Understanding user behaviour through log data and analysis

Ways of Knowing in HCI

Volumn , Issue , 2014, Pages 350-372

  Dumais, Susan ^a   Teevan, Jaime ^a   Jeffries, Robin ^b   Russell, Daniel M ^b   Tang, Diane ^b  

^a MICROSOFT RESEARCH   (United States)

^b GOOGLE INC   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH; ONLINE SYSTEMS;

BEHAVIORAL TRACE; DATA COLLECTION; EXISTING SYSTEMS; LOG DATA; USER BEHAVIOUR; USER INTERACTION;

SEARCH ENGINES;

EID: 84955627521     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4939-0378-8_14     Document Type: Chapter

References (45)

1. Adar, E., Teevan, J., & Dumais, S. T. (2008). Large scale analysis of web revisitation patterns. In Proceedings of CHI 2008 (pp. 1197-1206). New York: ACM.
2. Baeza-Yates, R., Dupret, G., & Velasco, J. (2007). A study of mobile search queries in Japan. In Proceedings of WWW 2007 workshop on query log analysis: Social and technical challenges. New York, NY: ACM.
3. Barbaro, M. & Zeller, T. (2006). A face is exposed for AOL searcher No. 4417749, New York Times, Retrieved on August 9, 2006, from http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/09/technology/09aol.html?_r=1
4. Barnett, V., & Lewis, S. (1994). Outliers in statistical data. New York, NY: Wiley & Sons.
5. Beitzel, S. M., Jensen, E. C., Chowdhury, A., Grossman, D. A., & Frieder, O. (2004). Hourly analysis of a very large topically categorized web query log. In Proceedings of SIGIR 2004 (pp. 321-328). New York, NY: ACM.
6. Broder, A. (2002). A taxonomy of web search. SIGIR Forum, 36(2), 3-10.
7. Brown, C. (2012). Split testing with Google analytics experiments. Retrieved on December 16, 2012, from http://webdesign.tutsplus.com/tutorials/applications/split-testing-with-google- analytics-experiments/
8. Capra, R. (2011). HCI browser: A tool for administration and data collection for studies of web search behavior. In Proceedings of HCIHCI2011 (pp. 259-268). New York, NY: Springer.
9. Crook, T., Frasca, B., Kohavi, R., & Longbotham, R. (2009). Seven pitfalls to avoid when running controlled experiments on the web. In Proceedings of KDD 2009 (pp. 1105-1114). New York, NY: ACM.
10. Dell, N., Vaidyanathan, V., Medhi, I., Cutrell, E., & Thies, W. (2012). “Yours is better!”: Participant response bias in HCI. In Proceedings of CHI 2012 (pp. 1321-1330). New York, NY: ACM.
11. Dumais, S. T., Cutrell, E., Cadiz, J. J., Jancke, G., Sarin, R., & Robbins, D. C. (2003). Stuff I’ve seen: A system for personal information retrieval and re-use. In Proceedings of SIGIR 2003 (pp. 72-79). New York, NY: ACM.
12. Efthimiadis, E. N. (2008). How do Greeks search the web?: A query log analysis study. In Proceedings iNews 2008 (pp. 81-84). New York, NY: ACM.
13. Fetterly, D., Manasse, M., & Najork, M. (2004). Spam, damn spam, and statistics: Using statistical analysis to locate spam web pages. In Proceedings WebDB 2004 (pp. 1-6). New York, NY: ACM.
14. Fox, S., Karnawat, K., Mydland, M., Dumais, S. T., & White, T. (2005). Evaluating implicit measures to improve web search. ACM: Transactions on Information Systems (TOIS), 23(2), 147-168.
15. Ghorab, M. R., Leveling, J., Zhou, D., Jones, G. J. F., & Wade, V. (2009). Identifying common user behaviour in multilingual search logs. In Proceedings of CLEF 2009, pp. 518-525.
16. Ginsberg, J., Mohebbi, M. H., Patel, R. S., Brammer, L., Smolinski, M. S., & Brilliant, L. (2009). Detecting influenza epidemics using search engine query data. Nature, 457, 1012-1014.Google. (2012). Google analytics. Retrieved on December 16, 2012, from http://www.google.com/analytics/
17. Huck, S. (2011). Reading statistics and research (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
18. Jansen, B. J. (2006). Search log analysis: What it is, what’s been done, how to do it. Library and Information Science Research, 28(3), 407-432.
19. Jupiter Research Corporation. (2005, March 9). Measuring unique visitors: Addressing the dramatic decline in the accuracy of cookie-based measurement
20. Kohavi, R., Deng, A., Frasca, B., Longbotham, R., Walker, T., & Xu, Y. (2012). Trustworthy online controlled experiments: Five puzzling outcomes explained. In Proceedings of KDD 2012 (pp. 786-794). New York, NY: ACM.
21. Kohavi, R., Longbotham, R., Sommerfield, D., & Henne, R. M. (2009). Controlled experiments on the web: Survey and practical guide. Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery, 18(1), 140-181.
22. Kotov, A., Bennett, P., White, R. W., Dumais, S. T., & Teevan, J. (2011). Modeling and analysis of cross-session search tasks. In Proceedings of SIGIR 2011 (pp. 5-14). New York, NY: ACM.
23. Lau, T., & Horvitz, E. (1999). Patterns of search: Analyzing and modeling web query refinement. In Proceedings of user modeling 1999 (pp. 119-128). New York, NY: ACM.
24. Narayanan, A., & Shmatikov, V. (2008). Robust de-anonymization of large sparse datasets. In Proceedings of IEEE symposium on security and privacy 2008 (pp. 111-125). Washington, DC: IEEE.
25. Ogbuji, U. (2009). Working with web server logs. Retrieved on December 16, 2012, from http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/web/library/wa-apachelogs/
26. Osborne, J. W. (2012). Bestpractices in data cleaning: Everything you need to know before and after collecting your data. Thousand Oak, CA: Sage Publications.
27. Rodden, K., & Leggett, M. (2010). Best of both worlds: Improving Gmail labels with the affor- dance of folders. In Proceedings of CHI 2010 (pp. 4587-4596). New York, NY: ACM.
28. Silverstein, C., Henzinger, M., Marais, H., & Moricz, M. (1998). Analysis of a very large web search engine query log. Technical Report 1998-014. Digital SRC.
29. Skinner, B. F. (1938). The behavior oforganisms: An experimental analysis. Oxford, England: Appleton-Century.
30. Spink, A., Ozmutlu, S., Ozmutlu, H. C., & Jansen, B. J. (2002). U.S. versus European web searching trends. ACM SIGIR Forum, 36(2), 32-38.
31. Starbird, K. & Palen, L. (2010). Pass it on? Retweeting in mass emergencies. In Proceedings of ISCRAM 2010, pp. 1-10.
32. Tang, D., Agarwal, A., O’Brien, D., & Meyer, M. (2010). Overlapping experiment infrastructure: More, better, faster experimentation. In Proceedings KDD 2010 (pp. 17-26). New York, NY: ACM.
33. Teevan, J., Adar, E., Jones, R., & Potts, M. (2007). Information re-retrieval: Repeat queries in Yahoo’s logs. In Proceedings of SIGIR 2007 (pp. 151-158). New York, NY: ACM.
34. Teevan, J., Dumais, S. T., & Liebling, D. J. (2008). To personalize or not to personalize: Modeling queries with variation in user intent. In Proceedings of SIGIR 2008 (pp. 163-170). New York, NY: ACM.
35. Teevan, J., & Hehmeyer, A. (2013). Understanding how the projection of availability state impacts the reception of incoming communication. In Proceedings of CSCW 2013 (pp. 753-758). New York, NY: ACM.
36. Teevan, J., Ramage, D., & Morris, M. R. (2011). TwitterSearch: A comparison of microblog search and web search. In Proceedings of WSDM 2011 (pp. 35-44). New York, NY: ACM.
37. Tyler, S. K., & Teevan, J. (2010). Large scale query log analysis of re-finding. In Proceedings of WSDM 2010 (pp. 191-200). New York, NY: ACM.
38. White, R., Dumais, S. T., & Teevan, J. (2009). Characterizing the influence of domains expertise on web search behavior. In Proceedings of WSDM 2009 (pp. 132-141). New York, NY: ACM.
39. White, R., & Morris, D. (2007). Investigating the querying and browsing behavior of advanced search engine users. In Proceedings of SIGIR 2007 (pp. 255-262). New York, NY: ACM.
40. Wikipedia: AOL search. Retrieved on December 16, 2012, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AOL_search_data_scandal
41. Wikipedia: Delta method. Retrieved on December 16, 2012, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta_method
42. Wikipedia: Hadoop. Retrieved on December 16, 2012, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache_Hadoop
43. Wikipedia: Netflix. Retrieved on December 16, 2012, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netflix_Prize
44. Wikipedia: Power. Retrieved on December 16, 2012, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_power
45. Wikipedia: Simpson’s Paradox. Retrieved on December 16, 2012, from http://wikipedia.org/Simpsons_Paradox