skip to main content
10.1145/2684822.2685319acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageswsdmConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Understanding and Predicting Graded Search Satisfaction

Published:02 February 2015Publication History

ABSTRACT

Understanding and estimating satisfaction with search engines is an important aspect of evaluating retrieval performance. Research to date has modeled and predicted search satisfaction on a binary scale, i.e., the searchers are either satisfied or dissatisfied with their search outcome. However, users' search experience is a complex construct and there are different degrees of satisfaction. As such, binary classification of satisfaction may be limiting. To the best of our knowledge, we are the first to study the problem of understanding and predicting graded (multi-level) search satisfaction. We ex-amine sessions mined from search engine logs, where searcher satisfaction was also assessed on multi-point scale by human annotators. Leveraging these search log data, we observe rich and non-monotonous changes in search behavior in sessions with different degrees of satisfaction. The findings suggest that we should predict finer-grained satisfaction levels. To address this issue, we model search satisfaction using features indicating search outcome, search effort, and changes in both outcome and effort during a session. We show that our approach can predict subtle changes in search satisfaction more accurately than state-of-the-art methods, affording greater insight into search satisfaction. The strong performance of our models has implications for search providers seeking to accu-rately measure satisfaction with their services.

References

  1. M. Ageev et al. 2011. Find it if you can: A game for modeling different types of web search success using interaction data. In SIGIR'11: 345--354. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. A. Al-Maskari et al. 2007. The relationship between IR effec-tiveness measures and user satisfaction. In SIGIR'07: 773--774. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. J. Arguello. 2014. Predicting search task difficulty. In ECIR'14: 88--99.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. L. Azzopardi et al. 2013. How query cost affects search be-havior. In SIGIR'13: 23--32. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. L. Azzopardi. 2014. Modelling interaction with economic models of search. In SIGIR'14: 3--12. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. J. E. Bailey and S. W. Pearson. 1983. Development of a tool for measuring and analyzing computer user satisfaction. Man-agement Science, 29(5): 530--545.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. P. N. Bennett et al. 2012. Modeling the impact of short- and long-term behavior on search personalization. In SIGIR'12: 185--194. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. H. Feild et al. 2010. Predicting searcher frustration. In SIGIR'10: 34--41. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. S. Fox et al. 2005. Evaluating implicit measures to improve web search. ACM TOIS, 23(2): 147--168. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Q. Guo et al. 2011. Why searchers switch: understanding and predicting engine switching rationales. In SIGIR'11: 335--344. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. A. Hassan. 2012. A semi-supervised approach to modeling web search satisfaction. In SIGIR'12: 275--284. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. A. Hassan et al. 2013. Beyond clicks: Query reformulation as a predictor of search satisfaction. In CIKM'13: 2019--2028. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. A. Hassan et al. 2010. Beyond DCG: User behavior as a pre-dictor of a successful search. In WSDM'10: 221--230. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. A. Hassan et al. 2014. Struggling or exploring? Disambiguating long search sessions? In WSDM'14: 53--62. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. S. B. Huffman and M. Hochster. 2007. How well does result relevance predict session satisfaction? In SIGIR'07: 567--574. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. B. Ives et al. 1983. The measurement of user information sat-isfaction. CACM, 26(10): 785--793. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. K. Järvelin and J. Kekäläinen. 2000. IR evaluation methods for retrieving highly relevant documents. In SIGIR'00: 41--48. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. K. Järvelin et al. 2008. Discounted cumulated gain based eval-uation of multiple-query IR sessions. In ECIR'08: 4--15. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. J. Jiang et al. Searching, browsing, and clicking in a search session: changes in user behavior by task and over time. In SIGIR'14: 607--616. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. T. Joachims et al. 2005. Accurately interpreting clickthrough data as implicit feedback. In SIGIR'05: 154--161. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. R. Jones and K. Klinkner. 2008. Beyond the session timeout: automatic hierarchical segmentation of search topics in query logs. In CIKM'08: 699--708. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. E. Kanoulas et al. 2011. Evaluating multi-query sessions. In SIGIR'11: 1053--1062. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. D. Kelly. 2009. Methods for evaluating interactive information retrieval systems with users. Foundation and Trends in In-formation Retrieval, 3(1--2): 1--224. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Y. Kim et al. 2014. Modeling dwell time to predict click-level satisfaction. In WSDM'14: 193--202. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. R. Kohavi et al. 2009. Controlled experiments on the web: survey and practical guide. Data Mining and Knowledge Dis-covery. 18(1): 140--181. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. J. Liu et al. 2012. Exploring and predicting search task diffi-culty. In CIKM'12: 1313--1322. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. J. Liu and N. J. Belkin. 2010. Personalizing information re-trieval for multi-session tasks. In SIGIR'10: 26--33. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. L. Lorigo et al. 2006. The influence of task and gender on search and evaluation behavior using Google. IP&M, 42(4): 1123--1131. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. G. Mankiw. 2010. Principles of Macroeconomics. South-Western Cengage Learning.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. A. Marshall. 2009. Principles of Economics: Abridged Edi-tion. Cosimo Classics.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. V. McKinney et al. 2002. The measurement of Web-customer satisfaction: an expectation and disconfirmation approach. In-formation Systems Research, 13(3): 296--315. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. R. L. Oliver. 1980. A cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences of satisfaction decisions. Journal of Marketing Research. 17(4): 460--470.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  33. C. L. Smith and P. B. Kantor. 2008. User adaptation: Good results from poor systems. In SIGIR'08: 147--154. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. L. T. Su. 2003. A comprehensive and systematic model of user evaluation of Web search engines. JASIST, 54(13): 1175--1192. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. H. Wang et al. 2014. Modeling action-level satisfaction for search task satisfaction prediction. In SIGIR'14: 123--132. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. R. W. White. 2013. Beliefs and biases in web search. In SIGIR'13: 3--12. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. E. Yilmaz et al. 2014. Relevance and effort: an analysis of document utility. In CIKM'14: 91--100. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Understanding and Predicting Graded Search Satisfaction

      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
        WSDM '15: Proceedings of the Eighth ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining
        February 2015
        482 pages
        ISBN:9781450333177
        DOI:10.1145/2684822

        Copyright © 2015 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: 2 February 2015

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article

        Acceptance Rates

        WSDM '15 Paper Acceptance Rate39of238submissions,16%Overall Acceptance Rate498of2,863submissions,17%

        Upcoming Conference

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader