal
Keywords:Ranking algorithm; Search engines; Metasearch engines; Web searching; Internet studies
Subjects:Z Bibliography. Library Science. Information Science
ID Code:4223

Bar-Ilan, J. 2005. Comparing rankings of search results on the web. Information Processing and Management, Vol.41: 1511-1519.

Bar-Ilan, J., Mat-Hassan, M., and Levene, M. 2006. Methods for comparing rankings of search engine results. Computer Networks, Vol.50: 1448–1463.

Bharat, K., and Broder, A. 1998. A technique for measuring the relative size and overlap of public Web search engines. Computer Networks and ISDN Systems, Vol.30, no.1–7: 379–388.

Brooks, T. A. 2004. The nature of meaning in the Age of Google. Information Research, Vol.9, no.3, Available at http://InformationR.net/ir/9-3/paper180.html.

Chignell, M. H., Gwizdka, J., and Bodner, R. C. 1999. Discriminating meta-search: A framework for evaluation. Information Processing and Management, Vol.35: 337–362.

Chu, H., and Rosenthal, M. 1996. Search engines for the World Wide Web: A comparative study and evaluation methodology. In Proceedings of the 59th annual meeting of the American Society for Information Science : 127–13. Also available at http://www.asis.org/annual-96/ElectronicProceedings/ chu.html.

Courtois, M. P., and Berry, M. W. 1999. Results ranking in Web search engines. Online, Vol.23, no.3: 39–46.

Ding, W., and Marchionini, G. 1998. A comparative study of Web search service performance. In Proceedings of the annual conference of the American Society for Information Science: 136–142.

Dogpile.com. 2005. Missing pieces: A study of first page web search engine results overlap. Available at: http://missingpieces.dogpile.com/WhitePaper.pdf

Dogpile.com. 2007. Different engines, different results web searchers: Not always finding what they’re looking for online. Available at: www.infospaceinc.com/onlineprod/Overlap-DifferentEnginesDifferentResults.pdf.

Egghe, L., and Rousseau, R. 2005. Classical retrieval and overlap measures satisfy the requirements for rankings based on a Lorenz curve. Information Processing and Management, Vol.42, no.1: 106–120.

Ellis, D., Ford, N., and Furner, J. 1998. In search of the unknown user: Indexing and hypertext and the World Wide Web. Journal of Documentation, Vol.54, no.1: 28–47.

Fattahi, R., Wilson, C. S., and Cole, F. 2008. An alternative approach to natural language query expansion in search engines: Text analysis of general and domain-specific non-topical terms in Web documents. Information Processing and Management, Vol.44: 1503–1516.

Gordon, M., and Pathak, P. 1999. Finding information on the world wide web: The retrieval e.ectiveness of search engines. Information Processing and Management, Vol.35: 141–180.

Hawking, D., Craswell, N., Bailey, P., and Griths, K. 2001. Measuring search engine quality. Information Retrieval, Vol.4: 33–59.

Isfandyari-Moghaddam, A. 2007. Web metasearch engines: A comparative study on search capabilities using an evaluation check-list. Online Information Review, Vol.31, no.3: 300-309.

Isfandyari-Moghaddam, A. and Parirokh, M. 2006. A comparative study on overlapping of search results in metasearch engines and their common underlying search engines. Library Review, Vol.55, no.5: 301-306.

Jacso, P. 2007. Clustering search results - Part I: Web-wide search engines. Online Information Review, Vol.31, No.1: 85-91.

Jansen, B. J., and Molina, P. R. 2006. The effectiveness of Web search engines for retrieving relevant ecommerce links. Information Processing and Management, Vol.42: 1075–1098.

Jux2.com. 2004). Search engines are more different than people think. Available at: http://jux2.com/stats.php

Mamma.com. 2007. About Mamma.com. Available at: http://www.mamma.com/ info/about.html

Margolis, L. 2006. Searching the Internet. Available at:

http://www.icts.uct.ac.za/ WebCourses/Internet/index.htm.

Mowshowitz, A., and Kawaguchi, A. 2005. Measuring search engine bias. Information Processing and Management, Vol.41: 193–1205.

Nicholson, S. 2000. Raising reliability of Web search tool research through replication and chaos theory. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, Vol.51, no.8: 724–729.

Singhal, A., and Kaszkiel, M. 2001. A case study in Web search using TREC algorithms. In Proceedings of the 10th international World Wide Web conference, Hong Kong, 1–5 May: 708–716

Spink, A., Greisdorf, H., and Bateman, J. 1998. From highly relevant to not relevant: Examining different regions of relevance. Information Processing and Management, Vol.34, no.2/3: 257–274.

Spink, A., Jansen, B. J., Blakely, C., and Koshman, S. 2006. A study of results overlap and uniqueness among major web search engines. Information Processing and Management, Vol.42: 1379-1391.

Sullivan, D. 2005. 5th annual search engine watch awards. Available at: http://searchenginewatch.com/showPage.html?page=3494141.

Tomaiuolo, N., and Packer, J. 1996. An analysis of Internet search engines: Assessment of over 200 search queries. Computers in Libraries, Vol.16, no.6: 58–62.

Vaughan, L. 2004. New measurements for search engine evaluation proposed and tested. Information Processing and Management, Vol.40, no.4: 677–691.

Repository Staff Only: item control page
 
 
 
 
 
 
© Copyright 2007 MyAIS Faculty of Computer Science and Information Technology, University of Malaya – All Rights Reserved. Malaysian Abstracting and Indexing System is powered by EPrints 3 which is developed by the School of Electronics and Computer Science at the University of Southampton. More information and software credits.