Twenty-five years of end-user searching, part 1: Research findings

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology

Volumn 58, Issue 8, 2007, Pages 1071-1081

  Markey, Karen ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

INFORMATION RETRIEVAL PROCESSES; SEARCH FEATURES;

COMPUTATIONAL COMPLEXITY; FEATURE EXTRACTION; INFORMATION SYSTEMS; ONLINE SYSTEMS;

ONLINE SEARCHING;

EID: 34250201881     PISSN: 15322882     EISSN: 15322890     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/asi.20462     Document Type: Review

References (75)

1. Anderson, R., Reich, V.A., Wagner, P.R., & Zich, R. (1982). Library of Congress online public catalog users survey: A report to the Council on Library Resources. Washington, DC: Library of Congress, Office of Planning and Development.
2. Bishop, A.P., Neumann, L.J., Star, S.L., Merkel, C., Ignacio, E., & Sandusky, R.J. (2000). Digital libraries: Situating use in changing information infrastructure. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 51, 394-413.
3. Bond, C.S. (2004). Web users' information retrieval methods and skills. Online Information Review, 28, 254-259.
4. Borgman, C.L. (1983). End user behavior on the Ohio State University Libraries' online catalog: A computer monitoring study. Dublin, OH: OCLC Online Computer Library Center.
5. Borgman, C.L. (1986). Why are online catalogs hard to use? Lessons learned from information-retrieval studies. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 37, 387-400.
6. Bos, N., Drabenstott, K.M., Krajcik, J., Soloway, E., Wooldridge, S., & Miller, J. (2000). Students' searching and evaluating with the Artemis interface to a digital library. In Barry Fishman & S. O'Connor-Divelbiss (Eds.), Fourth International Conference of the Learning Sciences (pp. 150-156). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
7. Bucknall, T., & Mangrum, R. (1992). U-Search: A user study of the CD-ROM service at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. RQ, 31, 542-553.
8. Cockburn, A., & McKenzie, B. (2001). What do web users do? An empirical analysis of web use. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 54, 903-922.
9. Cooper, M.D. (2001). Usage patterns of a web-based library catalog. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 52, 137-148.
10. Debowski, S. (2001). Wrong way: Go back! An exploration of novice search behaviours while conducting an information search. The Electronic Library, 19, 371-382.
11. Dodd, J., Gilreath, C., & Hutchins, G. (1985). A comparison of two end-user operated search systems: Final report (ED 255224). Washington, DC: Office of Management Studies, Association of Research Libraries.
12. Doszkocs, T. (1983). CITE NLM: Natural-language searching in an online catalog. Information Technology and Libraries, 2, 364-380.
13. Drabenstott, K.M. (2003). Do non-domain experts enlist the strategies of domain experts? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 54, 836-854.
14. Drabenstott, K.M., & Vizine-Goetz, D. (1994). Using subject headings for online retrieval. San Diego: Academic Press.
15. Fallows, D. (2005). The Internet and daily life: Many Americans use the Internet in everyday activities, but, traditional offline habits still dominate. Washington, DC: Pew Internet & American Life Project. Retrieved March 22, 2007, from http://www.pewinternet.org/PPF/r/131/report_display.asp
16. Fidel, R., Davies, R.C., Douglas, M.H., Holder, J.K., Hopkins, C.J., Kushner, E.J., et al. (1999). A visit to the information mall: Web searching behavior of high school students. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 50, 24-37.
17. Haines, J.S. (1982). Experiences in training end-user searchers. Online, 6, 14-23.
18. Halcoussis, D., Halverson, A.L., Lowenberg, A.D., & Lowenberg, S. (2002). An empirical analysis of web catalog user experiences. Information Technology and Libraries, 21, 148-157.
19. Hildreth, C.R. (1983). To Boolean or not to Boolean. Information Technology and Libraries, 2, 235-237.
20. Hölscher, C., & Strube, G. (2000). Web search behavior of Internet experts and newbies. Computer Networks, 33, 337-346.
21. Hsieh-Yee, I. (1993). Effects of search experience and subject knowledge on the search tactics of novice and experienced searchers. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 44, 161-174.
22. Hurt, C.D. (1983). Intermediaries, self-searching and satisfaction. In M.E. Williams, & T.H. Hogan (Eds.), Proceedings of the 4th National Online Meeting (pp. 231-238). Medford, NJ: Learned Information.
23. Janes, J., & Walker, G. (1999). Online retrieval: A dialogue of theory and practice (2nd ed.), Littleton, CO: Libraries Unlimited.
24. Jansen, B.J. (2005). Seeking and implementing automated assistance during the search process. Information Processing and Management, 41, 909-928.
25. Jansen, B.J., Spink, A., Bateman, J., & Saracevic, T. (1998). Real life information retrieval: A study of user queries on the web, SIGIR Forum, 32, 1, 5-17.
26. Jansen, B.J., Spink, A., & Saracevic, T. (2000). Real life, real users, and real needs: A study and analysis of user queries on the web. Information Processing and Management, 36, 207-227.
27. Jones, S., Cunningham, S.J., McNab, R.. & Boddie, S. (2000). A transaction log analysis of a digital library. International Journal of Digital Libraries, 3, 152-169.
28. Keily, L. (1997). Improving resource discovery on the Internet: The user perspective. In D.I. Raitt, P. Blake, & B. Jeapes (Eds.), Proceedings of the 21st Online Information Meeting (pp. 205-212). Oxford: Learned Information Europe.
29. Kern-Simirenko, C. (1983). OPAC user logs: Implications for bibliographic instruction. Library Hi Tech, 1, 3, 27-35.
30. King, N.S. (1991). Search characteristics and the effects of experience on end users of PaperChase. College & Research Libraries, 52, 360-374.
31. Kirby, M., & Miller, N. (1986). MEDLINE searching on Colleague: Reasons for failure or success of untrained end users. Medical Reference Services Quarterly, 5, 17-33.
32. Kurth, M. (1993). The limits and limitations of transaction log analysis. Library Hi Tech, 11, 2, 98-104.
33. Lancaster, F.W., Elzy, C., Zeter, M.J., Metzler, L., & Low, Y.-M. (1994). Searching databases on CD-ROM: Comparison of the results of end-user searching with results from two modes of searching by skilled intermediaries, RQ, 33, 370-386.
34. Larson, R. (1983). Users look at online catalogs; Part 2: Interacting with online catalogs; Final report to the Council on Library Resources (ED 231 401). Berkeley, CA: University of California.
35. Lazonder, A.W., Biemans, H.J.A., & Wopereis, I.G.J.H. (2000). Differences between novice and experienced users in searching information on the World Wide Web. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 51, 576-581.
36. Lester, M.A. (1989). Coincidence of user vocabulary and Library of Congress subject headings: Experiments to improve subject access in academic library online catalogs. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
37. Lucas, W., & Topi, H. (2002). From and function: The impact of query term and operator usage on Web search results. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 53, 95-108.
38. Markey, K., & Demeyer, A.N. (1986). Dewey Decimal Classification Online Project: Evaluation of a library schedule and index integrated into the subject searching capabilities of an online catalog. Dublin, OH: OCLC Online Computer Library Center.
39. Markey, K. (1984). Subject searching in library catalogs. Dublin, OH: OCLC Online Computer Library Center.
40. Markey, K. (2007). Twenty-five years of end-user searching, part 2: Future research directions. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(8), 1123-1130.
41. Matthews, J.R. (1982). A study of six online public access catalogs: A review of findings; a final report submitted to the Council on Library Resources. Grass Valley, CA: J. Matthews and Associates.
42. Mead, S.E., Sit, R.A., Rogers, W.A., Jamieson, B.A., & Rousseau, G.K. (2000). Influences of general computer experience and ages of library database performance. Behaviour & Information Technology, 19, 107-123.
43. Miller, N., Kirby, M., & Templeton, E. (1988). MEDLINE on CD-ROM: End user searching in a medical school library. Medical Reference Services Quarterly, 7, 1-13.
44. Mischo, W.H., & Lee, J. (1987). End-user searching of bibliographic databases. In M.E. Williams (Ed.), Annual Review of Information Science and Technology (pp. 227-263), Washington, DC: American Society for Information Science.
45. Mitev, N.N., Venner, G.M., & Walker, S. (1985). Designing an online public access catalogue. London: The British Library.
46. Nash, S., & Wilson, M.C. (1991). Value-added bibliographic instruction. Reference Services Review, 19, 1, 87-92.
47. Nicholas, D. (1995). Are information professionals really better online searchers than end-users (and whose story do you believe?). In D.I. Raitt & H. Jeapes (Eds.), Proceedings of the 19th International Online Information Meeting Proceedings (pp. 383-397). Oxford: Learned Information Europe
48. Outsell Inc. (2000). Today's students, tomorrow's FGUs. Information About Information Briefing, 3, 24, 1-25.
49. Ozmutlu, S., Ozmutlu, H.C., & Spink, A. (2003). Are people asking questions of general web search engines? Online Information Review, 27, 396-406.
50. Ozmutlu, S., Spink, A., & Ozmutlu, H.C. (2003). Multimedia web searching trends: 1997-2001. Information Processing and Management, 39, 611-621.
51. Ozmutlu, S., Spink, A., & Ozmutlu, H.C. (2004). A day in the life of web searching: An exploratory study. Information Processing and Management, 40, 319-345.
52. Peters, T.A. (1989). When smart people fail: An analysis of the transaction log of an online public access catalog. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 15, 267-273.
53. Peters, T.A. (1991). The online catalog: A critical examination of public use. Jefferson, NC: McFarland.
54. Pew Research Center, (2003). America's online pursuits: The changing picture of who's online and what they do. Washington, DC: The Center. Retrieved September 5, 2005, from http://www.pewinternet.org/reports/toc.asp?Report =106
55. Research Libraries Group, (1982). Public online catalogs and research libraries: Final report to the Council on Library Resources. Stanford, CA: Author.
56. Rudner, L. (2000). Who is going to mine digital library resources'? And how? D-Lib Magazine 6(5). Retrieved March 22, 2007, from http://www.dlib.org/ dlib/may00/rudner/05rudner.html
57. Sewell, W., & Teitelbaum, S. (1986). Observations of end-user online searching behavior over eleven years. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 37, 234-245.
58. Sherman, C. (2006). Neilsen NetRatings search engine ratings. Retrieved March 22, 2007, from http://searchenginewatch.com/showPage.html?page=2156451
59. Siegfried, S., Bates, M.J., & Wilde, D.N. (1993). A profile of end-user searching behavior by humanities scholars: The Getty Online Searching Project Report No. 2. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 44, 273-291.
60. Silverstein, C., Brin, S., Motwani, R., & Ullman, J.D. (1999). Analysis of a very large web search engine query log. SIGIR Forum, 33, 3, 6-12.
61. Spink, A., & Gunar, O. (2001). E-Commerce web queries: Excite and Ask Jeeves study. First Monday. Retrieved March 22, 2007, from http://www. firstmonday.dk/issues/issue6_7/spink/index.html
62. Spink, A., Jansen, B.J., Wolfram, D.. & Saracevic, T. (2002). From e-sex to e-commerce: web search changes, Computer, 35, 3, 107-109.
63. Spink, A., & Ozmutlu, H.C. (2002). Characteristics of question format web queries: An exploratory study. Information Processing and Management, 38, 453-471.
64. Spink, A., Ozmutlu, H.C., & Lorence, D.P. (2004). Web searching for sexual information: An exploratory study. Information Processing and Management, 40, 113-123.
65. Spink, A., Wolfram, D., Jansen, M.B.J., & Saracevic, T. (2001). Searching the web: The public and their queries. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 52, 226-234.
66. Sutcliffe, A.G., Ennis, M., & Watkinson, S.J. (2000). Empirical studies of end-user information searching. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 51, 1211-1231.
67. Tolle, J.E. (1983). Current utilization of online catalogs: Transaction log analysis. Dublin, OH: OCLC Online Computer Library Center.
68. Trzebiatowski, E. (1984). End user study on BRS/Afterdark. RQ, 23, 446-450.
69. University of California. (1983). Users look at online catalogs: Results of a national survey of users and non-users of online public access catalogs; final report to the Council on Library Resources. Berkeley, CA: University of California Systemwide Administration, Division of Library Automation and Library Research and Analysis Group.
70. Vakkari, P., Pennanen, M., & Serola, S. (2003). Changes of search terms and tactics while writing a research proposal: A longitudinal case study. Information Processing and Management, 39, 445-463.
71. Wallace, R., & Kupperman, J. (1997, March). On-line search in the science classroom: Benefits and possibilities. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
72. Wang, P., Berry, M.W., & Yang, Y. (2003). Mining longitudinal web queries: Trends and patterns. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 54, 743-758.
73. Wiberley, S.E., Daugherty, R.A., & Danowski, J.A. (1993). User persistence in displaying LUIS postings: A report to the Council on Library Resources. Chicago: University of Illinois at Chicago.
74. Wildemuth, B., & Moore, M.E. (1995). End-user search behaviors and their relationship to search effectiveness. Bulletin of the Medical Library Association, 83, 294-304.
75. Wolfram, D., & Xie, H.I. (2002). Traditional IR for web users: A context for general audience digital libraries. Information Processing and Management, 38, 627-648.