You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
This paper analyzes users behavior in web search to answer the key questions:
1: How do users query reformulating behavior change through the session?--> They consider the following aspects to answering this question:1. reformulation type, syntactic(e.g. adding/deleting/change/repeat term) and intent-level (new topic, somewhat relevant). 2. reason for reformulation(e.g. satisfaction and dissatisfaction). 3. reformulation entry/from which part of search engine result pages (SERPs), a user chooses to reformulate his query(e.g. query suggestion, input box). 4. what inspired a user to formulate his query (e.g. landing pages or search snippets)
2: Whether users reformulate their queries differently on different search intents?--> They consider the following factors: 1. search effort and gain (e.g. dwell time on SERPs, clicks on search results, task satisfaction). 2. user actions (e.g. avg clicks by query, scrolling time)
3- Can we predict the answers to two previous questions?
Method
They developed a toolkit for browsers to selected users' search activity for one month (implicit information ). Also, they used questionnaires to collect explicit data from users. 50 users participate in this experiment.
Input-Output:
phase1:
Input: Implicit and explicit information related to users web search behavior
Output: Answers of two first questions + predicting model for predicting why and how users reformulate their queries.
Previous Works and their Gaps:
previous works proposed query suggestion and auto-completion to predict the user's next query. However, this work couldn't identify factor effect on users' query reformulation. This paper, use both explicit and implicit data of users' web search behavior and collect real data to identify what factors affect users' query reformulation.
Result:
They consider three dimensions:
Intent Trigger--> Interest-driven, Interest and Task-driven, Task-driven (4);
Intent Specificity: Clear, Board;
Domain Expertise: Familiar, Unfamiliar.
Question1: In the beginning, users tend to add constraints on the query to limit the search scope. When their search intent is satisfied, they try to start to shift their intent gradually. Another result is, users rely on themselves to reformulate the query on long sessions, the reasons could be: search engines do not guide users properly or existing query suggestions could not satisfy users.
Question2: users' search behavior is affected by users' intent trigger and specificity. Users with interest-driven intents show more satisfaction. On the other hand, in task-driven the search effort is high but the search satisfaction is low. This indicates that query suggestion methods are not helpful in this domain and it is better for QE methods to be personalized to understand the user's search intent better.
question3: they used different predicting models to predict users' search behavior and they conclude that the best model to predict is XGBoost. Data Set:
They used the AOL data set.
Gap of this work:
They could consider search history to understand the user's search behavior better.
This work can be considered as a motivation to personalized QR as the search engines have poor performance in task-driven users' intent.
very good paper and research. thank you. just few questions:
1- what is interest and task-driven searches? 2- can you explain the gaps og this work more?
1-interest-driven task is like when a user does a web search for a kind of entertainment or something like that for example searching about today's weather. The task difficulty for users is lower. Based on this paper, interest-driven tasks have less search effort and high satisfaction. QE methods are good in this domain.
Task-driven (which is called complex search) means, a user does the web search to fulfill a task. For example, a user search for buying his favorite house. In this domain, a user's effort is higher but the satisfaction is low.
Online shopping is an example of interest-task driven.
2- This paper does not consider search logs in understanding users reformulating search behavior. They could consider a session in the search log similar to the "Context Attentive Document Ranking and Query Suggestion" paper (they consider previous queries related to a search task in the search log and consider it as a search session). Then investigate users reformulating behavior. At this point, the users' web search behavior would be identified at a certain personalized level.
Main Problem:
This paper analyzes users behavior in web search to answer the key questions:
1: How do users query reformulating behavior change through the session?--> They consider the following aspects to answering this question:1. reformulation type, syntactic(e.g. adding/deleting/change/repeat term) and intent-level (new topic, somewhat relevant). 2. reason for reformulation(e.g. satisfaction and dissatisfaction). 3. reformulation entry/from which part of search engine result pages (SERPs), a user chooses to reformulate his query(e.g. query suggestion, input box). 4. what inspired a user to formulate his query (e.g. landing pages or search snippets)
2: Whether users reformulate their queries differently on different search intents?--> They consider the following factors: 1. search effort and gain (e.g. dwell time on SERPs, clicks on search results, task satisfaction). 2. user actions (e.g. avg clicks by query, scrolling time)
3- Can we predict the answers to two previous questions?
Method
They developed a toolkit for browsers to selected users' search activity for one month (implicit information ). Also, they used questionnaires to collect explicit data from users. 50 users participate in this experiment.
Input-Output:
phase1:
Input: Implicit and explicit information related to users web search behavior
Output: Answers of two first questions + predicting model for predicting why and how users reformulate their queries.
Previous Works and their Gaps:
previous works proposed query suggestion and auto-completion to predict the user's next query. However, this work couldn't identify factor effect on users' query reformulation. This paper, use both explicit and implicit data of users' web search behavior and collect real data to identify what factors affect users' query reformulation.
Result:
They consider three dimensions:
Question1: In the beginning, users tend to add constraints on the query to limit the search scope. When their search intent is satisfied, they try to start to shift their intent gradually. Another result is, users rely on themselves to reformulate the query on long sessions, the reasons could be: search engines do not guide users properly or existing query suggestions could not satisfy users.
Question2: users' search behavior is affected by users' intent trigger and specificity. Users with interest-driven intents show more satisfaction. On the other hand, in task-driven the search effort is high but the search satisfaction is low. This indicates that query suggestion methods are not helpful in this domain and it is better for QE methods to be personalized to understand the user's search intent better.
question3: they used different predicting models to predict users' search behavior and they conclude that the best model to predict is XGBoost.
Data Set:
They used the AOL data set.
Gap of this work:
They could consider search history to understand the user's search behavior better.
This work can be considered as a motivation to personalized QR as the search engines have poor performance in task-driven users' intent.
Code:
http://www.thuir.cn/tiangong-qref/
toolkit: https://github.com/xuanyuan14/Web-Search-Field-Study-Toolkit
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: