Leaving so soon?: understanding and predicting web search abandonment rationales

Users of search engines often abandon their searches. Despite the high frequency of Web search abandonment and its importance to Web search engines, little is known about why searchers abandon beyond that it can be for good or bad reasons. In this paper, we ex-tend previous work by studying search abandonment using both a retrospective survey and an in-situ method that captures aban-donment rationales at abandonment time. We show that although satisfaction is a common motivator for abandonment, one-in-five abandonment instances does not relate to satisfaction. We also studied the automatic prediction of the underlying reason for ob-served abandonment. We used features of the query and the results, interaction with the result page (e.g., cursor movements, scrolling, clicks), and the full search session. We show that our classifiers can learn to accurately predict the reasons for observed search abandonment. Such accurate predictions help search providers estimate user satisfaction for queries without clicks, affording a more complete understanding of search engine performance.

[1]  Doug Downey,et al.  Understanding the relationship between searchers' queries and information goals , 2008, CIKM '08.

[2]  Ben Carterette,et al.  Evaluating Search Engines by Modeling the Relationship Between Relevance and Clicks , 2007, NIPS.

[3]  Ryen W. White,et al.  No clicks, no problem: using cursor movements to understand and improve search , 2011, CHI.

[4]  Sofia Stamou,et al.  Queries without Clicks: Successful or Failed Searches? , 2009 .

[5]  A. Ng Feature selection, L1 vs. L2 regularization, and rotational invariance , 2004, Twenty-first international conference on Machine learning - ICML '04.

[6]  Susan T. Dumais,et al.  Evaluating implicit measures to improve the search experiences , 2003 .

[7]  Filip Radlinski,et al.  Search Engines that Learn from Implicit Feedback , 2007, Computer.

[8]  Susan T. Dumais,et al.  Learning user interaction models for predicting web search result preferences , 2006, SIGIR.

[9]  Susan T. Dumais,et al.  Improving Web Search Ranking by Incorporating User Behavior Information , 2019, SIGIR Forum.

[10]  Y. Freund,et al.  Discussion of the Paper \additive Logistic Regression: a Statistical View of Boosting" By , 2000 .

[11]  Ling Xia,et al.  Eye tracking and online search: Lessons learned and challenges ahead , 2008, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[12]  Michael A. Shepherd,et al.  A Goal-based Classification of Web Information Tasks , 2006, ASIST.

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

[14]  Filip Radlinski,et al.  Learning diverse rankings with multi-armed bandits , 2008, ICML '08.

[15]  Steve Fox,et al.  Evaluating implicit measures to improve web search , 2005, TOIS.

[16]  Susan T. Dumais,et al.  The good, the bad, and the random: an eye-tracking study of ad quality in web search , 2010, SIGIR.

[17]  Ahmed Hassan Awadallah,et al.  Beyond DCG: user behavior as a predictor of a successful search , 2010, WSDM '10.

[18]  Sofia Stamou,et al.  Interpreting User Inactivity on Search Results , 2010, ECIR.

[19]  Daniel E. Rose,et al.  Understanding user goals in web search , 2004, WWW '04.

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

[21]  Jane Li,et al.  Good abandonment in mobile and PC internet search , 2009, SIGIR.

[22]  Ryen W. White,et al.  WWW 2007 / Track: Browsers and User Interfaces Session: Personalization Investigating Behavioral Variability in Web Search , 2022 .

[23]  Lydia B. Chilton,et al.  Addressing people's information needs directly in a web search result page , 2011, WWW.

[24]  Sreenivas Gollapudi,et al.  Bypass rates: reducing query abandonment using negative inferences , 2008, KDD.

[25]  Ryen W. White,et al.  Characterizing and predicting search engine switching behavior , 2009, CIKM.

[26]  Ryen W. White,et al.  Why searchers switch: understanding and predicting engine switching rationales , 2011, SIGIR.

[27]  Thorsten Joachims,et al.  Accurately Interpreting Clickthrough Data as Implicit Feedback , 2017 .

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

[29]  Ryen W. White,et al.  Large-scale analysis of individual and task differences in search result page examination strategies , 2012, WSDM '12.

[30]  Eugene Agichtein,et al.  Detecting success in mobile search from interaction , 2011, SIGIR '11.

[31]  Eugene Agichtein,et al.  Ready to buy or just browsing?: detecting web searcher goals from interaction data , 2010, SIGIR.

[32]  Elizabeth A. Kensinger,et al.  Negative Emotion Enhances Memory Accuracy , 2007 .

[33]  Thorsten Joachims,et al.  Accurately interpreting clickthrough data as implicit feedback , 2005, SIGIR '05.

[34]  James Allan,et al.  Predicting searcher frustration , 2010, SIGIR.