终端用户信息搜索的实证研究

A. Sutcliffe, M. Ennis, S. Watkinson
{"title":"终端用户信息搜索的实证研究","authors":"A. Sutcliffe, M. Ennis, S. Watkinson","doi":"10.1002/1097-4571(2000)9999:9999%3C::AID-ASI1033%3E3.0.CO;2-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"An empirical investigation of information retrieval (IR) using the MEDLINE1 database was carried out to study user behaviour, performance and to investigate the reasons for suboptimal searches. The experimental subjects were drawn from two groups of final year medical students who differed in their knowledge of the search system (i.e., novice and expert users). The subjects carried out four search tasks and their recall and precision performance was recorded. Data was captured on the search strategies used, duration, and logs of submitted queries. Differences were found between the groups for the performance measure of recall in only one of the four experimental tasks. Overall performance was poor. Analysis of strategies, timing data, and query logs showed that there were many different causes for search failure or success. Poor searchers either gave up too quickly, employed few search terms, used only simple queries, or used the wrong search terms. Good searchers persisted longer, used a larger, richer set of terms, constructed more complex queries, and were more diligent in evaluating the retrieved results. However, individual performances were not correlated with all of these factors. Poor performers frequently exhibited several factors of good searcher behaviour and failed for just one reason. Overall end-user searching behaviour is complex and it seems that just one factor can cause poor performance, whereas good performance can result from suboptimal strategies that compensate for some difficulties. The implications of the results for the design of IR interfaces are discussed.","PeriodicalId":50013,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology","volume":"1 1","pages":"1211-1231"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2000-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"148","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Empirical studies of end-user information searching\",\"authors\":\"A. Sutcliffe, M. Ennis, S. Watkinson\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/1097-4571(2000)9999:9999%3C::AID-ASI1033%3E3.0.CO;2-5\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"An empirical investigation of information retrieval (IR) using the MEDLINE1 database was carried out to study user behaviour, performance and to investigate the reasons for suboptimal searches. The experimental subjects were drawn from two groups of final year medical students who differed in their knowledge of the search system (i.e., novice and expert users). The subjects carried out four search tasks and their recall and precision performance was recorded. Data was captured on the search strategies used, duration, and logs of submitted queries. Differences were found between the groups for the performance measure of recall in only one of the four experimental tasks. Overall performance was poor. Analysis of strategies, timing data, and query logs showed that there were many different causes for search failure or success. Poor searchers either gave up too quickly, employed few search terms, used only simple queries, or used the wrong search terms. Good searchers persisted longer, used a larger, richer set of terms, constructed more complex queries, and were more diligent in evaluating the retrieved results. However, individual performances were not correlated with all of these factors. Poor performers frequently exhibited several factors of good searcher behaviour and failed for just one reason. Overall end-user searching behaviour is complex and it seems that just one factor can cause poor performance, whereas good performance can result from suboptimal strategies that compensate for some difficulties. The implications of the results for the design of IR interfaces are discussed.\",\"PeriodicalId\":50013,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"1211-1231\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2000-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"148\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-4571(2000)9999:9999%3C::AID-ASI1033%3E3.0.CO;2-5\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-4571(2000)9999:9999%3C::AID-ASI1033%3E3.0.CO;2-5","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 148

摘要

利用MEDLINE1数据库对信息检索(IR)进行了实证研究,以研究用户行为、性能并调查次优搜索的原因。实验对象来自两组对搜索系统了解程度不同的大四医学生(即新手和专家用户)。被试进行了四项搜索任务,并记录了他们的查全率和查准率。捕获了关于所使用的搜索策略、持续时间和提交查询的日志的数据。在四个实验任务中,两组之间只有一个任务的记忆力表现有差异。整体表现不佳。对策略、计时数据和查询日志的分析表明,搜索失败或成功有许多不同的原因。糟糕的搜索者要么放弃得太快,要么使用很少的搜索词,要么只使用简单的查询,要么使用了错误的搜索词。优秀的搜索者持续的时间更长,使用更大、更丰富的术语集,构造更复杂的查询,并且在评估检索结果时更勤奋。然而,个人表现与所有这些因素并不相关。表现不佳的人经常表现出良好搜索行为的几个因素,而失败的原因只有一个。整体的终端用户搜索行为是复杂的,似乎只有一个因素会导致性能不佳,而良好的性能可能来自于补偿一些困难的次优策略。讨论了研究结果对红外接口设计的启示。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Empirical studies of end-user information searching
An empirical investigation of information retrieval (IR) using the MEDLINE1 database was carried out to study user behaviour, performance and to investigate the reasons for suboptimal searches. The experimental subjects were drawn from two groups of final year medical students who differed in their knowledge of the search system (i.e., novice and expert users). The subjects carried out four search tasks and their recall and precision performance was recorded. Data was captured on the search strategies used, duration, and logs of submitted queries. Differences were found between the groups for the performance measure of recall in only one of the four experimental tasks. Overall performance was poor. Analysis of strategies, timing data, and query logs showed that there were many different causes for search failure or success. Poor searchers either gave up too quickly, employed few search terms, used only simple queries, or used the wrong search terms. Good searchers persisted longer, used a larger, richer set of terms, constructed more complex queries, and were more diligent in evaluating the retrieved results. However, individual performances were not correlated with all of these factors. Poor performers frequently exhibited several factors of good searcher behaviour and failed for just one reason. Overall end-user searching behaviour is complex and it seems that just one factor can cause poor performance, whereas good performance can result from suboptimal strategies that compensate for some difficulties. The implications of the results for the design of IR interfaces are discussed.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
3.5 months
期刊最新文献
Information Resources Management in the Twenty-First Century: Challenges, Prospects, and the Librarian’s Role Technical Infrastructure to Support Public Value Co-creation in Smart City Perceived Usefulness of Web 2.0 Tools for Knowledge Management by University Undergraduate Students: A Review of Literature Group Emotion Recognition for Weibo Topics Based on BERT with TextCNN Research on the Service of Special Collections of University Libraries Empowered by Intelligent Media
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1