Relevance criteria identified by health information users during Web searches

This article focuses on the relevance judgments made by health information users who use the Web. Health information users were conceptualized as motivated information users concerned about how an environmental issue affects their health. Users identified their own environmental health interests and conducted a Web search of a particular environmental health Web site. Users were asked to identify (by highlighting with a mouse) the criteria they use to assess relevance in both Web search engine surrogates and full-text Web documents. Content analysis of document criteria highlighted by users identified the criteria these users relied on most often. Key criteria identified included (in order of frequency of appearance) research, topic, scope, data, influence, affiliation, Web characteristics, and authority/ person. A power-law distribution of criteria was observed (a few criteria represented most of the highlighted regions, with a long tail of occasionally used criteria). Implications of this work are that information retrieval (IR) systems should be tailored in terms of users' tendencies to rely on certain document criteria, and that relevance research should combine methods to gather richer, contextualized data. Metadata for IR systems, such as that used in search engine surrogates, could be improved by taking into account actual usage of relevance criteria. Such metadata should be user-centered (based on data from users, as in this study) and context-appropriate (fit to users' situations and tasks).

[1]  Min-Yen Kan,et al.  Using librarian techniques in automatic text summarization for information retrieval , 2002, JCDL '02.

[2]  Jane Greenberg,et al.  Functionalities for automatic metadata generation applications: a survey of metadata experts' opinions , 2006, Int. J. Metadata Semant. Ontologies.

[3]  Carol L. Barry User-Defined Relevance Criteria: An Exploratory Study , 1994, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci..

[4]  Carol L. Barry Document Representations and Clues to Document Relevance , 1998, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci..

[5]  Allyson Carlyle,et al.  User categorisation of works: toward improved organisation of online catalogue displays , 1999, J. Documentation.

[6]  Amanda Spink Web Search: Emerging Patterns , 2003, Libr. Trends.

[7]  Jakob Nielsen,et al.  Concise, SCANNABLE, and Objective: How to Write for the Web , 2006 .

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

[9]  Stefano Mizzaro,et al.  Relevance: The Whole History , 1997, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci..

[10]  Soo Young Rieh Judgment of information quality and cognitive authority in the Web , 2002, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[11]  Joseph W. Janes,et al.  Relevance judgments and the incremental presentation of document representations , 1991, Inf. Process. Manag..

[12]  Fabio Crestani,et al.  Information Retrieval by Logical Imaging , 1995, J. Documentation.

[13]  Marcia J. Bates,et al.  Document Familiarity, Relevance, and Bradford's Law: the Getty Online Searching Project Report Number 5 , 1996, Inf. Process. Manag..

[14]  Wen-Chin Lan From document clues to descriptive metadata : document characteristics used by graduate students in judging the usefulness of Web documents , 2002 .

[15]  Gary Marchionini,et al.  Information Seeking in Electronic Environments , 1995 .

[16]  Michael B. Eisenberg,et al.  A re-examination of relevance: toward a dynamic, situational definition , 1990, Inf. Process. Manag..

[17]  Susan T. Dumais,et al.  Bringing order to the Web: automatically categorizing search results , 2000, CHI.

[18]  Offer Drori Improving Display of Search Results in Information Retrieval Systems Users Study , 2001, NDDL.

[19]  Offer Drori The Benefits of Displaying Additional Internal Document Information on Textual Database Search Result Lists , 2000, ECDL.

[20]  Ron Henderson,et al.  An Examination of Four User-Based Software Evaluation Methods , 1995, Interact. Comput..

[21]  Judy Bateman Changes in Relevance Criteria: A Longitudinal Study. , 1998 .

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

[23]  Junliang Zhang,et al.  Coupling browse and search in highly interactive user interfaces: a study of the relation browser++ , 2004, Proceedings of the 2004 Joint ACM/IEEE Conference on Digital Libraries, 2004..

[24]  Rong Tang,et al.  Use of relevance criteria across stages of document evaluation: On the complementarity of experimental and naturalistic studies , 2001, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

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

[26]  Jon R. Hufford Elements of the Bibliographic Record Used by Reference Staff Members at Three ARL Academic Libraries , 1991 .

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

[28]  William Sugar User-Centered Perspective of Information Retrieval Research and Analysis Methods. , 1995 .

[29]  Gary Marchionini,et al.  Evaluation and evolution of a browse and search interface: relation browser , 2005, DG.O.

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

[31]  Peter Ingwersen,et al.  Cognitive Perspectives of Information Retrieval Interaction: Elements of a Cognitive IR Theory , 1996, J. Documentation.

[32]  Stephen P. Harter,et al.  Psychological Relevance and Information Science , 1992, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci..

[33]  Kevin Li,et al.  Faceted metadata for image search and browsing , 2003, CHI '03.

[34]  Koichi Takeda,et al.  Information retrieval on the web , 2000, CSUR.

[35]  James G. Anderson Consumers of eHealth: patterns of use and barriers , 2003 .

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

[37]  Susan T. Dumais,et al.  Optimizing search by showing results in context , 2001, CHI.

[38]  Marcia J. Bates After the Dot-Bomb: Getting Web Information Retrieval Right This Time , 2002, First Monday.

[39]  Jane Greenberg,et al.  Open Source Software Development and Lotka's Law: Bibliometric Patterns in Programming , 2003, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[40]  Jaana Kekäläinen,et al.  Using graded relevance assessments in IR evaluation , 2002, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..