In a recent blog post, Vegard Sandvold proposed a taxonomy of search systems based on two dimensions — algorithmic vs. user-powered and information accessibility. The first dimension represents a tradeoff between systems and people in terms of who does the information seeking, and the second one measures the ease of finding information in some search space. His blog post was intended to solicit discussion, and, in that spirit, here is my take on his ideas.
Last week I blogged about Google’s public data visualizations, and suggested that the data lacked transparency that prevented Google’s visualizations from being used critically. Daniel Tunkelang pointed out that the source of the data is linked to the visualization. And indeed it is. So what’s the problem?
Google recently unveiled its public data search that allows people to generate charts of data from public sources. Nifty. But it doesn’t seem to allow the user to customize the visualization by selecting representations, date ranges, etc., or for data to be extracted for further analysis. It would be great if I could run my own statistical analyses on the data, or generate visualizations with, for example, Many Eyes.
Another problem I see with the data is lack of transparency: I couldn’t see any way to browse the various datasets they have indexed. Instead, it seems that you have to stumble onto them by chance. Nice for serendipity, not so nice for exploratory search.
I saw an interesting bit of technology at CHI 2009 this year. Yevgeniy Medynskiy, Mira Dontcheva, and Steven Drucker published a paper called “Exploring Websites through Contextual Facets” where they tried to solve the problem of iterative query formulation in online faceted search. They observed that search interfaces that allowed the user to specify multiple criteria to find desired objects often removed the search interface when the user selected item details. In addition, they observed vocabulary mismatch for aspects in the search interface vs. the details view. Finally, people often landed on item pages through external search engines, and couldn’t easily get to an in-site search interface with their search context preserved.
In their recent ECIR paper, Joho et al. explored the effectiveness of several mediation techniques around relevance feedback in supporting collaborative search. They ran simulations based on TREC HARD topics queries elicited in an earlier study, and found that certain techniques were effective at increasing recall during (simulated) search sessions consisting of 20 queries.
Giles Crouch wrote recently about social search vs. general search, pointing out that people often search for information in their social network vs. in a general index such a Google or Yahoo! While we need to distinguish the cases when people search their social network for information about the network per se vs. information that the network refers to, there are circumstances when people make explicit decisions about where to search. It seems to me that there are several reasons why people may prefer not to use generic search in certain cases. Continue Reading
Late last year Hideo Joho, David Hannah and Joemon M. Jose published a paper that described an experiment in collaborative exploratory search. They compared teams of pairs of searchers in three conditions — independent (not collaborative), collaborative without communication, and collaborative with communication. This paper is interesting for several reasons, not least of which is that it made an attempt to quantify the effects of collaboration on search performance, an important subject that has not yet received adequate attention.
At CHI 2009 this year, Sharoda Paul presented a paper she co-wrote with Merrie Morris that explores how sensemaking can be managed in a collaborative search environment. They created CoSense, an interface that augments SearchTogether with several tools that facilitate awareness and information sharing among collaborators. Tools include interactive query timelines, statistics on individual queries and term use, chat history, and a workspace for annotating search results.
There was a good crop of papers at CHI 2009 this year, and I didn’t get to see them all. I did see a few that were particularly interesting, including “Learning How: The Search for Craft Knowledge on the Internet” by Torrey, Churchill, and McDonald. The paper describes and analyzes search activities by people involved in various crafts. This work is interesting to me because in a way it very clearly separates exploratory search from other kinds of online searching.
Thus far in our series on Collaborative Information Seeking we have explored two dimensions: Intent and Synchronization. The next dimension is the Depth at which the mediation (aka support, facilitation) of the multi-user search process occurs.
We can talk about three levels of mediation: communications tools independent of the search engine (e.g., chat, e-mail, voice, etc.), UI-level mediation, and algorithmic mediation. The first level typifies most searching currently being performed on the web, whereas the other two are more commonly found in research prototypes. Continue Reading