Credibility in web search engines

Online Credibility and Digital Ethos: Evaluating Computer-Mediated Communication

Volumn , Issue , 2012, Pages 131-146

  Lewandowski, Dirk ^a  

^a HAMBURG UNIVERSITY OF APPLIED SCIENCES   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84901519734     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-4666-2663-8.ch008     Document Type: Chapter

References (50)

1. Acharya, A., Cutts, M., Dean, J., Haahr, P., Henzinger, M., Hoelzle, U., et al. (2005). Information retrieval based on historical data. (US Patent US 7,346,839 B2).
2. Barry, C. L., & Schamber, L. (1998). Users' criteria for relevance evaluation: A cross-situ-ational comparison. Information Processing & Management, 34(2-3), 219-236. doi:10.1016/ S0306-4573(97)00078-2
3. Beel, J., Gipp, B., & Wilde, E. (2010). Academic search engine optimization (ASEO): Optimizing scholarly literature for Google Scholar & Co. Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 41(2), 176-190.doi:10.3138/jsp.41.2.176
4. Berendt, B. (2011). Spam, opinions, and other relationships: Towards a comprehensive view of the Web. In Melucci, M., & Baeza-Yates, R. (Eds.), Advanced topics in information retrieval (pp. 51-82). Berlin, Germany: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-20946-8_3
5. Borlund, P. (2003). The concept of relevance in IR. Journal of the American Society for Information, 54(10), 913-925. doi:10.1002/ asi.10286
6. Carterette, B., Kanoulas, E., & Yilmaz, E. (2012). Evaluating Web retrieval effectiveness. In Lewandowski, D. (Ed.), Web search engine research (pp. 105-137). Bingley, UK: Emerald.doi:10.1108/S1876-0562(2012)002012a007
7. Chu, H. (2011). Factors affecting relevance judgment: A report from TREC legal track. The Journal of Documentation, 67(2), 264-278.doi:10.1108/00220411111109467
8. ComScore. (2010). comScore reports global search market growth of 46 percent in 2009. Retrieved from http://comscore.com/Press_Events/Press_Releases/2010/1/Global_Search_Market_Grows_46_Percent_in_2009
9. Croft, W. B., Metzler, D., & Strohman, T. (2010). Search engines: Information retrieval in practice. Boston, MA: Pearson.
10. Cuadra, C. A., & Katter, R. V. (1967). Opening the black box of "relevance.". The Journal of Documentation, 291-303.doi:10.1108/eb026436
11. Culliss, G. A. (2003). Personalized search methods. (US Patent US 6,539,377 B1).
12. Dean, J. A., Gomes, B., Bharat, K., Harik, G., & Henzinger, M. H. (2002, March 2). Methods and apparatus for employing usage statistics in document retrieval. (US Patent App. US 2002/0123988 A1).
13. Edelman, B. (2010). Hard-coding bias in Google "algorithmic" search results. Retrieved April 11, 2011, from http://www.benedelman.org/hardcoding/
14. Fogg, B. (2003). Prominence-interpretation theory: Explaining how people assess credibility online. CHI'03 Extended Abstracts on Human
15. Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 722-723). New York, NY: ACM.
16. Google. (2012). Search engine optimization (SEO) - Webmaster tools help. Retrieved February 21, 2012, from http://support.google.com/web-masters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=35291
17. Granka, L. (2010). The politics of search: A decade retrospective. The Information Society, 26(5), 364-374. doi:10.1080/01972243.2010. 511560
18. Gyongyi, Z., & Garcia-Molina, H. (2005). Web spam taxonomy. First International Workshop on Adversarial Information Retrieval on the Web (AIRWeb 2005) (pp. 39-47).
19. Hargittai, E., Fullerton, L., Menchen-Trevino, E., & Thomas, K. Y. (2010). Trust online: Young adults' evaluation of Web content. International Journal of Communication, 4, 468-494.
20. Hilligoss, B., & Rieh, S. Y. (2008). Developing a unifying framework of credibility assessment: Construct, heuristics, and interaction in context. Information Processing & Management, 44(4), 1467-1484.doi:10.1016/j.ipm.2007.10.001
21. Höchstötter, N., & Koch, M. (2009). Standard parameters for searching behaviour in search engines and their empirical evaluation. Journal of Information Science, 35(1), 45-65.doi:10.1177/0165551508091311
22. Höchstötter, N., & Lewandowski, D. (2009). What users see - Structures in search engine results pages. Information Sciences, 179(12), 1796-1812.doi:10.1016/j.ins.2009.01.028
23. Höchstötter, N., & Lüderwald, K. (2011). Web monitoring. In Lewandowski, D. (Ed.), Handbuch Internet-Suchmaschinen 2: Neue Entwicklungen in der Web-Suche (pp. 289-322). Heidelberg, Germany: Akademische Verlagsanstalt AKA.
24. Kammerer, Y., & Gerjets, P. (2012). How search engine users evaluate and select Web search results: The impact of the search engine interface on credibility assessments. In Lewandowski, D. (Ed.), Web search engine research (pp. 251-279). Bingley, UK: Emerald.doi:10.1108/S1876-0562(2012)002012a012
25. Kleinberg, J. (1999). Authoritative sources in a hyperlinked environment. Journal of the ACM, 46(5), 604-632.doi:10.1145/324133.324140
26. Knight, S. A., & Burn, J. (2005). Developing a framework for assessing information quality on the World Wide Web. Informing Science Journal, 8, 159-172.
27. Lewandowski, D. (2005). Web searching, search engines and Information Retrieval. Information Services & Use, 25, 137-147.
28. Lewandowski, D. (2008). The retrieval effectiveness of Web search engines: Considering results descriptions. The Journal of Documentation, 64(6), 915-937.doi:10.1108/00220410810912451
29. Lewandowski, D., & Höchstötter, N. (2008). Web searching: A quality measurement perspective. In Spink, A., & Zimmer, M. (Eds.), Web search: Multidisciplinary perspectives (pp. 309-340). Berlin, Germany: Springer.
30. Lewandowski, D., & Spree, U. (2011). Ranking of Wikipedia articles in search engines revisited: Fair ranking for reasonable quality? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62(1), 117-132. doi:10.1002/ asi.21423
31. Machill, M., Neuberger, C., Schweiger, W., & Wirth, W. (2004). Navigating the Internet: A study of German-language search engines. European Journal of Communication, 19(3), 321-347.doi:10.1177/0267323104045258
32. Mandl, T. (2005). The quest to find the best pages on the Web. Information Services & Use, 25(2), 69-76.
33. Mandl, T. (2006). Implementation and evaluation of a quality-based search engine. Proceedings of the Seventeenth Conference on Hypertext and Hypermedia (pp. 73-84). New York, NY: ACM.
34. McGee, M. (2008). Google explains malware warning policy & how to fix your site. Search Engine Land. Retrieved February 20, 2012, from http://searchengineland.com/google-malware-warning-policy-15271
35. McGee, M. (2010). Google news dropping sites, reviewing inclusion standards. Search Engine Land. Retrieved February 21, 2012, from http://searchengineland.com/google-news-dropping-sites-reviewing-inclusion-standards-57673
36. Mizzaro, S. (1997). Relevance: The whole history. Journal of the American Society for Information Science American Society for Information Science, 48(9), 810-832. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(199709)48:9<810::AID-ASI6>3.0.CO;2-U
37. Page, L., Brin, S., Motwani, R., & Winograd, T. (1998). The PageRank citation ranking: Bringing order to the Web. Retrieved from http://ilpubs.stanford.edu:8090/422/1/1999-66.pdf
38. Pan, B., Hembrooke, H., Joachims, T., Lorigo, L., Gay, G., & Granka, L. (2007). In Google we trust: Users' decisions on rank, position, and relevance. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12, 801-823.doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00351.x
39. Purcell, K. (2011). Search and email still top the list of most popular online activities. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/~/media//Files/Reports/2011/PIP_Search-and-Email.pdf
40. Rieh, S. Y. (2002). Judgment of information quality and cognitive authority in the Web. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 53(2), 145-161. doi:10.1002/ asi.10017
41. Rieh, S. Y. (2010). Credibility and cognitive authority of information. In Bates, M., & Maack, M. N. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of library and information sciences (3rd ed., pp. 1337-1344). New York, NY: Taylor and Francis Group, LLC.
42. Rieh, S. Y., & Danielson, D. (2007). Credibility: A multidisciplinary framework. In Cronin, B. (Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology (Vol. 41, pp. 307-364). Medford, NJ: Information Today.
43. Rittberger, M., & Rittberger, W. (1997). Measuring the quality in the production of databases. Journal of Information Science, 23(1), 25-37.doi:10.1177/016555159702300103
44. Saracevic, T. (2006). Relevance: A review of the literature and a framework for thinking on the notion in information science- Part II. Advances in Librarianship (Vol. 30, pp. 3-71). Elsevier.
45. Saracevic, T. (2007a). Relevance: A review of the literature and a framework for thinking on the notion in information science, part II. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(13), 1915-1933.doi:10.1002/asi.20682
46. Saracevic, T. (2007b). Relevance: A review of the literature and a framework for thinking on the notion in information science, part III: behavior and effects of relevance. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(13), 2126-2144.doi:10.1002/asi.20681
47. Tseng, S., & Fogg, B. J. (1999). Credibility and computing technology. Communications of the ACM, 42(5), 39-44.doi:10.1145/301353.301402
48. Wang, H., Xie, M., & Goh, T. N. (1999). Service quality of internet search engines. Journal of Information Science, 25(6), 499-507.doi:10.1177/016555159902500606
49. Wathen, C. N., & Burkell, J. (2002). Believe it or not: Factors influencing credibility on the web. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 53(2), 134-144.doi:10.1002/asi.10016
50. Xie, M., Wang, H., & Goh, T. N. (1998). Quality dimensions of Internet search engines. Journal of Information Science, 24(5), 365-372.doi:10.1177/016555159802400509