Best-answer selection criteria in a social Q&A site from the user-oriented relevance perspective

Proceedings of the ASIST Annual Meeting

Volumn 44, Issue , 2007, Pages

  Soojung, Kim ^a   Jung, Sun Oh ^b   Sanghee, Oh ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 47349089780     PISSN: 15508390     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (16)

1. Barry, C. L. (1994). User-defined relevance criteria: An exploratory study. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 45, 149-159.
2. Cool et al. (1993). Characteristics of texts affecting relevance judgments. Proceedings of the 14th National Online Meeting, 77-84.
3. Cuadra, C. A. & Katter, R. V. (1968). Opening the black box of relevance. Journal of Documentation, 23, 291-303.
4. Krippendorf, K. (2004). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology (2nd). Sage Thousand Oaks, CA
5. Gazan, R. (2006). Specialists and Synthesists in a Question Answering Community, ASIST Annual Meeting, Austin, Texas, November 3-9, 2006.
6. Lee, Y. (2006). Toward a new sharing community: Collective intelligence and learning through Web-portal-based intelligence. Communication, Culture, and Technology Master of Arts Program. Georgetown University.
7. Madden, M. & Fox, S. (2006). Reading the waves of "Web 2.0": More than a buzzword, but still not easily defined. Pew Research Center Retrieved January 5, 2007, http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_Web_2. 0.pdf
8. Cashmore, P. (2006). Yahoo answers dominate Q&A- No wonder Google gave up. Mashable!, Social networking 2.0. Retrieved January 5, 2007, http://mashable.com/2006/12/28/yahoo-answers-dominates-q-a-no-wonder-google- gave-up/
9. Mizzaro, S. (1997). Relevance: The whole history. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 48, 810 - 832.
10. Nilan et al. (1988). A methodology for tapping user evaluation behaviors: An exploration of users' strategy, source, and information evaluating. ASIST Annual Meeting, 1988.
11. Park, T. (1993). The nature of relevance in information retrieval: Empirical study. Library Quarterly, 63, 318-351.
12. Rees, A. M., & Schultz, D. G. (1967). A field experiment approach to the study of relevance assessments in relation to document searching: Final report: Volume 1. Case Western. Reserve University, School of Library Science, Center for Documentation and Communication Research. Cleveland, OH
13. Saracevic, T (1996), Relevance reconsidered Information Science: Integration in Perspectives Ingwersen, P., Pors, N.O (Eds), Royal School of Librarianship, Copenhagen, 201-18.
14. Schamber, L. (1994). Relevance and information behavior. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 29, 3-48.
15. Wang, P., & Soergel, D. (1998). A cognitive model of document use during a research project. Study I. Document selection. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 50 (2), 98-144.
16. Wenzel, E. (2006). Dropping knowledge: question-and-answer sites. Retrieved January 5, 2007.http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-9239_7-6634568-1.html