Talk:Information retrieval

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Computing Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Libraries Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Libraries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Libraries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LibrariesWikipedia:WikiProject LibrariesTemplate:WikiProject LibrariesLibraries articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Linguistics: Applied Linguistics Low‑importance

	Linguistics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Applied Linguistics Task Force.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Databases (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Databases, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.DatabasesWikipedia:WikiProject DatabasesTemplate:WikiProject DatabasesDatabases articles

Huge gaps in article

This article is missing major concepts. For example, there is no mention of page rank (!) or the receiver operating characteristic in evaluation, or multimedia IR. I agree precision/recall -- ROC -- evaluation might do better in a separate page. 67.101.41.94 (talk) 18:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A very major issue of this article is the fact that the second half of information retrieval is completely ignored: navigation (or browsing). A huge number of IR studies even show that navigation is by far the more important retrieval method. As a hybrid method, faceted search/navigation is also missing. Information retrieval is not the same as search! Novoid (talk) 16:09, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the study of information retrieval (e.g., conferences like the ACM Special Interest Group on Information Retrieval), you'll see that navigation and browsing don't get that much attention. I happen to be passionate about Human–computer information retrieval myself, but I think the content in this entry is fairly representative of the field. There are gaps, but I wouldn't call them huge. Dtunkelang (talk) 13:32, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Break IR down into subfields

One thing I missed when I read this article was that information retrieval was not broken down into smaller subfields. It might be helpful to break this field down when developing the article further.

Nybbles 10:29, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there subfields in IR. They are more likely called tasks. i⋅am⋅amz3 (talk) 01:25, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Glimpse / Webglimpse

They are listed in open-source IR systems but according to their respective websites, their licenses do not seem to be open-source anymore. I don't know if they were open-source or not in the past, so I didn't remove them. Maybe someone with more knowledge on the subject could take care of the issue ? --Lastrainson 09:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New article request

Hi there, I'd like to suggest a new article on the full history of information handling/management/techonology (details). I'm not knowledgeable enough to do it myself, but contributors here probably are. Thanks, JackyR | Talk 18:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Information scent

Also add an article about information scent, as also noted on information foraging. Jidanni (talk) 18:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Term Discrimination

I am going to start a new page on TermDiscrimination. I am a noob, so can some one give me some pointers on how to get this article linked to? Dspattison (talk) 18:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That article is stub. My take on this is to merge FTS, concept search and that article into IR article under a section that would be called "Approaches" i⋅am⋅amz3 (talk) 01:03, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ASIS&T Award of Merit

The ASIS&T Award of Merit, established in 1964 by the Delaware Valley Chapter, is now the Society's highest honor, bestowed annually to an individual who has made a noteworthy contribution to the field of information science, including the expression of new ideas, the creation of new devices, the development of better techniques and outstanding service to the profession of information science. The Award of Merit is sponsored directory by the Society.

Past recipients of the Award of Merit:

2008 Clifford Lynch
2007 Donald H. Kraft
2006 Blaise Cronin, ARIST editor, Indiana University
2005 Marcia Bates
2004 Howard D. White
2003 Nicholas J. Belkin
2002 Karen Sparck Jones
2001 Patrick G. Wilson
2000 Donald R. Swanson
1999 Jose Marie Griffiths
1998 Henry Small
1997 Dagobert Soergel
1996 Jean Tague-Sutcliffe
1995 Tefko Saracevic
1994 Harold Borko
1993 Robert M. Hayes
1992 Robert S. Taylor
1991 Roger K. Summit
1990 P. Atherton Cochrane
1989 Gerard Salton
1988 F. Wilfrid Lancaster
1987 Donald W. King
1986 Bernard M. Fry
1985 Robert L. Chartrand
1984 Joseph D. Becker
1983 Dale B. Baker
1982 Andrew A. Aines
1981 Herbert S. White
1980 Claire K. Schultz
1979 Frederick Kilgour
1978 Calvin N. Mooers
1977 Allen Kent
1976 Laurence Heilprin
1975 Eugene Garfield
1974 Manfred Kochen
1973 Jesse H. Shera
1972 Phyllis Richmond
1971 Jerold Orne
1970 Cyril W. Cleverdon
1968 Carlos A. Cuadra
1967 Robert Fairthorne
1966 Mortimer Taube
1965 Charles P. Bourne
1964 Hans Peter Luhn

Cited by --KYPark (talk) 19:22, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Major figures

My comment

The first two, Bayes and Shannon, were not contributing to information retrieval (hence rather irrelevant) but statistical inference in general.

The next two, Luhn and Salton, were frontal, computational and experimental, helplessly suffering from lack of decent relevant IR theories.

The rest are Cambridge alumni or affiliates. They were especially keen on statistical approaches, which make up a part of what IR is all about as an average science.

The keyword web and the citation web are the two driving wheels of IR, not to mention any information search or research as well as (esp. new) encyclopedism. Hence the pivotal role of hypertext in principle and practice, around which a variety of statistical and computational methods may center. Frankly, the major figures, as biased as above, have little to do with such a central role obvious since late 1970s. --KYPark (talk) 21:21, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question answering

The question answering article begins "In information retrieval, question answering (QA) is the task of automatically answering a question posed in natural language." Yet there is no mention of question answering in this article. pgr94 (talk) 17:49, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that boolean keyword search, Full-text search and Concept search and Question answering are on a continuum that is in the field of IR. This includes technics dialog / exploratory technics explained in Human–computer information retrieval. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamamz3 (talk • contribs) 00:59, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Graphic Help

There's a little mistake in adaptation of Kuropka's categorization. It should be "Binary Independence", instead of "Binary Interdependence". I don't know how to edit this part (I'm pretty new to this and it's a graphic). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.176.147.82 (talk) 02:42, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

I propose that Webometrics be merged into this article, or one of its peers which tackles Web specific information retrieval metrics.

The article seems slim to me. It seems poorly referenced, with many researchers appearing in more than one reference at the same time. Most of the see-also links seem to be supporting the article, rather than leading to more information. The article also appears to link only to the kinds of other articles, which I now gather it should be merged into. Its prime content also has to do with "web impact", which is a form of information retrieval metric; an "impact factor".

As such, please consider Webometrics for merge into this article, and others near it, as the case may be. Decoy (talk) 20:20, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Webometrics is much more related to bibliometrics. Information retrieval is the posh academic term for search engines, webometrics is more about rating an organization based on web link structures pointing to the organization's web site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.161.6.1 (talk) 11:25, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I commented on Talk:Webometrics, certainly Webometrics can be used as a technique in information retrieval, in addition for general research or other purposes. But the content of that article is not suitable for a general overview of information retrieval, especially given that it is specific to the World Wide Web and is at most about one class of techniques. Certainly even if it was mentioned in the main information retrieval article it would also need its own page with a more detailed explanation. I added Webometrics to Category:Information retrieval techniques and removed the merge tag. There are plenty more references which could be used to improve Webometrics as a standalone article. -- Beland (talk) 16:42, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion nomination for Gain (information retrieval)

The article Gain (information retrieval) has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gain (information retrieval). As no one has yet commented on the nomination, I'm posting this message here in hopes of attracting editors familiar with the subject matter. —Psychonaut (talk) 08:47, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Information retrieval. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:50, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Focus is too narrow

I think this aspect could do with more fleshing out, with regard to the processes involved and as subtopic of library or information science. The article seems to be heavily focussed on how and what computers do, rather than the principles and key elements behind making the information retrievable. I'm just going to add a source in Further reading for now, as a starting point for further expansion. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 08:11, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reference Zhu, Mu (2004). "Recall, Precision and Average Precision" outdated

It seemed difficult to find the reference mentioned above (which is unfortunate, as the equation referencing it is in turn referenced by scikit-learn, a commonly used implementation). According to Mr. Zhu,

If you are looking for an early working paper, "Recall, Precision, and Average Precision", cited by an article on "Information Retrieval" from Wikipedia, please refer to and/or cite this published paper instead.

English

Maken an story 70.49.2.81 (talk) 03:44, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge of List of information retrieval libraries into Information retrieval

Would probably be better as a section than as a standalone list. Akaibu (talk) 14:15, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Done. Quarl ^(talk) 18:09, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]