Is relevance hard work?: evaluating the effort of making relevant assessments

The judging of relevance has been a subject of study in information retrieval for a long time, especially in the creation of relevance judgments for test collections. While the criteria by which assessors? judge relevance has been intensively studied, little work has investigated the process individual assessors go through to judge the relevance of a document. In this paper, we focus on the process by which relevance is judged, and in particular, the degree of effort a user must expend to judge relevance. By better understanding this effort in isolation, we may provide data which can be used to create better models of search. We present the results of an empirical evaluation of the effort users must exert to judge the relevance of document, investigating the effect of relevance level and document size. Results suggest that 'relevant' documents require more effort to judge when compared to highly relevant and not relevant documents, and that effort increases as document size increases.

[1]  Jacek Gwizdka,et al.  Assessing Cognitive Load on Web Search Tasks , 2009, ArXiv.

[2]  S. Hart,et al.  Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of Empirical and Theoretical Research , 1988 .

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

[4]  Mark D. Smucker,et al.  Measuring assessor accuracy: a comparison of nist assessors and user study participants , 2011, SIGIR '11.

[5]  Louise T. Su Evaluation Measures for Interactive Information Retrieval , 1992, Inf. Process. Manag..

[6]  Yasuo Horiuchi,et al.  Considerations of Efficiency and Mental Stress of Search Tasks on Websites by Blind Persons , 2009, HCI.

[7]  James Allan,et al.  Minimal test collections for retrieval evaluation , 2006, SIGIR.

[8]  Jianqiang Wang Accuracy , Agreement , Speed , and Perceived Difficulty of Users ’ Relevance Judgments for E-Discovery , 2011 .

[9]  Arthur R. Taylor,et al.  User relevance criteria choices and the information search process , 2012, Inf. Process. Manag..

[10]  Ben Carterette,et al.  System effectiveness, user models, and user utility: a conceptual framework for investigation , 2011, SIGIR.

[11]  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..

[12]  Pertti Vakkari,et al.  Relevance and contributing information types of searched documents in task performance , 2000, SIGIR '00.

[13]  Eero Sormunen,et al.  Liberal relevance criteria of TREC -: counting on negligible documents? , 2002, SIGIR '02.

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