skip to main content
10.1145/1719970.1719998acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesiuiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Facilitating exploratory search by model-based navigational cues

Authors Info & Claims
Published:07 February 2010Publication History

ABSTRACT

We present an extension of a computational cognitive model of social tagging and exploratory search called the semantic imitation model. The model assumes a probabilistic representation of semantics for both internal and external knowledge, and utilizes social tags as navigational cues during exploratory search. We used the model to generate a measure of information scent that controls exploratory search behavior, and simulated the effects of multiple presentations of navigational cues on both simple information retrieval and exploratory search performance based on a previous model called SNIF-ACT. We found that search performance can be significantly improved by these model-based presentations of navigational cues for both experts and novices. The result suggested that exploratory search performance depends critically on the match between internal knowledge (domain expertise) and external knowledge structures (folksonomies). Results have significant implications on how social information systems should be designed to facilitate knowledge exchange among users with different background knowledge.

References

  1. Blei, D., A. Ng, and M. Jordan, Latent Dirichlet Allocation. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 2003. 3: p. 993--1022. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Cattuto, C., V. Loreto, and L. Pietronero, Semiotic dynamics and collaborative tagging. Proceedings of National Academy of Sciences, 2007. 104: p. 1461--1464.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Eggenberger, F. and G. Polya, Uber Die Statistik Verketter Vorgage. Zeit. Angew. Math. Mech,, 1923. 1: p. 279--289.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Fu, W.-T. and W. Gray, Suboptimal tradeoffs in information seeking. Cognitive Psychology, 2006. 52(3): p. 195--242.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Fu, W.-T. and P. Pirolli, SNIF-ACT: A cognitive model of user navigation on the World Wide Web. Human-Computer Interaction, 2007. 22: p. 355--412. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Fu, W.-T., The microstructures of social tagging: A rational model, in Proceedings of the ACM 2008 conference on Computer supported cooperative work. 2008: San Diego, CA. p. 229--238. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Fu, W.-T., T.G. Kannampallil, and R. Kang, A Semantic Imitation Model of Social Tag Choices., in Proceedngs of the IEEE conference on Social Computing. 2009: Vancouver, BC. p. 66--72. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Fu, W.-T., et al., Semantic Imitation in Social Tagging. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, in press. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Furnas, G.W., et al., The vocabulary problem in human-system communication. Communications of the ACM, 1987. 30(11): p. 964--971. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Furnas, G.W., et al. Why do tagging systems work? in CHI '06 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 2006. Montréal, Québec, Canada. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Golder, S. and B. Huberman, Usage patterns of collaborative tagging systems. J. Inf. Sci., 2006. 32(2): p. 198--208. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Golder, S.A. and B.A. Huberman, Usage patterns of collaborative tagging systems. J. Inf. Sci., 2006. 32(2): p. 198--208. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Griffiths, T.L., et al., Topics in Semantic Representation. Psychological Review, 2007. 114(2): p. 211--244.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Kammerer, Y., et al. Signpost from the masses: learning effects in an exploratory social tag search browser. in Proceedings of the 27th international Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems CHI '09. 2009. Boston, MA, USA. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Kang, R., et al., Conformity out of Diversity: Dynamics of Information Needs and Social Influence of Tags in Exploratory Information Search, in Proceedings of the 13th International conference of Human-Computer Interaction. 2009: San Diego, CA. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Kang, R. and W.-T. Fu, Exploratory Information Search by Domain Experts and Novices, in Proceedings of the 2010 Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces. 2010: Hong Kong, China. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Kintsch, W., The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A construction-integration model. Psychological Review, 1988. 95: p. 163--182.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Marchionini, G., Exploratory search: from finding to understanding. Commun. ACM, 2006. 49(4): p. 41--46. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. McFadden, D., Conditional Logit Analysis of Qualitative Choice Behavior, in Frontiers of Econometrics, P. Zarembka, Editor. 1974, Academic Press: New York. p. 105--142.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Millen, D., et al., Social bookmarking and exploratory search, in ECSCW 2007. 2007. p. 21--40.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. Noll, M.G., et al., Telling experts from spammers: Expertise ranking in folksonomies, in Proceedings of the ACM conference on Information Retrieval (SIGIR). 2009: MA: Boston. p. 612--619. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Pirolli, P. and S. Card, Information Foraging. Psychological Review, 1999. 106(4): p. 643--675.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Pirolli, P. An elementary social information foraging model. in Proceedings of the 27th international Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems CHI '09. 2009. Boston, MA, USA. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Qu, Y. and G. Furnas, Model-driven formative evaluation of exploratory search: A study under a sensemaking framework. Inf. Process. Manage., 2008. 44(2): p. 534--555. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Sen, S., et al., tagging, communities, vocabulary, evolution, in Proceedings of the 2006 20th anniversary conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work. 2006, ACM: Banff, Alberta, Canada. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Facilitating exploratory search by model-based navigational cues

        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
          IUI '10: Proceedings of the 15th international conference on Intelligent user interfaces
          February 2010
          460 pages
          ISBN:9781605585154
          DOI:10.1145/1719970

          Copyright © 2010 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: 7 February 2010

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • research-article

          Acceptance Rates

          Overall Acceptance Rate746of2,811submissions,27%

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader