The purpose of this paper is to present a review on the use of the recall metric for evaluating information retrieval systems, especially search engines.,This paper investigates different researchers’ views about recall metrics.,Five different definitions for recall were identified. For the first group, recall refers to completeness, but it does not specify where all the relevant documents are located. For the second group, recall refers to retrieving all the relevant documents from the collection. However, it seems that the term “collection” is ambiguous. For the third group (first approach), collection means the index of search engines and, for the fourth group (second approach), collection refers to the Web. For the fifth group (third approach), ranking of the retrieved documents should also be accounted for in calculating recall.,It can be said that in the first, second and third approaches, the components of the retrieval algorithm, the retrieval algorithm and crawler, and the retrieval algorithm and crawler and ranker, respectively, are evaluated. To determine the effectiveness of search engines for the use of users, it is better to use the third approach in recall measurement.,The value of this paper is to collect, identify and analyse literature that is used in recall. In addition, different views of researchers about recall are identified.

中文翻译：

---

测量网络回忆的三种方法：系统评价

本文的目的是对使用召回度量评估信息检索系统，尤其是搜索引擎进行综述。本文调查了不同研究人员对召回度量的看法。确定了五种不同的召回定义。对于第一组，recall 是指完整性，但没有说明所有相关文件的位置。对于第二组，召回是指从集合中检索所有相关文档。然而，“收藏”一词似乎含糊不清。对于第三组（第一种方法），收集是指搜索引擎的索引，对于第四组（第二种方法），收集是指网络。对于第五组（第三种方法），在计算召回率时还应考虑检索到的文档的排名。可以说，在第一种、第二种和第三种方法中，分别对检索算法、检索算法和爬虫以及检索算法和爬虫和排名器的组成部分进行了评估。判断搜索引擎对用户使用的有效性，在召回测量中最好采用第三种方法。本文的价值在于收集、识别和分析用于召回的文献。此外，还确定了研究人员对回忆的不同看法。在回忆测量中最好使用第三种方法。,本文的价值在于收集、识别和分析用于回忆的文献。此外，还确定了研究人员对回忆的不同看法。在回忆测量中最好使用第三种方法。,本文的价值在于收集、识别和分析用于回忆的文献。此外，还确定了研究人员对回忆的不同看法。