What users do: The eyes have it

Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics)

Volumn 8281 LNCS, Issue , 2013, Pages 416-427

  Thomas, Paul ^a   Scholer, Falk ^b   Moffat, Alistair ^c  

^a AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

^b RMIT UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

^c UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE   (Australia)

Author keywords

Retrieval evaluation; user behavior; user model

Indexed keywords

DOCUMENT RETRIEVAL; GAZE-TRACKING; RETRIEVAL EVALUATION; SEARCH ENGINE RESULTS; USER BEHAVIORS; USER EXPERIMENTS; USER INTERACTION; USER MODELING;

BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH; INFRARED DEVICES; SEARCH ENGINES;

INFORMATION RETRIEVAL;

EID: 84893217113     PISSN: 03029743     EISSN: 16113349     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-642-45068-6_36     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (17)

1. Aula, A., Majaranta, P., Räihä, K.-J.: Eye-tracking reveals the personal styles for search result evaluation. In: Costabile, M.F., Paternó, F. (eds.) INTERACT 2005. LNCS, vol. 3585, pp. 1058-1061. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)
2. Borlund, P.: Experimental components for the evaluation of interactive information retrieval systems. J. Documentation 56(1), 71-90 (2000)
3. Chapelle, O., Zhang, Y.: A dynamic Bayesian network click model for web search ranking. In: Proc. WWW, Madrid, Spain, pp. 1-10 (2009)
4. Dumais, S., Buscher, G., Cutrell, E.: Individual differences in gaze patterns for web search. In: Proc. IIiX, London, England, pp. 185-194 (2010)
5. Granka, L.A., Joachims, T., Gay, G.: Eye-tracking analysis of user behavior in WWW search. In: Proc. SIGIR, Sheffield, England, pp. 478-479 (2004)
6. Järvelin, K., Kekäläinen, J.: Cumulated gain-based evaluation of IR techniques. ACM Trans. Information Systems 20(4), 422-446 (2002)
7. Joachims, T., Granka, L., Pan, B., Hembrooke, H., Gay, G.: Accurately interpreting click-through data as implicit feedback. In: Proc. SIGIR, Salvador, Brazil, pp. 154-161 (2005)
8. Jones, T., Hawking, D., Thomas, P., Sankaranarayana, R.: Relative effect of spam and irrelevant documents on user interaction with search engines. In: Proc. CIKM, Glasgow, Scotland, pp. 2113-2116 (2011)
9. Kelly, D., Harper, D.J., Landau, B.: Questionnaire mode effects in interactive information retrieval experiments. Information Processing & Management 44(1), 122-141 (2008)
10. Moffat, A., Thomas, P., Scholer, F.: Users versus models: What observation tells us about effectiveness metrics. In: Proc. CIKM, San Francisco, California (to appear, 2013)
11. Moffat, A., Zobel, J.: Rank-biased precision for measurement of retrieval effectiveness. ACM Trans. Information Systems 27(1), 2:1-2:27 (2008)
12. Robertson, S.: A new interpretation of average precision. In: Proc. SIGIR, Singapore, pp. 689-690 (2008)
13. Smucker, M.D., Clarke, C.L.A.: Time-based calibration of effectiveness measures. In: Proc. SIGIR, Portland, Oregon, pp. 95-104 (2012)
14. Thomas, P., Scholer, F., Moffat, A.: Fading away: Dilution and user behaviour. In: Proc. 3rd Europ. Wrkshp. HCI and IR, Dublin, Ireland, pp. 3-6 (2013)
15. Voorhees, E.M.: Variations in relevance judgements and the measurement of retrieval effectiveness. Information Processing & Management 36(5), 697-716 (2000)
16. Wu, W.C., Kelly, D., Edwards, A., Arguello, J.: Grannies, tanning beds, tattoos and NASCAR: Evaluation of search tasks with varying levels of cognitive complexity. In: Proc. IIiX, Nijmegen, The Netherlands, pp. 254-257 (2012)
17. Yilmaz, E., Shokouhi, M., Craswell, N., Robertson, S.: Expected browsing utility for web search evaluation. In: Proc. CIKM, Toronto, Canada, pp. 1561-1564 (2010)