An eye-tracking approach to the analysis of relevance judgments on the Web: The case of Google search engine

Eye movement data can provide an in-depth view of human reasoning and the decision-making process, and modern information retrieval (IR) research can benefit from the analysis of this type of data. The aim of this research was to examine the relationship between relevance criteria use and visual behavior in the context of predictive relevance judgments. To address this objective, a multimethod research design was employed that involved observation of participants’ eye movements, talk-aloud protocols, and postsearch interviews. Specifically, the results reported in this article came from the analysis of 281 predictive relevance judgments made by 24 participants using the Google search engine. We present a novel stepwise methodological framework for the analysis of relevance judgments and eye movements on the Web and show new patterns of relevance criteria use during predictive relevance judgment. For example, the findings showed an effect of ranking order and surrogate components (Title, Summary, and URL) on the use of relevance criteria. Also, differences were observed in the cognitive effort spent between very relevant and not relevant judgments. We conclude with the implications of this study for IR research. © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

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

[2]  Andrew T. Duchowski,et al.  Using Eye Tracking to Evaluate Alternative Search Results Interfaces , 2005 .

[3]  Thorsten Joachims,et al.  In Google We Trust: Users' Decisions on Rank, Position, and Relevance , 2007, J. Comput. Mediat. Commun..

[4]  Andrew T. Duchowski,et al.  Eye Tracking Methodology: Theory and Practice , 2003, Springer London.

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

[6]  Susan T. Dumais,et al.  Individual differences in gaze patterns for web search , 2010, IIiX.

[7]  Rong Tang,et al.  Use of relevance criteria across stages of document evaluation: on the complementarity of experimental and naturalistic studies , 2001 .

[8]  Edward Cutrell,et al.  What are you looking for?: an eye-tracking study of information usage in web search , 2007, CHI.

[9]  Gary Marchionini,et al.  Text or Pictures? An Eyetracking Study of How People View Digital Video Surrogates , 2003, CIVR.

[10]  Jane Greenberg,et al.  Relevance criteria identified by health information users during Web searches: Research Articles , 2006 .

[11]  Joseph H. Goldberg,et al.  Eye tracking in web search tasks: design implications , 2002, ETRA.

[12]  Ying Zhang,et al.  A user-centered functional metadata evaluation of moving image collections , 2008 .

[13]  Päivi Majaranta,et al.  Eye-Tracking Reveals the Personal Styles for Search Result Evaluation , 2005, INTERACT.

[14]  Yvonne Kammerer,et al.  Measuring spontaneous and instructed evaluation processes during Web search: Integrating concurrent thinking-aloud protocols and eye-tracking data , 2011 .

[15]  Ian Ruthven,et al.  The use of relevance criteria during predictive judgment: An eye tracking approach , 2010, ASIST.

[16]  K. Rayner The 35th Sir Frederick Bartlett Lecture: Eye movements and attention in reading, scene perception, and visual search , 2009, Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[17]  Peter Ingwersen,et al.  The development of a method for the evaluation of interactive information retrieval systems , 1997, J. Documentation.

[18]  Peter Ingwersen,et al.  Searchers' relevance judgments and criteria in evaluating web pages in a learning style perspective , 2008, IIiX.

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

[20]  Amanda Spink,et al.  Regions and levels: Measuring and mapping users' relevance judgments , 2001, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[21]  Nigel Ford,et al.  Serendipity and information seeking: an empirical study , 2003, J. Documentation.

[22]  Meredith Ringel Morris,et al.  What do you see when you're surfing?: using eye tracking to predict salient regions of web pages , 2009, CHI.

[23]  Michael B. Eisenberg Measuring relevance judgments , 1988, Inf. Process. Manag..

[24]  Jarkko Kari,et al.  User-defined relevance criteria in web searching , 2006, J. Documentation.

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

[26]  Panos Balatsoukas,et al.  An evaluation framework of user interaction with metadata surrogates , 2009, J. Inf. Sci..

[27]  Kerry Rodden,et al.  Eye-mouse coordination patterns on web search results pages , 2008, CHI Extended Abstracts.

[28]  Thorsten Joachims,et al.  The influence of task and gender on search and evaluation behavior using Google , 2006, Inf. Process. Manag..

[29]  Ian Ruthven,et al.  Interactive information retrieval , 2008 .

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

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

[32]  Thorsten Joachims,et al.  Eye-tracking analysis of user behavior in WWW search , 2004, SIGIR '04.

[33]  Thorsten Joachims,et al.  Eye tracking and online search: Lessons learned and challenges ahead , 2008 .

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

[35]  K. A. Ericsson,et al.  Protocol Analysis: Verbal Reports as Data , 1984 .

[36]  Jane Greenberg,et al.  Relevance criteria identified by health information users during Web searches , 2006, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..