A new metrics-related book focused on academic search engines

Fri Oct 10 09:04:19 EDT 2014

Dear Andreuas,

Last I knew, a decade ago, the G search algorithm had about 160 component algorithms and that number is likely much larger now. Do we know what fraction of these components have been analogized in GS? Conversely does GS do anything that G does not? For example articles have dates but web pages perhaps do not.

The central G algorithm weights a link based on the authority of the site doing the linking. Does GS do this with citations? Does being cited by a paper which itself has more citations make a difference?

Also, GS has a powerful more-like-this capability but I do not know if it uses it in search.

David

On Oct 10, 2014, at 4:46 AM, Andreas Strotmann <andreas.strotmann at GMAIL.COM> wrote:

> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html
> Again you are talking to the very people who know by profession just how wrong you are, David.  
> 
> The only thing those two (Google and Google Scholar) really differ on is how to extract links from digital documents, but that is a trivial distinction. In fact, Google's search engine is famous for showing that citation analysis (applied to web links as citations) is an extremely effective IR (and, as Stephen Bensman points out, knowledge representation) paradigm. Calling those two homologous would be a severe understatement of their closeness; claiming them to be mere analogs is a sign of - with all due respect - severe ignorance of the underlying science and technology.
> 
> Regards,
> 
>  -- Andreas Strotmann
> 
> On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 8:13 PM, David Wojick <dwojick at craigellachie.us> wrote:
> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html
> However, Google and Google Scholar are really very different so they should not be conflated. This is because websites and scholarly publications have very different properties for the respective algorithms to operate on, among other things. There are certain analogs to be sure, but they are just that, analogs.
> 
> David
> 
> David Wojick, Ph.D.
> http://insidepublicaccess.com/
> 
> 
> At 12:23 PM 10/9/2014, you wrote:
>> Enrique,
>> Thank you for this information.  It simplifies matters.  At least MAS no longer needs to be taken into account, and we can focus on Google Scholar.  If we are going to make assessments on how the WWW is revolutionizing the scientific/scholarly information system, we have to have a single standard, and that is Google.  The problems are complex enough without the need to compare competitive systems.  Life was better and easier when the SCI was the single standard just as it was when peer ratings were the only standard
>>  
>> SB.
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [ mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Enrique OrduÃ±a
>> Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2014 9:47 AM
>> To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU
>> Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] A new metrics-related book focused on academic search engines
>>  
>> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html 
>> Dear friends,
>>  
>> Interesting issues all of them. And of course I already purchased a copy of Ortega's book :)
>>  
>> As regards Microsoft Academic Search, and PoP software, we must take into account that MAS is completely outdated. This issue is detected by Ortega in his book. Moreover it was published by EC3 Research group by means of a working paper few months ago. A more in-depth analysis has been performed, which has been recently accepted for publication, where we study this drop of coverage according to disciplines, universities and journals.
>>  
>> Therefore, MAS cannot be used now for quantitative purposes. Additionally, the MAS API does not work properly with queries that return hit count estimates surpassing 1,000 results. And we can add finally all sometimes unknown legal considerations in the reuse of Bing results due to Microsoft copyright.
>>  
>> Finally, some official voices from Microsoft announced that MAS results will be integrated into Bing results, in an ongoing processs.
>>  
>> As regards Google Scholar, as Isidro said, "site" command may be used both in Google and Google Scholar. But be carefull, because search commands are changing in Scholar. For example the combination of "site" and "filetype" stopped working. In any case, site command in Google and Bing sometimes get us unexpected results in terms of coverage.
>>  
>> Best,
>>  
>> Enrique
>>  
>> On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 4:32 PM, Stephen J Bensman <notsjb at lsu.edu> wrote:
>> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe):
>> http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html
>> 
>> Isidro,
>> Thanks for the information.  I am looking forward to hearing from Jose.  He and I are already in close contact on these matters.  I definitely want you two to vet the paper we have done.  It should be ready soon.  I screwed up in posting in it on arXiv, and it may take a while to correct my stupidity of submitting the damn thing multiple times, because I did not know what I was doing.
>> 
>> You have already answered one of my questions.  The former Yahoo research engine was based upon AltVista, which defined documentary sets by words.  It was this system that Page tested and rejected as delivering incoherent, irrelevant sets.  Instead Page incorporated Garfield's theory of citation indexing, which defines relevant sets by linkages.  He strengthened this by also incorporating Narin's influential method.  Doing this delivered clearer more relevant sets than AltVista.  Multiple linkages are better at semantically defining sets that multiple token words.   If your book presents these facts, then I can strangle Microsoft Academic in its cradle, as Churchill once said of a certain political system that now seems to have come back into vogue.
>> 
>> I hope to get the book and hear from Jose.
>> 
>> Respectfully,
>> 
>> Stephen J Bensman, Ph.D
>> LSU Libraries
>> Lousiana State University
>> Baton Rouge, LA 70803
>> USA
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [ mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Isidro F. Aguillo
>> Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2014 9:07 AM
>> To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU
>> Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] A new metrics-related book focused on academic search engines
>> 
>> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe):
>> http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html
>> 
>> Dear Stephen,
>> 
>> Ooops!
>> 
>> Sorry, I am not the author of the book. it was written by my collaborator and friend JosÃ© Luis Ortega, also in this forum, so you can expect an answer from him soon.
>> 
>> But, I can give a few hints to some of your questions. Bing is using the technology of the former Yahoo search engine. I do not know exactly the way Bing works but my feeling is they are using visits as main criteria.
>> Probably there are far more variables involved, but number of visits play a similar role to links in Google`s PageRank. Of course, it is also possible links are also taken into account.
>> 
>> Microsoft Academic Search is a completely different animal. Really it is a traditional bibliographic database, but I must recognize that although they are using h-index, I am unable to understand the rankings they publish. To my knowledge, MAS and Bing are completely independent products. On the contrary, Google and Google Scholar are closely interlinked.
>> 
>> Regarding web indicators I use number of webpages under different levels of web addresses, like for example number of webpages in the webservers of your university
>> 
>> site:lsu.edu
>> 
>> This syntax is valid for Google, Bing and even Google Scholar.
>> 
>> Best regards,
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 09/10/2014 15:36, Stephen J Bensman wrote:
>> > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe):
>> > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html
>> >
>> > Isidro,
>> > Thanks for writing this book-- Academic Search Engines: A Quantitative Outlook.  I am having LSU Libraries buy a copy of it, so you have sold at least one.  I hope that you have discussed the differences between how the Google and Microsoft search engines operate.  I understand how PageRank operates, but I do not understand how Bing operates.  All I know is that you obtain much better results with Google than with Microsoft, which seems to be quite new.  I have tested them both.
>> >
>> > For your information, Harzing has now interfaced her PoP program with Microsoft Academic as well as Google Scholar.  Now you can really run comparative tests between Google and Microsoft.  You seem to get better results with her PoP than with the Microsoft Academic site itself.  At least her rankings are much better, although it is quite obvious from her program that Microsoft coverage is much weaker.
>> >
>> > As a matter of curiosity, what metric did you use to measure the quantitative aspects?  You cannot use standard bibliographic classifications such as number of books, journals, journal articles, working papers, etc. etc., because I do not think that either Google or Microsoft can identify these.  The Web has no authority structure whatever.  You are not dealing with OCLC WorldCat.  It must be something like megabytes of data or something like that.
>> >
>> > We are finishing a paper on how Google Scholar operates.  I'd like you to vet it when we have it ready.
>> >
>> > Respectfully,
>> >
>> > Stephen J Bensman, Ph.D.
>> > LSU Libraries
>> > Lousiana State University
>> > Baton Rouge, LA 70803
>> > USA
>> >
>> >
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics
>> > [ mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Isidro F. Aguillo
>> > Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2014 6:27 AM
>> > To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU
>> > Subject: [SIGMETRICS] A new metrics-related book focused on academic
>> > search engines
>> >
>> > Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe):
>> > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html
>> >
>> > JosÃ© Luis Ortega. Academic Search Engines: A Quantitative Outlook.
>> > Elsevier, 2014. Chandos Information Professional Series ISBN
>> > 1780634722, 9781780634722
>> >
>> > http://store.elsevier.com/Academic-Search-Engines/Jose-Luis-Ortega/isb 
>> > n-9781843347910/
>> >
>> >
>> > Academic Search Engines: intends to run through the current panorama of the academic search engines through a quantitative approach that analyses the reliability and consistence of these services. The objective is to describe the main characteristics of these engines, to highlight their advantages and drawbacks, and to discuss the implications of these new products in the future of scientific communication and their impact on the research measurement and evaluation. In short, Academic Search Engines presents a summary view of the new challenges that the Web set to the scientific activity through the most novel and innovative searching services available on the Web.
>> >
>> > Key Features:
>> > Â· This is the first approach to analyze search engines exclusively addressed to the research community in an integrative handbook.
>> > Â· This book is not merely a description of the web functionalities of these services; it is a scientific review of the most outstanding characteristics of each platform, discussing their significance with recent investigations.
>> > Â· This book introduces an original methodology based on a quantitative analysis of the covered data through the extensive use of crawlers and harvesters which allow going in depth into how these engines are working.
>> >
>> > JosÃ© Luis Ortega (CCHS-CSIC) is a web researcher in the Spanish National Research Council (CSIC). He achieved a fellowship in the Cybermetrics Lab of the CSIC, where he finished his doctoral studies (2003-8). In 2005, he was employed by the Virtual Knowledge Studio of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Sciences and Arts, and in 2008 he took up a position as information scientist in the CSIC. He now continues his collaboration with the Cybermetrics Lab in research areas such as webometrics, web usage mining, visualization of information, academic search engines and social networks for scientists.
>> >
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> 
>> ************************************
>> Isidro F. Aguillo, HonDr.
>> The Cybermetrics Lab, IPP-CSIC
>> Grupo Scimago
>> Madrid. SPAIN
>> 
>> isidro.aguillo at csic.es
>> ORCID 0000-0001-8927-4873
>> ResearcherID: A-7280-2008
>> Scholar Citations SaCSbeoAAAAJ
>> Twitter @isidroaguillo
>> Rankings Web webometrics.info
>> ************************************
>> 
>> 
>> ---
>> Este mensaje no contiene virus ni malware porque la protecciÃ³n de avast! Antivirus estÃ¡ activa.
>> http://www.avast.com
>> 
>>  
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.asis.org/pipermail/sigmetrics/attachments/20141010/2047ad29/attachment.html>