學術產出-學位論文
文章檢視/開啟
書目匯出
-
題名 關鍵字提示功能對使用者搜尋的影響-以Google Autocomplete為例
How Keywords Suggestion Influences Users’ Searching Behavior: Case Studies from Google Autocomplete作者 莊雅茜
Chuang, Ya Chian貢獻者 吳筱玫
莊雅茜
Chuang, Ya Chian關鍵詞 關鍵字
搜尋引擎
框架
框架化
Keywords
Search engine
frame
framing日期 2012 上傳時間 10-二月-2014 14:45:29 (UTC+8) 摘要 本研究目的為從框架理論的觀點,檢視搜尋引擎和 Google Autocomplete 如 何影響使用者搜尋行為和資訊解讀方式。本研究採用名人和娛樂作為搜尋主題, 透過實驗法的精神實際觀察法,以及觀察之後的半結構式訪談,記錄十三位使 用者的搜尋歷程和行為背後的思考方式。在此架構下,本研究共有三項主要發現。首先是使用者有偏差的搜尋行為, 包括使用單一搜尋引擎、類似的搜尋關鍵字,以及瀏覽前兩頁且排序較前的搜 尋結果,其中又以維基百科最為使用者信任。再者是 Google Autocomplete 使用情況,本研究使用者對於 Google Autocomplete 功能並不陌生,一般在(1)關鍵字提示符合(或相似)個人的關 鍵字、(2)關鍵字提示特殊、(3)不知道該輸入什麼關鍵字,以及(4)關鍵 字提示比個人的關鍵字更為精準的情況下,使用關鍵字建議。最後是 Google Autocomplete 如何影響使用者搜尋行為和解讀。本研究大部 份的使用者依其原本的使用者框架,有一套既有的搜尋行為和關鍵字聯想方式, 不過在瀏覽 Google Autocomplete 提供的關鍵字建議清單後,會改變原先預設的 搜尋關鍵字,對於關鍵字的回憶,也多來自關鍵字建議清單中的選項;此外, 本研究使用者會推論關鍵字之間的連結性,如將「李安 基督教」定義為一資訊 陳述的方式,甚至進一步形成李安信仰基督教的推論結果。
The purpose of this paper is to examine how search engine and its Google Autocomplete influence online users’ searching behavior and information interpretation from frame theory perspective. This paper focuses on celebrity and entertainment-related information as research topic and conducts quasi-experiment observation and semi-structured interview. Thirteen participants were given two tasks each, and both quantitative and qualitative data was collected.The results present three main findings. First, search bias indeed exists in user’ searching processes. Users prefer using not more than two search engines, using similar keywords, opening those Web pages in the preceding rank and Wikipedia when assessing the relevance of Web pages for information-seeking tasks.Moreover, users are familiar with Google Autocomplete and usually adopt these keywords suggestions provided by Google Autocomplete when (1) these keywords meet their searching needs, (2) these keywords are special enough for them to check out, (3) they have no idea what keywords to enter themselves, and (4) these keywords are better than what they originally have.Last but not least, most of the users have their own searching strategies according to their frame towards a certain issue. However, after the exposure to the keywords suggestions, they are not only keen to change their keywords by adopting these suggestions but also associate two keywords listed in the same row and give them an specific interpretation in their own way.參考文獻 中文部分:卜小蝶(2000a)。臺灣網路使用者檢索行為探析。大學圖書館,4(2),23-37。卜小蝶(2000b)。臺灣網路使用者檢索詞彙分析研究。國家圖書館館刊,1, 25-34。卜小蝶(2006)。淺談社會性標記之意涵與應用。王梅玲(主持人),Web 2.0 與圖書館學術研討會,台北縣。卜小蝶(2007)。Folksonomy 的發展與應用。 國立成功大學圖書館館刊,16, 1-7。方振武(2010)。對外傳播中的搜尋引擎:試論搜尋引擎如何在對外傳播當中 引導國際話語權。中國傳播海外報告,6(3)。 http://wendang.baidu.com/view/f00bb005e87101f69e319555.html王立君(2011)。城市事件行銷的框架:以高雄市世界運動會為例。國立中山大學傳播管理研究所碩士論文,高雄市。李慧馨(1988)。框架害怕犯罪。藝術學報,63:175-196。吳筱玫(2009)。俗民分類與知識型:Tag 的資訊秩序。中華傳播學刊,15,3- 31。吳筱玫、周芷伊(2009)。Tagging 的分類與知識意涵:以 flickr 首頁圖片為例。 新聞學研究,99,265-305。阮明淑、謝至豪(2008)。中文維基百科編輯者系統接受度之研究。圖書資訊 學刊,3(1),103-139。林珊如(2002)。網路使用者特性與資訊行為研究趨勢之探討。圖書資訊學刊, 17,35-47。林常富(2010)。電視新聞框架研究—以電視新聞報導集會遊行事件為例。國 立政治大學新聞研究所碩士論文,台北市。梅田望夫(2007)。網路巨變元年:你必須參與的大未來。(蔡昭儀譯)。臺 北市:先覺。(原著出版年:2006 年)。陳世華(2009)。搜尋引擎偏見:合理性與不合理性:從百度競價排名風波說 起。科學與管理,4,59-65。陳芸芸、劉慧雯譯(2010)。McQuail’s 大眾傳播理論。台北市:韋伯。(原 書 McQuail, D. [2000]. McQuail`s Mass Communication Theory. Berkeley, CA: SAGE.)張俊林(2012)。搜尋引擎的核心秘密。新北市:博碩。黃美惠(2001)。媒介建構之女性參政框架:以副總統呂秀蓮的新聞報導為例。 私立淡江大學大眾傳播學系研究所碩士論文,台北市。楊意菁(1998)。新科技、新滿足?網際網路媒體使用與滿足研究。1998 年中 華傳播學會年會論文。臧國仁(1998)。新聞報導與真實建構:新聞框架理論的觀點。傳播研究集刊, 3,1-102。臧國仁、鍾蔚文(1997)。框架概念與公共關係策略:有關運用媒介框架的探 析。廣告學研究,9,99-130。臧國仁(1999)。新聞媒體與消息來源:媒介框架與真實建構之論述。台北: 三民。劉念夏(2002 )。民意調查與民意產製:一個框架理論的觀點。新聞學研究, 72,173-205。謝琳(2012)。框中的世界:一種框架理論的視角--基於百度、谷歌、人民搜索 結果的用戶體驗與內容研究。中國清華大學新聞與傳播學院碩士論文,中 國北京。羅世宏(1994)。後蔣經國時代的國家、主流報業與反對運動:國家認同議題 的媒介框架分析。國立政治大學新聞研究所碩士論文,台北市。創市際市場研究顧問(2011)。2011.09 創市際月刊報告書。http://news.ixresearch.com/?p=4655。創市際市場研究顧問(2010)。2010.04 創市際月刊報告書。http://www.scribd.com/doc/32111336/%E5%89%B5%E5%B8%82%E9%9A%9B%E 6%9C%88%E5%88%8A%E5%A0%B1%E5%91%8A%E6%9B%B8-201004。創市際(2007.04.04)。八成四網友網上蒐資訊 首選工具網路搜尋引 擎。http://www.insightxplorer.com/news/news_04_04_07.html。創市際(2008.07.04)。台灣網友搜尋引擎使用情形。http://blog.insightxplorer.com/2008/07/04/%E5%8F%B0%E7%81%A3%E7%B6%B2 %E5%8F%8B%E6%90%9C%E5%B0%8B%E5%BC%95%E6%93%8E%E4%BD%B F%E7%94%A8%E6%83%85%E5%BD%A2/。創市際(2010.06.07)。ARO 觀察:搜尋引擎使用狀況。 http://news.ixresearch.com/?p=1789。熱門關鍵字 Taiwanese girls are easy 台灣女生很好把?【綜合報導】 (2010.07.08)。Nownews 今日新聞。http://www.nownews.com/2010/07/08/91- 2623545.htm。英文部分:Al-Qudah, Z., Halloush, M., Alzoubi, H. R., & Al-kofahi, O. (2012). On the Network Characteristics of the Google’s Suggest Service. Journal of Emerging Technologies in Web Intelligence, 4(3), 278-284.Barzilai-Nahon, K. (2008). Toward a Theory of Network Gatekeeping: A Framework for Exploring Information Control. The American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(9), 1493-1512.Bateson, G. (1955). A Theory of Play and Fantasy. Steps to an Ecology of Mind (pp.177-193). New York: Ballantine.Chau, M., Fang, X., & Christopher C. Yang, C. C. (2007). Web Searching in Chinese: A Study of a Search Engine in Hong Kong. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(7): 1044–1054.Cirasella, J. (2008). Google Sets, Google Suggest, and Google Search History: Three More Tools for the Reference Librarian`s Bag of Tricks. The Reference Librarian, 48(1), 57-65.Cole, J. I., Suman, M., Schramm, P., Lunn, R., & Aquino, J. S. (2003). The Ucla Internet Report Surveying The Digital Future Year Three [website]. UCLA Center for Communication Policy. From the World Wide Web: http://www.ccp.ucla.edu/pdf/UCLA-Internet-Report-Year-Three.pdf.Edwina, B. (2012). How Google is Narrowing Our Minds. Eureka Street, 22(5), 38.Entman, R. M. (1991). Framing U.S. Coverage of International News: Contrasts in Narratives of the KAL and Iran Air Incidents. Journal of Communication, 41(4), 6-27.Entman, R. M. (1993). Framing Towards Classification of Fractured Paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43(4), 51-58.Fallows, D. (2005). Search Engine Users: Internet Searchers Are Confident, Satisfied and Trusting – But They Are Also Unaware and Naïve. Report for the Pew Internet and American Life Project. Available From World Wide Web: http://www.pewinternet.org/PPF/r/146/report_display.asp.Goffman, E. (1972). Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. New York, NY et al.: Harper & Row.Gamson, W. A., & Modigliani, A. (1987). The Changing Culture of Affirmative Action. Research in Political Society, 3, 137-177.Gamson, W. A. (1989). News as Framing: Comments on Graber. American Behavioral Scientist, 33, 157–166.Gamson, W. A., Croteau D., Hoynes W., & Sasson T. (1992). Media Images and the Social Construction of Reality. Annual Review of Sociology, 18, 373-393.Gerhards, J., & D. Rucht. (1992). Mesomobilization: Organizing and Framing in Two Protest Campaigns in West Germany. The American Journal of Sociology, 98(3), 555-596.Giltin, T. (1980). The Whole World is Watching. Berkeley, CA: The University Of California Press.Goldman, E. (2006). Search Engine Bias and the Demise of Search Engine Utopianism. Web Search, Information Science and Knowledge Management, 14, 121-133.Gordon, M. & Pathak, P. (1999). Finding Information on the World Wide Web: The Retrieval Effectiveness of Search Engines. Information Processing and Management, 35, 141-180.Hanson, F. A. (2005). From Classification to Indexing: How Automation Transforms the Way We Think. Social Epistemology, 18(4), 333-356.Hargittai, E. (2000). Open Portals or Closed Gates? Channeling Content on the World Wide Web. Poetics (Journal of Empirical Research on Culture, the Media and the Arts), 27(4), 233-254.Hargittai E., Fullerton L., Menchen-Trevino E., & Thomas K. Y. (2010). Trust Online: Young Adults` Evaluation of Web Content. International Journal of Communication (IJOC), 4, 468-494.Hindman, M., Tsioutsiouliklis, K., & Johnson J.A. (2003). Googlearchy: How a Few Heavily Linked Sites Dominate Politics on the Web. Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science. Available from World Wide Web: http://www.princeton.edu /~mhindman/googlearchy --hindman.pdf.Hoecker, R., & Hargittai, E. (2012). Snap Judgments: How Students Search the Web for Their Rights to Photograph in Public. The Communication Review, 15(4), 253-273.Höchstötter, N. & Lewandowski, D. (2009). What Users See – Structures in Search Engine Results Pages. Journal of Information Science: An International Journal Archive, 179(12), 1796-1812.Introna, L., D. & Nissenbaum, H. (2000). Shaping the Web: Why the Politics of Search Engines Matters. Journal of Information Society, 16(3), 169-185.Jansen, B.J., & Spink, A. (2003). An Analysis of Web Information Seeking and Use: Documents Retrieved Versus Documents Viewed. Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Internet Computing, 65–69.Jeong, Y. & Mahmood, R. (2006). How Different are Your Search Terms from Mine? Political, Socio-Economic, and Cultural Approaches to Understanding World Wide Internet Search Queries. International Communication Association (ICA), Dresden, Germany.Keane, M. T., O`Brien, M., & Smyth B. (2008). Are People Biased in Their Use of Search Engines? Communications of The ACM, 51(2), 49-52.Lackaff, D., & Cheong, P. (2008). On Whose Authority: Examining Internet Credibility Assessments Among College Students. Conference Papers -- International Communication Association, 1-33. Retrieved from Communication & Mass Media Complete DatabaseLiang, X., Ladwig, Scheufele, D. A., Brossard, D., & Xenos, M. A. (2011). Issue Faming Oline: A Content Analysis Of Google’s Results Page. International Communication Association, 2011 Annual Meeting: 1-25.Marchionini, G. (1997). Information Seeking in Electronic Environments. Cambridge University Press.Mike Sachoff (2008.09.02). Internet Addiction in the UK Leads to “Discomgooglation”. WebProNews. Available: http://www.webpronews.com/internet-addiction-in-the-uk-leads-to- discomgooglation-2008-09Morris, M. R., Teevan, J., & Panovich, K. (2010). A Comparison of Information Seeking Using Search Engines and Social Networks. In Proceedings of 4th International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media, 291-294.Pan, Z., & Kosicki, G. M. (1993). Framing Analysis: An Approach to News Discourse. Political Communication, 10, 55-75.Pew Internet & American life project. (2012). Search Engine Use 2012. Available:http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2012/Search-Engine-Use-2012/Summary- of-findings/Search-engines.aspxPrice, V., Tewksbury, D., & Power, E. (1997). Switching Trains of Thought: The Impact of News Frames on Redears’ Cognitive Resposes. Communication Research, 24, 481-506.Pu, H.T., Chuang, S.-L., & Yang, C. (2002). Subject Categorization of Query Terms for Exploring Web Users’ Search Interests. Journal of The American Society for Information Science and Technology, 53(8), 617–630.Purcell, K., Brenner, J., & Rainie, L. (2012). Search Engine Use 2012. Report for the Pew Internet and American Life Project. Available from World Wide Web: http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2012/Search-Engine-Use-2012.aspxRice, R. E. (1999). Artifacts and Paradoxes in New Media, New Media and Society, 1(1), 24-32.Scheufele, DA. (1999). Framing as a Theory of Media Effect. Journal of Communication, 49(1): 103-122.Segev, E., & Ahituv, N. (2010). Popular Searches in Google and Yahoo!: A “Digital Dvide” in Information Uses?. The Information Society, 26(1), 17-37.Spink, A., Bateman, J., & Jansen, B. J. (1999). Searching the Web: A Survey of EXCITE Users. Internet Research, 9(2), 117-28.Spink A., Jansen B. J., & Saracevic T. (2000). Real Life, Real Users, and Real Needs: A Study and Analysis of User Queries on the Web. Information Processing and Management: An International Journal, 36(2), 107-227.Spink, A., Jansen, B. J., Wolfram, D., & Saracevic, T. (2002). From E-Sex to E- Commerce: Web Search Changes. Journal of computer, 35(3), 107-109.Spink, A., Jansen, B. J., & Pedersen, J. (2004). An Analysis of Multimedia Searching on AltaVista. Proceedings of the 5th ACM SIGMM International Workshop on Multimedia Information Retreval, 186-192.Spink, A., & Jansen, B. J. (2005). How are We Searching the World Wide Web? A Comparison of Nine Search Engine Transaction Logs. Information Processing and Management: An International Journal - Special Issue: Formal Methods for Information Retrieval, 42(1), 248-263.Tankard, J. W. (2001). The Empirical Approach to the Study of Media Framing. Framing Public Life, 95-106.Trant, J. (2009). Studying Social Tagging and Folksonomy: A Review and Framework. Journal of Digital Information, 10(1).Tuchman, G. (1978). Making New: A Study in the Construction of Reality. New York: Free Press.Vaidhyanathan, S. (2011). The Googlization of Everything: (And Why We Should Worry), University of California Press, Berkeley/Los Angeles.Vlieqenthart, R., & Zoonen, L. Van (2011). Power to the Frame: Bringing Sociology Back to Frame Analysis. European Journal of Communication, 26(2), 101-115.Weinberger, D. (2005). Why Tagging Matters. Berkman Center for Internet & Society. Available: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/home/uploads/507/07- WhyTaggingMatters.pdfWexler, M. (2005). I Still Hate Tagging. Available:http://www.nettakeaway.com/tp/index.php?id=155Wirth, W., Bocking, T., Karnowski, V., & von Pape, T. (2007). Heuristic and Systematic Use of Search Engines. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12(3).comScore (2012.07.11). June 2012 U.S. Search Engine Rankings. Available:http://www.comscore.com/Insights/Press_Releases/2012/6/comScore_Releases_J une_2012_U.S._Search_Engine_RankingscomScore (2013.02.14). 2013 U.S. Digital Future in Focus Report. Available: http://www.comscore.com/Insights/Blog/2013_Digital_Future_in_Focus_SeriesGoogle Ordered to Change Autocomplete Function in Japan. (2012.03.06). BBC News. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-17510651Google Sued Over Bettina Wulff Search Results. (2012.09.10). BBC News. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-19542938Google Loses Autocomplete Defamation Case in Italy. (2011.04.05). ZDnet. http://www.zdnet.com/google-loses-autocomplete-defamation-case-in-italy-3040092392/Google `Scam` Suggestion Bondemned by High Court. (2010.01.06). Bigmouthmedia. http://www.bigmouthmedia.com/live/articles/google-scam-suggestion- condemned-by-high-court.asp/6680/Google à Nouveau Condamné Pour Une Suggestion de Recherche Diffamante. (2010.01.07). 01net. http://www.01net.com/editorial/510429/google-a-nouveau- condamne-pour-une-suggestion-de-recherche-diffamante/Hotel Sues Google Over Autocomplete Suggestion in Search. (2011.06.06). Tnooz. http://www.tnooz.com/2011/06/16/news/hotel-sues-google-over-autocomplete- suggestion-in-search/Two Separate Rulings in France Split Over Whether Google`s Suggestion Algorithm Can Be Libelous. (2009.07.24). Techdirt. http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090724/0407145647.shtmlAutocomplete the Candidates(2010.09.30). The New York Times. http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/30/autocomplete-the-candidates/ 描述 碩士
國立政治大學
新聞研究所
100451003
101資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0100451003 資料類型 thesis dc.contributor.advisor 吳筱玫 zh_TW dc.contributor.author (作者) 莊雅茜 zh_TW dc.contributor.author (作者) Chuang, Ya Chian en_US dc.creator (作者) 莊雅茜 zh_TW dc.creator (作者) Chuang, Ya Chian en_US dc.date (日期) 2012 en_US dc.date.accessioned 10-二月-2014 14:45:29 (UTC+8) - dc.date.available 10-二月-2014 14:45:29 (UTC+8) - dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 10-二月-2014 14:45:29 (UTC+8) - dc.identifier (其他 識別碼) G0100451003 en_US dc.identifier.uri (URI) http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/63631 - dc.description (描述) 碩士 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 國立政治大學 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 新聞研究所 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 100451003 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 101 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) 本研究目的為從框架理論的觀點,檢視搜尋引擎和 Google Autocomplete 如 何影響使用者搜尋行為和資訊解讀方式。本研究採用名人和娛樂作為搜尋主題, 透過實驗法的精神實際觀察法,以及觀察之後的半結構式訪談,記錄十三位使 用者的搜尋歷程和行為背後的思考方式。在此架構下,本研究共有三項主要發現。首先是使用者有偏差的搜尋行為, 包括使用單一搜尋引擎、類似的搜尋關鍵字,以及瀏覽前兩頁且排序較前的搜 尋結果,其中又以維基百科最為使用者信任。再者是 Google Autocomplete 使用情況,本研究使用者對於 Google Autocomplete 功能並不陌生,一般在(1)關鍵字提示符合(或相似)個人的關 鍵字、(2)關鍵字提示特殊、(3)不知道該輸入什麼關鍵字,以及(4)關鍵 字提示比個人的關鍵字更為精準的情況下,使用關鍵字建議。最後是 Google Autocomplete 如何影響使用者搜尋行為和解讀。本研究大部 份的使用者依其原本的使用者框架,有一套既有的搜尋行為和關鍵字聯想方式, 不過在瀏覽 Google Autocomplete 提供的關鍵字建議清單後,會改變原先預設的 搜尋關鍵字,對於關鍵字的回憶,也多來自關鍵字建議清單中的選項;此外, 本研究使用者會推論關鍵字之間的連結性,如將「李安 基督教」定義為一資訊 陳述的方式,甚至進一步形成李安信仰基督教的推論結果。 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) The purpose of this paper is to examine how search engine and its Google Autocomplete influence online users’ searching behavior and information interpretation from frame theory perspective. This paper focuses on celebrity and entertainment-related information as research topic and conducts quasi-experiment observation and semi-structured interview. Thirteen participants were given two tasks each, and both quantitative and qualitative data was collected.The results present three main findings. First, search bias indeed exists in user’ searching processes. Users prefer using not more than two search engines, using similar keywords, opening those Web pages in the preceding rank and Wikipedia when assessing the relevance of Web pages for information-seeking tasks.Moreover, users are familiar with Google Autocomplete and usually adopt these keywords suggestions provided by Google Autocomplete when (1) these keywords meet their searching needs, (2) these keywords are special enough for them to check out, (3) they have no idea what keywords to enter themselves, and (4) these keywords are better than what they originally have.Last but not least, most of the users have their own searching strategies according to their frame towards a certain issue. However, after the exposure to the keywords suggestions, they are not only keen to change their keywords by adopting these suggestions but also associate two keywords listed in the same row and give them an specific interpretation in their own way. en_US dc.description.tableofcontents 第一章 緒論....................................................................1第一節 研究背景與動機....................................................1 第二節 搜尋引擎與 Google Autocomplete 介紹.................3第三節 研究目的 .............................................................9第二章 文獻與理論探討....................................................11第一節 網路使用者搜尋行為..............................................11第二節 框架理論與搜尋引擎..............................................18第三節 理解資訊的轉向:從資訊檢索到關鍵字分類.................25第四節 Google Autocomplete 相關研究和爭議..................29第五節 研究問題..............................................................32 第三章 研究方法與設計....................................................34第一節 研究方法..............................................................34第二節 研究架構..............................................................36 第三節 研究設計..............................................................38 第四章 研究發現..............................................................45 第一節 搜尋行為與搜尋偏差..............................................45第二節 Google Autocomplete 使用習慣與目的..................58第三節 Google Autocomplete 的介入與影響.....................60 第五章 結論與建議..........................................................71 第一節 研究結果概要.......................................................71 第二節 與框架對話..........................................................73 第三節 延伸討論.............................................................75 第四節 研究限制與建議....................................................77 參考文獻........................................................................80 zh_TW dc.format.extent 3162909 bytes - dc.format.mimetype application/pdf - dc.language.iso en_US - dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0100451003 en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) 關鍵字 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 搜尋引擎 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 框架 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 框架化 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) Keywords en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Search engine en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) frame en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) framing en_US dc.title (題名) 關鍵字提示功能對使用者搜尋的影響-以Google Autocomplete為例 zh_TW dc.title (題名) How Keywords Suggestion Influences Users’ Searching Behavior: Case Studies from Google Autocomplete en_US dc.type (資料類型) thesis en dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 中文部分:卜小蝶(2000a)。臺灣網路使用者檢索行為探析。大學圖書館,4(2),23-37。卜小蝶(2000b)。臺灣網路使用者檢索詞彙分析研究。國家圖書館館刊,1, 25-34。卜小蝶(2006)。淺談社會性標記之意涵與應用。王梅玲(主持人),Web 2.0 與圖書館學術研討會,台北縣。卜小蝶(2007)。Folksonomy 的發展與應用。 國立成功大學圖書館館刊,16, 1-7。方振武(2010)。對外傳播中的搜尋引擎:試論搜尋引擎如何在對外傳播當中 引導國際話語權。中國傳播海外報告,6(3)。 http://wendang.baidu.com/view/f00bb005e87101f69e319555.html王立君(2011)。城市事件行銷的框架:以高雄市世界運動會為例。國立中山大學傳播管理研究所碩士論文,高雄市。李慧馨(1988)。框架害怕犯罪。藝術學報,63:175-196。吳筱玫(2009)。俗民分類與知識型:Tag 的資訊秩序。中華傳播學刊,15,3- 31。吳筱玫、周芷伊(2009)。Tagging 的分類與知識意涵:以 flickr 首頁圖片為例。 新聞學研究,99,265-305。阮明淑、謝至豪(2008)。中文維基百科編輯者系統接受度之研究。圖書資訊 學刊,3(1),103-139。林珊如(2002)。網路使用者特性與資訊行為研究趨勢之探討。圖書資訊學刊, 17,35-47。林常富(2010)。電視新聞框架研究—以電視新聞報導集會遊行事件為例。國 立政治大學新聞研究所碩士論文,台北市。梅田望夫(2007)。網路巨變元年:你必須參與的大未來。(蔡昭儀譯)。臺 北市:先覺。(原著出版年:2006 年)。陳世華(2009)。搜尋引擎偏見:合理性與不合理性:從百度競價排名風波說 起。科學與管理,4,59-65。陳芸芸、劉慧雯譯(2010)。McQuail’s 大眾傳播理論。台北市:韋伯。(原 書 McQuail, D. [2000]. McQuail`s Mass Communication Theory. Berkeley, CA: SAGE.)張俊林(2012)。搜尋引擎的核心秘密。新北市:博碩。黃美惠(2001)。媒介建構之女性參政框架:以副總統呂秀蓮的新聞報導為例。 私立淡江大學大眾傳播學系研究所碩士論文,台北市。楊意菁(1998)。新科技、新滿足?網際網路媒體使用與滿足研究。1998 年中 華傳播學會年會論文。臧國仁(1998)。新聞報導與真實建構:新聞框架理論的觀點。傳播研究集刊, 3,1-102。臧國仁、鍾蔚文(1997)。框架概念與公共關係策略:有關運用媒介框架的探 析。廣告學研究,9,99-130。臧國仁(1999)。新聞媒體與消息來源:媒介框架與真實建構之論述。台北: 三民。劉念夏(2002 )。民意調查與民意產製:一個框架理論的觀點。新聞學研究, 72,173-205。謝琳(2012)。框中的世界:一種框架理論的視角--基於百度、谷歌、人民搜索 結果的用戶體驗與內容研究。中國清華大學新聞與傳播學院碩士論文,中 國北京。羅世宏(1994)。後蔣經國時代的國家、主流報業與反對運動:國家認同議題 的媒介框架分析。國立政治大學新聞研究所碩士論文,台北市。創市際市場研究顧問(2011)。2011.09 創市際月刊報告書。http://news.ixresearch.com/?p=4655。創市際市場研究顧問(2010)。2010.04 創市際月刊報告書。http://www.scribd.com/doc/32111336/%E5%89%B5%E5%B8%82%E9%9A%9B%E 6%9C%88%E5%88%8A%E5%A0%B1%E5%91%8A%E6%9B%B8-201004。創市際(2007.04.04)。八成四網友網上蒐資訊 首選工具網路搜尋引 擎。http://www.insightxplorer.com/news/news_04_04_07.html。創市際(2008.07.04)。台灣網友搜尋引擎使用情形。http://blog.insightxplorer.com/2008/07/04/%E5%8F%B0%E7%81%A3%E7%B6%B2 %E5%8F%8B%E6%90%9C%E5%B0%8B%E5%BC%95%E6%93%8E%E4%BD%B F%E7%94%A8%E6%83%85%E5%BD%A2/。創市際(2010.06.07)。ARO 觀察:搜尋引擎使用狀況。 http://news.ixresearch.com/?p=1789。熱門關鍵字 Taiwanese girls are easy 台灣女生很好把?【綜合報導】 (2010.07.08)。Nownews 今日新聞。http://www.nownews.com/2010/07/08/91- 2623545.htm。英文部分:Al-Qudah, Z., Halloush, M., Alzoubi, H. R., & Al-kofahi, O. (2012). On the Network Characteristics of the Google’s Suggest Service. Journal of Emerging Technologies in Web Intelligence, 4(3), 278-284.Barzilai-Nahon, K. (2008). Toward a Theory of Network Gatekeeping: A Framework for Exploring Information Control. The American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(9), 1493-1512.Bateson, G. (1955). A Theory of Play and Fantasy. Steps to an Ecology of Mind (pp.177-193). New York: Ballantine.Chau, M., Fang, X., & Christopher C. Yang, C. C. (2007). Web Searching in Chinese: A Study of a Search Engine in Hong Kong. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(7): 1044–1054.Cirasella, J. (2008). Google Sets, Google Suggest, and Google Search History: Three More Tools for the Reference Librarian`s Bag of Tricks. The Reference Librarian, 48(1), 57-65.Cole, J. I., Suman, M., Schramm, P., Lunn, R., & Aquino, J. S. (2003). The Ucla Internet Report Surveying The Digital Future Year Three [website]. UCLA Center for Communication Policy. From the World Wide Web: http://www.ccp.ucla.edu/pdf/UCLA-Internet-Report-Year-Three.pdf.Edwina, B. (2012). How Google is Narrowing Our Minds. Eureka Street, 22(5), 38.Entman, R. M. (1991). Framing U.S. Coverage of International News: Contrasts in Narratives of the KAL and Iran Air Incidents. Journal of Communication, 41(4), 6-27.Entman, R. M. (1993). Framing Towards Classification of Fractured Paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43(4), 51-58.Fallows, D. (2005). Search Engine Users: Internet Searchers Are Confident, Satisfied and Trusting – But They Are Also Unaware and Naïve. Report for the Pew Internet and American Life Project. Available From World Wide Web: http://www.pewinternet.org/PPF/r/146/report_display.asp.Goffman, E. (1972). Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. New York, NY et al.: Harper & Row.Gamson, W. A., & Modigliani, A. (1987). The Changing Culture of Affirmative Action. Research in Political Society, 3, 137-177.Gamson, W. A. (1989). News as Framing: Comments on Graber. American Behavioral Scientist, 33, 157–166.Gamson, W. A., Croteau D., Hoynes W., & Sasson T. (1992). Media Images and the Social Construction of Reality. Annual Review of Sociology, 18, 373-393.Gerhards, J., & D. Rucht. (1992). Mesomobilization: Organizing and Framing in Two Protest Campaigns in West Germany. The American Journal of Sociology, 98(3), 555-596.Giltin, T. (1980). The Whole World is Watching. Berkeley, CA: The University Of California Press.Goldman, E. (2006). Search Engine Bias and the Demise of Search Engine Utopianism. Web Search, Information Science and Knowledge Management, 14, 121-133.Gordon, M. & Pathak, P. (1999). Finding Information on the World Wide Web: The Retrieval Effectiveness of Search Engines. Information Processing and Management, 35, 141-180.Hanson, F. A. (2005). From Classification to Indexing: How Automation Transforms the Way We Think. Social Epistemology, 18(4), 333-356.Hargittai, E. (2000). Open Portals or Closed Gates? Channeling Content on the World Wide Web. Poetics (Journal of Empirical Research on Culture, the Media and the Arts), 27(4), 233-254.Hargittai E., Fullerton L., Menchen-Trevino E., & Thomas K. Y. (2010). Trust Online: Young Adults` Evaluation of Web Content. International Journal of Communication (IJOC), 4, 468-494.Hindman, M., Tsioutsiouliklis, K., & Johnson J.A. (2003). Googlearchy: How a Few Heavily Linked Sites Dominate Politics on the Web. Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science. Available from World Wide Web: http://www.princeton.edu /~mhindman/googlearchy --hindman.pdf.Hoecker, R., & Hargittai, E. (2012). Snap Judgments: How Students Search the Web for Their Rights to Photograph in Public. The Communication Review, 15(4), 253-273.Höchstötter, N. & Lewandowski, D. (2009). What Users See – Structures in Search Engine Results Pages. Journal of Information Science: An International Journal Archive, 179(12), 1796-1812.Introna, L., D. & Nissenbaum, H. (2000). Shaping the Web: Why the Politics of Search Engines Matters. Journal of Information Society, 16(3), 169-185.Jansen, B.J., & Spink, A. (2003). An Analysis of Web Information Seeking and Use: Documents Retrieved Versus Documents Viewed. Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Internet Computing, 65–69.Jeong, Y. & Mahmood, R. (2006). How Different are Your Search Terms from Mine? Political, Socio-Economic, and Cultural Approaches to Understanding World Wide Internet Search Queries. International Communication Association (ICA), Dresden, Germany.Keane, M. T., O`Brien, M., & Smyth B. (2008). Are People Biased in Their Use of Search Engines? Communications of The ACM, 51(2), 49-52.Lackaff, D., & Cheong, P. (2008). On Whose Authority: Examining Internet Credibility Assessments Among College Students. Conference Papers -- International Communication Association, 1-33. Retrieved from Communication & Mass Media Complete DatabaseLiang, X., Ladwig, Scheufele, D. A., Brossard, D., & Xenos, M. A. (2011). Issue Faming Oline: A Content Analysis Of Google’s Results Page. International Communication Association, 2011 Annual Meeting: 1-25.Marchionini, G. (1997). Information Seeking in Electronic Environments. Cambridge University Press.Mike Sachoff (2008.09.02). Internet Addiction in the UK Leads to “Discomgooglation”. WebProNews. Available: http://www.webpronews.com/internet-addiction-in-the-uk-leads-to- discomgooglation-2008-09Morris, M. R., Teevan, J., & Panovich, K. (2010). A Comparison of Information Seeking Using Search Engines and Social Networks. In Proceedings of 4th International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media, 291-294.Pan, Z., & Kosicki, G. M. (1993). Framing Analysis: An Approach to News Discourse. Political Communication, 10, 55-75.Pew Internet & American life project. (2012). Search Engine Use 2012. Available:http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2012/Search-Engine-Use-2012/Summary- of-findings/Search-engines.aspxPrice, V., Tewksbury, D., & Power, E. (1997). Switching Trains of Thought: The Impact of News Frames on Redears’ Cognitive Resposes. Communication Research, 24, 481-506.Pu, H.T., Chuang, S.-L., & Yang, C. (2002). Subject Categorization of Query Terms for Exploring Web Users’ Search Interests. Journal of The American Society for Information Science and Technology, 53(8), 617–630.Purcell, K., Brenner, J., & Rainie, L. (2012). Search Engine Use 2012. Report for the Pew Internet and American Life Project. Available from World Wide Web: http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2012/Search-Engine-Use-2012.aspxRice, R. E. (1999). Artifacts and Paradoxes in New Media, New Media and Society, 1(1), 24-32.Scheufele, DA. (1999). Framing as a Theory of Media Effect. Journal of Communication, 49(1): 103-122.Segev, E., & Ahituv, N. (2010). Popular Searches in Google and Yahoo!: A “Digital Dvide” in Information Uses?. The Information Society, 26(1), 17-37.Spink, A., Bateman, J., & Jansen, B. J. (1999). Searching the Web: A Survey of EXCITE Users. Internet Research, 9(2), 117-28.Spink A., Jansen B. J., & Saracevic T. (2000). Real Life, Real Users, and Real Needs: A Study and Analysis of User Queries on the Web. Information Processing and Management: An International Journal, 36(2), 107-227.Spink, A., Jansen, B. J., Wolfram, D., & Saracevic, T. (2002). From E-Sex to E- Commerce: Web Search Changes. Journal of computer, 35(3), 107-109.Spink, A., Jansen, B. J., & Pedersen, J. (2004). An Analysis of Multimedia Searching on AltaVista. Proceedings of the 5th ACM SIGMM International Workshop on Multimedia Information Retreval, 186-192.Spink, A., & Jansen, B. J. (2005). How are We Searching the World Wide Web? A Comparison of Nine Search Engine Transaction Logs. Information Processing and Management: An International Journal - Special Issue: Formal Methods for Information Retrieval, 42(1), 248-263.Tankard, J. W. (2001). The Empirical Approach to the Study of Media Framing. Framing Public Life, 95-106.Trant, J. (2009). Studying Social Tagging and Folksonomy: A Review and Framework. Journal of Digital Information, 10(1).Tuchman, G. (1978). Making New: A Study in the Construction of Reality. New York: Free Press.Vaidhyanathan, S. (2011). The Googlization of Everything: (And Why We Should Worry), University of California Press, Berkeley/Los Angeles.Vlieqenthart, R., & Zoonen, L. Van (2011). Power to the Frame: Bringing Sociology Back to Frame Analysis. European Journal of Communication, 26(2), 101-115.Weinberger, D. (2005). Why Tagging Matters. Berkman Center for Internet & Society. Available: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/home/uploads/507/07- WhyTaggingMatters.pdfWexler, M. (2005). I Still Hate Tagging. Available:http://www.nettakeaway.com/tp/index.php?id=155Wirth, W., Bocking, T., Karnowski, V., & von Pape, T. (2007). Heuristic and Systematic Use of Search Engines. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12(3).comScore (2012.07.11). June 2012 U.S. Search Engine Rankings. Available:http://www.comscore.com/Insights/Press_Releases/2012/6/comScore_Releases_J une_2012_U.S._Search_Engine_RankingscomScore (2013.02.14). 2013 U.S. Digital Future in Focus Report. Available: http://www.comscore.com/Insights/Blog/2013_Digital_Future_in_Focus_SeriesGoogle Ordered to Change Autocomplete Function in Japan. (2012.03.06). BBC News. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-17510651Google Sued Over Bettina Wulff Search Results. (2012.09.10). BBC News. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-19542938Google Loses Autocomplete Defamation Case in Italy. (2011.04.05). ZDnet. http://www.zdnet.com/google-loses-autocomplete-defamation-case-in-italy-3040092392/Google `Scam` Suggestion Bondemned by High Court. (2010.01.06). Bigmouthmedia. http://www.bigmouthmedia.com/live/articles/google-scam-suggestion- condemned-by-high-court.asp/6680/Google à Nouveau Condamné Pour Une Suggestion de Recherche Diffamante. (2010.01.07). 01net. http://www.01net.com/editorial/510429/google-a-nouveau- condamne-pour-une-suggestion-de-recherche-diffamante/Hotel Sues Google Over Autocomplete Suggestion in Search. (2011.06.06). Tnooz. http://www.tnooz.com/2011/06/16/news/hotel-sues-google-over-autocomplete- suggestion-in-search/Two Separate Rulings in France Split Over Whether Google`s Suggestion Algorithm Can Be Libelous. (2009.07.24). Techdirt. http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090724/0407145647.shtmlAutocomplete the Candidates(2010.09.30). The New York Times. http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/30/autocomplete-the-candidates/ zh_TW
