skip to main content
10.1145/1242572.1242576acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageswwwConference Proceedingsconference-collections
Article

Investigating behavioral variability in web search

Published:08 May 2007Publication History

ABSTRACT

Understanding the extent to which people's search behaviors differ in terms of the interaction flow and information targeted is important in designing interfaces to help World Wide Web users search more effectively. In this paper we describe a longitudinal log-based study that investigated variability in people.s interaction behavior when engaged in search-related activities on the Web.allWe analyze the search interactions of more than two thousand volunteer users over a five-month period, with the aim of characterizing differences in their interaction styles.allThe findings of our study suggest that there are dramatic differences in variability in key aspects of the interaction within and between users, and within and between the search queries they submit.allOur findings also suggest two classes of extreme user. navigators and explorers. whose search interaction is highly consistent or highly variable. Lessons learned from these users can inform the design of tools to support effective Web-search interactions for everyone.

References

  1. Bates, M. (1989). The design of browsing and berrypicking techniques for the online search interface. Online Review, 13: 407--424.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. Bederson, B.B. & Shneiderman, B. (2003). The Craft of Information Visualization: Readings and Reflections. Morgan Kaufmann. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Bhavnani, S.K. (2001). Domain-specific search strategies for the effective retrieval of healthcare and shopping information. In Proc. CHI 2002, 610--611. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Buckland, M.K. & Florian, D. (1991). Expertise, task complexity, and artificial intelligence: A conceptual framework. J. Amer. Soc. Info. Sci, 42 (9), 635--643.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Card, S.K. et al. (2001). Information scent as a driver of web behavior graphs: Results of a protocol analysis method for web usability. In Proc. CHI 2001, 498--505. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Catledge, L.D. & Pitkow, J.E. (1995). Characterizing browsing strategies in the world wide web. Computer Networks and ISDN Systems, 27(6): 1065--1073. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Chi, E., Pirolli, P., Chen, J., Pitkow, J. (2001).allUsing information scent to model user information needs and actions on the web. In Proc. CHI 2001, pp. 490--497. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Cutrell, E. et al. (2006). Fast, flexible filtering with Phlat -- Personal search and organization made easy. In Proc. CHI 2006, 261--270. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Dillon, A. & Watson, C. (1996). User analysis in HCI: the historical lesson from individual differences research. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 45(6): 619--637. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Egan, D. (1988) Individual differences in human-computer interaction. In: Handbook of Human-computer Interaction. Elsevier, 543--568.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Eisenstein, J. & Rich, R. (2002). Agents and GUIs from task models. In Proc. IUI 2002, 47--54. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Ford, N. et al. (2002). Information seeking and mediated searching. Part 4. Cognitive styles in information seeking. JASIST, 53(9), 728--35. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Hölscher, C. & Strube, G. (2000). Web search behavior of Internet experts and newbies. Computer Networks, 33, 337--46. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Huberman, B. et al. (1998). Strong regularities in World Wide Web surfing. Science, 280 (5360): 95--97.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. Jansen, B. J., Spink, A. & Saracevic, T. (2000). Real life, real users, and real needs: A study and analysis of user queries on the Web. Info. Proc. & Mgt., 36: 207--227. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Jones, R. et al. (2006). Generating query substitutions. In Proc. WWW 2006, 387--396. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Lau, T. & Horvitz, E. (1999). Patterns of search: Analyzing and modeling web query refinement. In Proc. UM 1999, 119--128. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Levenshtein, V. (1966). Binary codes capable of correcting deletions, insertions and reversals. Soviet Physics Doklady, 10(8):707--710.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Lieberman, H.L., Fry, C. & Weitzman, L. (2001). Exploring the Web with reconnaissance agents. Communications of the ACM, 44(8): 69--75. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Malone, T.E. (1983). How do people organize their desks? ACM TOIS, 1(1): 99--112. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Marchionini, G. (1995). Information seeking in electronic environments. Cambridge University Press. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Milic-Frayling, N. (2004). SmartBack: Supporting users in back navigation. In Proc. WWW 2004, 63--71. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Neilsen, J. (1993). Usability Engineering, Cambridge MA: Academic Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Newell, A. & Simon, H. (1972). Human Problem Solving. Prentice-Hall. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. O'Day, V. & Jeffries, R. (1993). Orienteering in an information landscape: how information seekers get from here to there. In Proc. CHI 1993, 438--445. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Pask, G. (1976). Conventional techniques in the study and practice of education. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46, 12--25.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. Pirolli, P. & Card, S.K. (1995). Information foraging. Psychological Review, 106, 643--675.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. Pirolli, P. & Fu, W. (2003). Snif-act: A model of information foraging on the World Wide Web. In Proc. UM 2003, 45--54. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Pitkow, J. & Pirolli, P. (1999). Mining longest repeating subsequences to predict World Wide Web surfing. In Proc. USENIX Symposium, 139--150. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Pitkow, J. et al. (2002). Personalized search. Communications of the ACM, 45(9): 50--55. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Rich, E. (1989). Stereotypes and user modeling. In User Models in Dialog Systems. Springer.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Rose, D. E. & Levinson, D. (2004). Understanding user goals in Web search. In Proc. WWW 2004, 13--19. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. Russell, D.M. et al. (1993). The cost structure of sensemaking. In Proc. CHI 1993, 269--276. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. Tauscher, L. & Greenberg, S. (1997). Revisitation patterns in World Wide Web navigation. In Proc. CHI 1997, 399--406. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. Teevan, J. et al. (2006). History repeats itself: Repeat queries in Yahoo's logs. In Proc. SIGIR 2006, 703--704. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. Teevan, J. et al. (2004). The perfect search engine is not enough: A study of orienteering behavior in directed search. In Proc. CHI 2004, 415--422. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. Teevan, J. et al. (2005). Beyond the commons: Investigating the value of personalizing web search. In Proc. PIA 2005.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. Trigg, R.H. (1988). Guided tours and tabletops: tools for communicating in a hypertext environment. Transactions on Information Systems, 6(4): 398--414. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. Weinreich, H., Obendorf, H., Herder, E. & Mayer, M. (2006). Off the beaten tracks: Exploring three aspects of web navigation. In Proc. WWW 2006, 133--142. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  40. Wexelblat, A. & Maes, P. (1999). Footprints: History-rich tools for information foraging. In Proc. CHI 1999, 270--277. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Investigating behavioral variability in web search

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Conferences
      WWW '07: Proceedings of the 16th international conference on World Wide Web
      May 2007
      1382 pages
      ISBN:9781595936547
      DOI:10.1145/1242572

      Copyright © 2007 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 8 May 2007

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • Article

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader