Ranking library materials

Library Hi Tech

Volumn 27, Issue 4, 2009, Pages 584-593

  Lewandowski, Dirk ^a  

^a HAMBURG UNIVERSITY OF APPLIED SCIENCES   (Germany)

Author keywords

Information management; Information media; Libraries

Indexed keywords

EID: 72049099390     PISSN: 07378831     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1108/07378830911007682     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. Beall, J. (2008), The weaknesses of full-text searching in The Journal of Academic Librarianship, Vol. 34, No. 5, pp. 438-44.
2. Breeding, M. (2006), Technology for the next generation in Computers in Libraries, Vol. 26, No. 10, pp. 28-30.
3. Broder, A. (2002), A taxonomy of web search in SIGIR Forum, Vol. 36, No. 2, pp. 3-10.
4. Dellit, A. and Boston, T. (2007), Relevance ranking of results from MARC-based catalogues: from guidelines to implementation exploiting structured metadata, available at: www.nla.gov.au/nla/staffpaper/2007/documents/Boston_Dellit-relevance-ranking.pdf/ (accessed 28 February 2009).
5. Flimm, O. (2007), Die Open-Source-Software OpenBib an der USB Köln - Überblick und Entwicklungen in Richtung OPAC 2.0 in Bibliothek Forschung und Praxis, Vol. 31, No. 2, pp. 2-20.
6. Höchstötter, N. (2007), Suchverhalten im Web - Erhebung, Analyse und Möglichkeiten in Information Wissenschaft und Praxis, Vol. 58, No. 3, pp. 135-40.
7. Höchstötter, N. and Koch, M. (2008), Standard parameters for searching behaviour in search engines and their empirical evaluation in Journal of Information Science, Vol. 34, No. 1, pp. 45-65.
8. Joint, N. (2009), Managing the implementation of a federated search tool in an academic library in Library Review, Vol. 58, No. 1, pp. 10-16.
9. Lewandowski, D. (2004), Date-restricted queries in web search engines in Online Information Review, Vol. 28, No. 6, pp. 420-7.
10. Lewandowski, D. (2005), Web searching, search engines and information retrieval in Information Services & Use, Vol. 18, No. 3, pp. 137-47.
11. Lewandowski, D. (2006), Suchmaschinen als Konkurrenten der Bibliothekskataloge: Wie Bibliotheken ihre Angebote durch Suchmaschinentechnologie attraktiver und durch Öffnung für die allgemeinen Suchmaschinen populärer machen können in Zeitschrift für Bibliothekswesen und Bibliographie, Vol. 53, No. 2, pp. 71-8.
12. Lewandowski, D. (2008), Search engine user behaviour: how can users be guided to quality content? in Information Services & Use, Vol. 28, Nos 3-4, pp. 261-8.
13. Lewandowski, D. and Mayr, P. (2006), Exploring the academic invisible web in Library Hi Tech, Vol. 24, No. 4, pp. 529-39.
14. Mercun, T. and Zumer, M. (2008), New generation of catalogues for the new generation of users: a comparison of six library catalogues in Program: Electronic library and information systems, Vol. 42, No. 3, pp. 243-61.
15. Mizzaro, S. (1997), Relevance: the whole history in Journal of the American Society for Information Science, Vol. 48, No. 9, pp. 810-32.
16. Rowlands, I., Nicholas, D., Williams, P., Huntington, P., Fieldhouse, M., Gunter, B., Withey, R., Jamali, H.R., Dobrowolski, T. and Tenopir, C. (2008), The Google generation: the information behaviour of the researcher of the future in ASLIB Proceedings, Vol. 60, No. 4, pp. 290-310.
17. Sadeh, T. (2007), Time for a change: new approaches for a new generation of library users in New Library World, Vol. 108, Nos 7-8, pp. 307-16.
18. Saracevic, T. (2007), Relevance: a review of the literature and a framework for thinking on the notion, Information Science. Part II: Nature and manifestations of relevance in Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Vol. 58, No. 13, pp. 1915-33.
19. Schneider, K.G. (2006), How OPACs suck. Part 1: Relevance rank (or the lack of it), available at: www.techsource.ala.org/blog/2006/03/how-opacs-suck-part-1-relevance-rank-or-the-lack-of-it.html (accessed 28 February 2009).
20. Schneider, R. (2009), OPACs, Benutzer und das Web in Zeitschrift für Bibliothekswesen und Bibliographie, Vol. 56, No. 1, pp. 9-19.