Is Google making us stupid?

Recuperación de información textual: aspectos lógicos y ecológicos --- Text Information Retrieval: Soft-Computing and Ecological Aspects, pp. 127-137, Servizo de Publicacións e Intercambio Científico, Universidade de Santiago de Compostela, 2006. ISBN 84-9750-525-5., 2006

        !"  # $%#  & $   #&      %#    ## %  ' %   &   #   # ( %)  % # %#    #)  %# %  "    '  ) "  ### %    #$## %   "    %*)   '  +&        &) "  %          %, -.  &   #'& #) # *$ %#  % ) " ' %#   # )  -.   '&    #'&  # %   %    !% #   +  %%  *  #/   *$ %# #'&      " %#   '    #  )  $%#   ' '         # " #'& #   %   #%&  % % #

IEEE Transactions on Computers, 2005

2007

Advanced Int'l Conference on Telecommunications and Int'l Conference on Internet and Web Applications and Services (AICT-ICIW'06), 2006

Bessant, J and Hill, R. (Ed) Reporting Law and Order: Youth, Crime and the Media, Hobart, Youth Clearing House. 35-42

Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 2010

Track. The main goals of the Ad Hoc Track were three-fold. The first goal was to investigate the impact of the collection scale and markup, by using a new collection that is again based on a the Wikipedia but is over 4 times larger, with longer articles and additional semantic annotations. For this reason the Ad Hoc track tasks stayed unchanged, and the Thorough Task of INEX 2002-2006 returns. The second goal was to study the impact of more verbose queries on retrieval effectiveness, by using the available markup as structural constraints-now using both the Wikipedia's layout-based markup, as well as the enriched semantic markup-and by the use of phrases. The third goal was to compare different result granularities by allowing systems to retrieve XML elements, ranges of XML elements, or arbitrary passages of text. This investigates the value of the internal document structure (as provided by the XML mark-up) for retrieving relevant information. The INEX 2009 Ad Hoc Track featured four tasks: For the Thorough Task a ranked-list of results (elements or passages) by estimated relevance was needed. For the Focused Task a ranked-list of non-overlapping results (elements or passages) was needed. For the Relevant in Context Task non-overlapping results (elements or passages) were returned grouped by the article from which they came. For the Best in Context Task a single starting point (element start tag or passage start) for each article was needed. We discuss the setup of the track, the results for the four tasks, and examine the relative effectiveness of element and passage retrieval. This is examined in the context of content only (CO, or Keyword) search as well as content and structure (CAS, or structured) search. In addition, we look at the effectiveness of systems using a reference run with a solid article ranking, and of systems using the phrase query. Finally, we look at the ability of focused retrieval techniques to rank articles.