Retrieval performance of Google, Yahoo and Bing for navigational queries in the field of "life science and biomedicine"

The purpose of this study is to assess the retrieval performance of three search engines, i.e. Google, Yahoo and Bing for navigational queries using two important retrieval measures, i.e. precision and relative recall in the field of life science and biomedicine.,Top three search engines namely Google, Yahoo and Bing were selected on the basis of their ranking as per Alexa, an analytical tool that provides ranking of global websites. Furthermore, the scope of study was confined to those search engines having interface in English. Clarivate Analytics' Web of Science was used for the extraction of navigational queries in the field of life science and biomedicine. Navigational queries (classified as one-word, two-word and three-word queries) were extracted from the keywords of the papers representing the top 100 contributing authors in the select field. Keywords were also checked for the duplication. Two important evaluation parameters, i.e. precision and relative recall were used to calculate the performance of search engines on the navigational queries.,The mean precision for Google scores high (2.30) followed by Yahoo (2.29) and Bing (1.68), while mean relative recall also scores high for Google (0.36) followed by Yahoo (0.33) and Bing (0.31) respectively.,The study is of great help to the researchers and academia in determining the retrieval efficiency of Google, Yahoo and Bing in terms of navigational query execution in the field of life science and biomedicine. The study can help users to focus on various search processes and the query structuring and its execution across the select search engines for achieving desired result list in a professional search environment. The study can also act as a ready reference source for exploring navigational queries and how these queries can be managed in the context of information retrieval process. It will also help to showcase the retrieval efficiency of various search engines on the basis of subject diversity (life science and biomedicine) highlighting the same in terms of query intention.,Though many studies have been conducted highlighting the retrieval efficiency of search engines the current work is the first of its kind to study the retrieval effectiveness of Google, Yahoo and Bing on navigational queries in the field of life science and biomedicine. The study will help in understanding various methods and approaches to be adopted by the users for the navigational query execution across a professional search environment, i.e. “life science and biomedicine”

[1]  Maryam Mahmoudi,et al.  Evaluating the retrieval effectiveness of search engines using Persian navigational queries , 2014, 7'th International Symposium on Telecommunications (IST'2014).

[2]  Longzhuang Li,et al.  Precision Evaluation of Search Engines , 2004, World Wide Web.

[3]  Judit Bar-Ilan.  Methods for measuring search engine performance over time , 2002, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[4]  Minsoo Park,et al.  Understanding science and technology information users through transaction log analysis , 2013, Libr. Hi Tech.

[5]  Dion Hoe-Lian Goh,et al.  Relevancy rankings: pay for performance search engines in the hot seat , 2003, Online Inf. Rev..

[6]  Michaël Thomazo,et al.  On the Complexity of Evaluating Regular Path Queries over Linear Existential Rules , 2016, RR.

[7]  Dirk Lewandowski,et al.  The retrieval effectiveness of search engines on navigational queries , 2011, Aslib Proc..

[8]  Dirk Lewandowski,et al.  Evaluating the retrieval effectiveness of web search engines using a representative query sample , 2014, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[9]  Emmanouel Garoufallou.  Evaluating search engines: A comparative study between international and Greek SE by Greek librarians , 2012, Program.

[10]  Longzhuang Li,et al.  A new method for automatic performance comparison of search engines , 2004, World Wide Web.

[11]  Jin Zhang,et al.  Search engines’ responses to several search feature selections , 2010 .

[12]  Monica Landoni,et al.  Information retrieval techniques for evaluating search engines: a critical overview , 2000, Aslib Proc..

[13]  Dirk Lewandowski,et al.  Accessibility of web search engines: Towards a deeper understanding of barriers for people with disabilities , 2012 .

[14]  Hsiao-Tieh Pu,et al.  A comparative analysis of web image and textual queries , 2005, Online Inf. Rev..

[15]  Jin Zhang,et al.  A comparative analysis of the search feature effectiveness of the major English and Chinese search engines , 2013, Online Inf. Rev..

[16]  Dirk Lewandowski,et al.  The Retrieval Effectiveness of Web Search Engines: Considering Results Descriptions , 2008, J. Documentation.

[17]  Fotis Lazarinis,et al.  Web retrieval systems and the Greek language: do they have an understanding? , 2007, J. Inf. Sci..

[18]  Amanda Spink,et al.  Real life, real users, and real needs: a study and analysis of user queries on the web , 2000, Inf. Process. Manag..

[19]  Sanjib Kumar Deka,et al.  Performance evaluation and comparison of the five most used search engines in retrieving web resources , 2010, Online Inf. Rev..

[20]  David Sánchez,et al.  Evaluating the Suitability of Web Search Engines as Proxies for Knowledge Discovery from the Web , 2016, KES.

[21]  Andrei Broder,et al.  A taxonomy of web search , 2002, SIGF.

[22]  Dirk Lewandowski,et al.  Problems with the use of web search engines to find results in foreign languages , 2008, Online Inf. Rev..

[23]  Mehri Parirokh,et al.  A comparative study on overlapping of search results in metasearch engines and their common underlying search engines , 2006 .

[24]  Yong Yu,et al.  Identification of ambiguous queries in web search , 2009, Inf. Process. Manag..

[25]  Jin Zhang,et al.  Image search engine feature analysis , 2001, Online Inf. Rev..

[26]  Dirk Lewandowski,et al.  Query types and search topics of German Web search engine users , 2007, Inf. Serv. Use.

[27]  Sergey Brin,et al.  The Anatomy of a Large-Scale Hypertextual Web Search Engine , 1998, Comput. Networks.

[28]  Michael D. Gordon,et al.  Finding Information on the World Wide Web: The Retrieval Effectiveness of Search Engines , 1999, Inf. Process. Manag..

[29]  S. M. Shafi,et al.  Precision and Recall of Five Search Engines for Retrieval of Scholarly Information in the Field of Biotechnology , 2005, Webology.

[30]  Qinghua Zhu,et al.  Using a Delphi method and the Analytic Hierarchy Process to evaluate the search engines: A case study on Chinese search engines , 2011, Online Inf. Rev..

[31]  Jaime Teevan,et al.  Understanding and predicting personal navigation , 2011, WSDM '11.

[32]  Frances C. Johnson,et al.  Users' Information Search Behavior in a Professional Search Environment: - A Methodological Approach , 2014, Professional Search in the Modern World.

[33]  Jaideep Srivastava,et al.  First 20 precision among World Wide Web search services (search engines) , 1999 .

[34]  Nina Wacholder,et al.  Interactive query formulation , 2011, Annu. Rev. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[35]  Monica Landoni,et al.  Is Google the answer? A study into usability of search engines , 2007 .

[36]  Dania Bilal,et al.  Ranking, relevance judgment, and precision of information retrieval on children's queries: Evaluation of Google, Yahoo!, Bing, Yahoo! Kids, and ask Kids , 2012, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[37]  Sumeer Gul,et al.  Search engine effectiveness using query classification: a study , 2016, Online Inf. Rev..

[38]  Rashid Ali,et al.  An overview of Web search evaluation methods , 2011, Comput. Electr. Eng..

[39]  Andrew MacFarlane.  Evaluation of web search for the information practitioner , 2007, Aslib Proc..

[40]  Rabia Nuray-Turan,et al.  Automatic performance evaluation of Web search engines , 2004, Inf. Process. Manag..

[41]  Hamid Sadeghi.  Automatic performance evaluation of Web search engines using judgments of metasearch engines , 2011, Online Inf. Rev..

[42]  Frances C. Johnson,et al.  An Exploration of Users' Needs for Multilingual Information Retrieval and Access , 2015, MTSR.

[43]  Nikos Loutas,et al.  An Evaluation of How Search Engines Respond to Greek Language Queries , 2008, Proceedings of the 41st Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS 2008).

[44]  Liwen Vaughan,et al.  New measurements for search engine evaluation proposed and tested , 2004, Inf. Process. Manag..

[45]  Jinyoung Kim,et al.  An Analysis of Time-Instability in Web Search Results , 2011, ECIR.

[46]  B. T. Sampath Kumar,et al.  Evaluating the searching capabilities of search engines and metasearch engines: a comparative study , 2010 .

[47]  Emmanouel Garoufallou,et al.  Greek academic librarians' perceptions of the impact of Google on their role as information providers , 2008, Educ. Inf..

[48]  Amanda Spink,et al.  Determining the informational, navigational, and transactional intent of Web queries , 2008, Inf. Process. Manag..

[49]  Charles Oppenheim,et al.  The evaluation of WWW search engines , 2000, J. Documentation.

[50]  Judit Bar-Ilan,et al.  Manipulating search engine algorithms: the case of Google , 2007, J. Inf. Commun. Ethics Soc..