User-defined relevance criteria in web searching

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to specify user‐defined relevance criteria by which people select hyperlinks and pages in web searching.Design/methodology/approach – A quantitative and qualitative analysis was undertaken of talking aloud data from nine web searches conducted about self‐generated topics.Findings – Altogether 18 different criteria for selecting hyperlinks and web pages were found. The selection is constituted, by two, intertwined processes: the relevance judgment of hyperlinks, and web pages by user‐defined criteria, and decision‐making concerning the acceptance or rejection of hyperlinks and web pages. The study focuses on the former process. Of the individual criteria, specificity, topicality, familiarity, and variety were used most frequently in relevance judgments. The study shows that despite the high number of individual criteria used in the judgments, a few criteria such as specificity and topicality tend to dominate. Searchers were less critical in the judgment of hyperlinks ...

[1]  Peiling Wang,et al.  A Cognitive Model of Document Use During a Research Project. Study I. Document Selection , 1998, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci..

[2]  Amanda Spink,et al.  From Highly Relevant to Not Relevant: Examining Different Regions of Relevance , 1998, Inf. Process. Manag..

[3]  Linda Schamber,et al.  User Criteria in Relevance Evaluation: Toward Development of a Measurement Scale. , 1996 .

[4]  Kalervo Järvelin,et al.  The SST method: a tool for analysing Web information search processes , 2004, Inf. Process. Manag..

[5]  T. Park.  The Nature of Relevance in Information Retrieval: An Empirical Study , 1993, The Library Quarterly.

[6]  Soo Young Rieh.  On the Web at home: Information seeking and Web searching in the home environment , 2004, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[7]  Pertti Vakkari,et al.  Task-based information searching , 2005, Annu. Rev. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[8]  Peter Ingwersen,et al.  Dimensions of relevance , 2000, Inf. Process. Manag..

[9]  Raya Fidel,et al.  A Visit to the Information Mall: Web Searching Behavior of High School Students , 1999, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci..

[10]  Carol Tenopir,et al.  Users' interaction with World Wide Web resources: an exploratory study using a holistic approach , 2000, Inf. Process. Manag..

[11]  Diane H. Sonnenwald,et al.  User perspectives on relevance criteria: A comparison among relevant, partially relevant, and not-relevant judgments , 2002, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[12]  Carol L. Barry.  User-defined relevance criteria: an exploratory study , 1994 .

[13]  Paul Solomon,et al.  Toward an Understanding of the Dynamics of Relevance Judgment: An Analysis of One Person's Search Behavior , 1998, Inf. Process. Manag..

[14]  Gary Marchionini,et al.  Exploring users' video relevance criteria - A pilot study , 2005, ASIST.

[15]  Reijo Savolainen.  Information source horizons and source preferences of environmental activists: A social phenomenological approach , 2007 .

[16]  SpinkAmanda,et al.  From highly relevant to not relevant , 1998 .

[17]  Ingrid Hsieh-Yee.  A tribute to Doug Zweizig: An introduction , 2001 .

[18]  Chad Galloway,et al.  Relevance judging, evaluation, and decision making in virtual libraries: A descriptive study , 2001, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[19]  Joemon M. Jose,et al.  How users assess Web pages for information seeking , 2005, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[20]  Denise E. Agosto.  A model of young people's decision-making in using the Web , 2002 .

[21]  Stefano Mizzaro.  Relevance: the whole history , 1997 .

[22]  Pertti Vakkari,et al.  Changes in relevance criteria and problem stages in task performance , 2000, J. Documentation.

[23]  Pia Borlund,et al.  The concept of relevance in IR , 2003, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[24]  Jinx Stapleton Watson,et al.  "If You Don't Have It, You Can't Find It." A Close Look at Students' Perceptions of Using Technology , 1998, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci..

[25]  Linda Schamber.  Relevance and Information Behavior. , 1994 .

[26]  S. Hirsh.  Children's Relevance Criteria and Information Seeking on Electronic Resources , 1999, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci..

[27]  J. Watson.  “If you don't have it, you can't find it”: a close look at students' perceptions in using technology , 1998 .

[28]  Edie M. Rasmussen,et al.  Users' relevance criteria in image retrieval in American history , 2002, Inf. Process. Manag..

[29]  Soo Young Rieh.  Judgement of information quality and cognitive authority in the Web , 2002 .

[30]  Peiling Wang,et al.  A cognitive model of document use during a research project. Study I. document selection , 1998 .

[31]  Peiling Wang,et al.  A Cognitive Model of Document Use During a Research Project. Study II. Decisions at the Reading and Citing Stages , 1999, Journal of the American Society for Information Science.

[32]  Carol L. Barry,et al.  Users' Criteria for Relevance Evaluation: A Cross-situational Comparison , 1998, Inf. Process. Manag..

[33]  Dania Bilal.  Children's use of the Yahooligans! Web search engine: I. Cognitive, physical, and affective behaviors on fact‐based search tasks , 2000 .

[34]  Ingrid Hsieh-Yee.  Research on Web Search Behavior. , 2001 .

[35]  Theresa Dirndorfer Anderson,et al.  Relevance as process: judgements in the context of scholarly research , 2005, Inf. Res..