skip to main content
10.1145/511446.511490acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageswwwConference Proceedingsconference-collections
Article

Expert agreement and content based reranking in a meta search environment using Mearf

Published:07 May 2002Publication History

ABSTRACT

Recent increase in the number of search engines on the Web and the availability of meta search engines that can query multiple search engines makes it important to find effective methods for combining results coming from different sources. In this paper we introduce novel methods for reranking in a meta search environment based on expert agreement and contents of the snippets. We also introduce an objective way of evaluating different methods for ranking search results that is based upon implicit user judgements. We incorporated our methods and two variations of commonly used merging methods in our meta search engine, Mearf, and carried out an experimental study using logs accumulated over a period of twelve months. Our experiments show that the choice of the method used for merging the output produced by different search engines plays a significant role in the overall quality of the search results. In almost all cases examined, results produced by some of the new methods introduced were consistently better than the ones produced by traditional methods commonly used in various meta search engines. These observations suggest that the proposed methods can offer a relatively inexpensive way of improving the meta search experience over existing methods.

References

  1. Brian T. Bartell, Garrison W. Cottrell, and Richard K. Belew. Automatic combination of multiple ranked retrieval systems. In Research and Development in Information Retrieval, pages 173--181, 1994. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. C4.com. http://www.c4.com/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. J. P. Callan, Z. Lu, and W. Bruce Croft. Searching Distributed Collections with Inference Networks. In Proceedings of the 18th Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, pages 21--28, Seattle, Washington, 1995. ACM Press. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Daniel Dreilinger and Adele E. Howe. Experiences with selecting search engines using metasearch. ACM Transactions on Information Systems, 15(3):195--222, 1997. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. James C. French and Allison L. Powell. Metrics for evaluating database selection techniques. In 10th International Workshop on Database and Expert Systems Applications, 1999. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. James C. French, Allison L. Powell, James P. Callan, Charles L. Viles, Travis Emmitt, Kevin J. Prey, and Yun Mou. Comparing the performance of database selection algorithms. In Research and Development in Information Retrieval, pages 238--245, 1999. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. E. Glover. Using Extra-Topical User Preferences to Improve Web-Based Metasearch. PhD thesis, 2001. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. L. Gravano, H. García-Molina, and A. Tomasic. The effectiveness of GIOSS for the text database discovery problem. SIGMOD Record (ACM Special Interest Group on Management of Data), 23(2):126--137, June 1994. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Adele E. Howe and Daniel Dreilinger. SAVVYSEARCH: A metasearch engine that learns which search engines to query. AI Magazine, 18(2):19--25, 1997.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Inquirus. http://www.inquirus.com/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Panagiotis Ipeirotis, Luis Gravano, and Mehran Sahami. Automatic classification of text databases through query probing. Technical Report CUCS-004-00, Computer Science Department, Columbia University, March 2000.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Ixquick. http://www.ixquick.com/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. D. D. Lewis. Evaluating and Optimizing Autonomous Text Classification Systems. In E. A. Fox, P. Ingwersen, and R. Fidel, editors, Proceedings of the 18th Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, pages 246--254, Seattle, Washington, 1995. ACM Press. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Longzhuang Li and Li Shang. Statistical performance evaluation of search engines. In WWW10 conference posters, May 2--5, 2001, Hong Kong.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Mamma. http://www.mamma.com/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. M. Catherine McCabe, Abdur Chowdhury, David A. Grossman, and Ophir Frieder. A unified environment for fusion of information retrieval approaches. In ACM-CIKM Conference for Information and Knowledge Management, pages 330--334, 1999. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Metacrawler. http://www.metacrawler.com/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Profusion. http://www.profusion.com/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. E. Selberg. Towards Comprehensive Web Search. PhD thesis, 1999. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. E. Selberg and O. Etzioni. Multi-service search and comparison using the MetaCrawler. In Proceedings of the 4th International World-Wide Web Conference, Darmstadt, Germany, December 1995.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. E. Selberg and O. Etzioni. The MetaCrawler architecture for resource aggregation on the Web. IEEE Expert, (January--February):11--14, 1997.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. Joseph A. Shaw and Edward A. Fox. Combination of multiple searches. In Third Text REtrieval Conference, 1994.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Mario Gomez Susan Gauch, Guijun Wang. Profusion: Intelligent fusion from multiple, distributed search engines. Journal of Universal Computer Science, 2(9):637--649, 1996.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Christopher C. Vogt and Garrison W. Cottrell. Fusion via a linear combination of scores. Information Retrieval, 1(3):151--173, 1999. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Zonghuan Wu, Weiyi Meng, Clement Yu, and Zhuogang Li. Towards a highly-scalable and effective metasearch engine. In WWW10 Conference, May 2--5, 2001, Hong Kong. ACM, 2001. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Clement T. Yu, Weiyi Meng, King-Lup Liu, Wensheng Wu, and Naphtali Rishe. Efficient and effective metasearch for a large number of text databases. In Proceedings of the 1999 ACM CIKM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, Kansas City, Missouri, USA, November 2-6, 1999, pages 217--224. ACM, 1999. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

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 '02: Proceedings of the 11th international conference on World Wide Web
    May 2002
    754 pages
    ISBN:1581134495
    DOI:10.1145/511446

    Copyright © 2002 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 May 2002

    Permissions

    Request permissions about this article.

    Request Permissions

    Check for updates

    Qualifiers

    • Article

    Acceptance Rates

    Overall Acceptance Rate1,899of8,196submissions,23%

PDF Format

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader