On Jan 3, 2008, at 1:11 PM, Weinheimer Jim wrote:
>>
> The term "relevance" is an advertising device, such as McDonald's
> "We do it all for you." The problem is, while I believe very few
> people really believed that McDonald's really does do it all for
> everybody else except themselves, I fear that users of Google
> believe literally that the items they are looking at really are the
> "relevant" ones. But I don't know. Perhaps I'm wrong.
"Relevance" is probably the third most important term in Information
Science, after "Information" and "Cybrarian".
Tefko Saracevic recently published an update to his classic review
of the subject; the original article from 1975, and both followups,
are on his web site.
Saracevic, T. (1975). Relevance: A Review of and a framework for the
thinking on the notion in information science. Journal of the American
Society for Information Science, 26, (6), 321-343. ( http://www.scils.rutgers.edu/~tefko/Saracevic_relevance_75.pdf
)
Saracevic, T. (2007). Relevance: A review of the literature and a
framework for thinking on the notion in information science. Part II:
nature and manifestations of relevance. Journal of the American
Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(3), 1915-1933. ( http://www.scils.rutgers.edu/~tefko/Saracevic%20relevance%20pt%20II%20JASIST%20%2707.pdf
)
Saracevic, T. (2007). Relevance: A review of the literature and a
framework for thinking on the notion in information science. Part III:
Behavior and effects of relevance. Journal of the American Society for
Information Science and Technology, 58(13), 2126-2144. ( http://www.scils.rutgers.edu/~tefko/Saracevic%20relevance%20pt%20III%20JASIST%20%2707.pdf
)
Other publications are available at http://www.scils.rutgers.edu/~tefko/articles.htm
Simon
Received on Fri Jan 04 2008 - 12:08:48 EST