User rankings of search engine results

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology

Volumn 58, Issue 9, 2007, Pages 1254-1266

  Bar Ilan, Judit ^a   Keenoy, Kevin ^b   Yaari, Eti ^a   Levene, Mark ^b  

^a BAR ILAN UNIVERSITY   (Israel)

^b UNIVERSITY OF LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CORRELATION METHODS; INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY; LARGE SCALE SYSTEMS; SEARCH ENGINES; STUDENTS;

NONPARAMETRIC CORRELATION; PHYSICAL FACTORS; USER RANKINGS;

USER INTERFACES;

EID: 34547268989     PISSN: 15322882     EISSN: 15322890     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/asi.20608     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Bar-Ilan, J., Mat-Hassan, M., & Levene, M. (2006). Methods for comparing rankings of search engine results. Computer Networks, 50(10), 1448-1463.
2. Beg, M.M.S. (2005). A subjective measure of Web search quality. Information Sciences, 169(3/4), 365-381.
3. Black, T.R. (1994). Evaluating social science research: An introduction. London: Sage Publications.
4. Borlund, P. (2003). The concept of relevance in IR. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 54(10), 913-925.
5. Broder, A. (2002). A taxonomy of Web search. ACM SIGIR Forum. Retrieved April 15, 2006, from http://www.sigir.org/forum/F2002/broder.pdf
6. Desai, M., & Spink, A. (2005). An algorithm to cluster documents based on relevance. Information Processing & Management, 41(5), 1035-1049.
7. Diaconis, P., & Graham, R.L. (1977). Spearman's footrule as a measure of disarray. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B (Methodological), 39, 262-268.
8. Drori, O. (2002). Algorithm for documents ranking: Idea and simulation results. In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering. ACM International Conference Proceeding Series, Vol. 27. (pp. 99-102). New York: ACM.
9. Dwork, C., Kumar, R., Naor, M., & Sivakumar, D. (2001). Rank aggregation methods for the Web. In Proceedings of the 10th World Wide Web Conference, May 2001, Hong Kong (pp. 613-622). New York: ACM.
10. Dogpile (2005). Different engines, different results. Retrieved April 15,2006, from http://comparesearchengines.dogpile.com/OverlapAnalysis.pdf
11. Enquiro. (2005). Did-It, Enquiro, and Eyetools uncover search's golden triangle. Retrieved April 15, 2006, from http://www.enquiro.com/ eye-tracking-pr.asp
12. Fagin, R., Kumar, R., & Sivakumar, D. (2003). Comparing top k lists. SIAM Journal on Discrete Mathematics, 17(1), 134-160.
13. Gay, G. (2002). Sternberg-Wagner thinking styles inventory. Retrieved April 15, 2006, from http://www.ldrc.ca/projects/projects.php?id=48
14. Joachims, T., Granka, L., Pan, B., Hembrooke, H., & Gay, G. (2005). Accurately interpreting clickthrough data as implicit feedback. In G. Marchionini, A. Moffat, J. Tait, R. Baeza-Yates, & N. Ziviani (Eds.), Proceedings of the 28th Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (pp. 154-161). New York: ACM.
15. Levene, M. (2005). An introduction to search engines and Web navigation. Harlow, England: Addison-Wesley.
16. Leighton, H.V., & Srivastava, J. (1999). First 20 precision among World Wide Web search services (search engines). Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 50(10), 870-881.
17. Mizzaro, S. (1998). How many relevances in information retrieval? Interacting With Computers, 10(3), 305-322. Retrieved October 7, 2006, from http://www.dimi.uniud.it/mizzaro/research/papers/IwC.pdf
18. Nielsen/NetRatings (2006). Top search terms reveal Web users rely on search engines to navigate their way to common Web sites. Retrieved April 15, 2006, from http://www.nielsen-netratings.com/pr/pr_060118.pdf
19. Nowicki, S. (2003). Student vs. search engine: Undergraduates rank results for relevance. Portal: Libraries and the Academy, 3(3), 503-515.
20. OED (2006). Oxford English Dictionary. Retrieved October 7, 2006, from http://dictionary.oed.com/
21. Patil, S., Alpert, S.R., Karat, J., & Wolf, C. (2005). "THAT'S what I was looking for": Comparing user-rated relevance with search engine rankings. In M.F. Costabile & F. Paterno (Eds.), Lecture Notes in Computer Science 3855: Human-computer Interaction: INTERACT 2005 International Conference Proceedings, (pp. 117-129). Berlin: Springer.
22. Pew Internet & American Life Project (2005). Retrieved April 15, 2006, from http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_SearchData_1105.pdf
23. Santo, S.A. (no date), Field independence. Retrieved October 7, 2006, from http://www.usd.edu/~ssanto/field.html
24. Saracevic, T. (1996). Relevance reconsidered. In P. Ingwersen & N.O. Pors (Eds.), Second International Conference on Conceptions of Library and Information Science (CoLIS 2): Integration in Perspective, October 13-16 Proceedings (pp. 201-218). Copenhagen: The Royal School of Librarianship.
25. Spink, A., & Jansen, B.J. (2004). Web search: Public searching of the Web. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
26. Sternberg, R.J. (1997). Thinking styles. New York: Cambridge University Press.
27. Su, L.T. (2003). A comprehensive and systematic model of user evaluation of Web search engines II: An evaluation by undergraduates, Journal of the American Society for Information and Technology, 54(13), 1193-1223.
28. Sullivan, D. (2006). comScore Media Metrix search engine ratings. Searchenginewatch. Retrieved September 3, 2006, from http://searchenginewatch. com/showPage.html?page=2156431
29. Taylor, R.S. (1968). Question-negotiation and information seeking in libraries. College & Research Libraries, 29(3), 178-194.
30. Toms, E.G., O'Brien, H.L., Kopack, R., & Freund, L. (2005). Searching for relevance in the relevance of search. In F. Crestani & I. Ruthven (Eds.), Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 3507. Context: Nature, impact, and role. Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Conceptions of Library and Information Sciences (CoLIS) 2005, Glasgow, UK, June 2005 (pp. 59-78). Berlin: Springer.
31. Vaughan, L. (2004). New measurements for search engine evaluation proposed and tested, Information Processing & Management, 40(4), 677-691.
32. Veronis, J. (2006). A comparative study of six search engines. Retrieved April 15, 2006, from http://www.up.univ-mrs.fr/veronis/pdf/2006comparative- study.pdf
33. Wehrens, R., Putter, H., & Buydens, L.M.C (2000). The bootstrap: A tutorial. Chemometrics and Intelligent Laboratory Systems, 54(1), 35-52.
34. Witkin, H.A., & Goodenough, D.R. (1981). Cognitive styles: Essence and origin. New York: International Universities Press.
35. Witkin, H.A., Oltman, P.K., Raskin, E., & Karp, S.A. (1971). Group embedded figures test manual. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychology Press.