skip to main content
10.1145/1835449.1835457acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesirConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Personalizing information retrieval for multi-session tasks: the roles of task stage and task type

Published:19 July 2010Publication History

ABSTRACT

Dwell time as a user behavior has been found in previous studies to be an unreliable predictor of document usefulness, with contextual factors such as the user's task needing to be considered in its interpretation. Task stage has been shown to influence search behaviors including usefulness judgments, as has task type. This paper reports on an investigation of how task stage and task type may help predict usefulness from the time that users spend on retrieved documents, over the course of several information seeking episodes. A 3-stage controlled experiment was conducted with 24 participants, each coming 3 times to work on 3 sub-tasks of a general task, couched either as "parallel" or "dependent" task type. The full task was to write a report on the general topic, with interim documents produced for each sub-task. Results show that task stage can help in inferring document usefulness from decision time, especially in the parallel task. The findings can be used to increase accuracy in predicting document usefulness and accordingly in personalizing search for multi-session tasks.

References

  1. Belkin, N.J. (2008). Some(What) grand challenges for information retrieval. ACM SIGIR Forum 42, 1, 47--54. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Byström, K., & Järvelin, K. (1995). Task complexity affects information seeking and use. Inform Process Manag, 31, 191--213. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Freund (2008). Exploring task-document relations in support of information retrieval in the workplace. Unpublished Dissertation. University of Toronto.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Ingwersen, P. & Järvelin, K. (2005). The turn: Integration of information seeking and retrieval in context. Springer-Verlag New York, Inc. Secaucus, NJ, USA. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Kellar, M., Watters, C., & Shepherd, M. (2007). A field study characterizing Web-based information-seeking tasks. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Tec., 58(7), 999--1018. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Kelly, D. & Belkin, N.J. (2004). Display time as implicit feedback: Understanding task effects. Proc. SIGIR, 377--384. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Kuhlthau, C.C. (1991). Inside the search process: information seeking from the user's perspective. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci., 42, 361--371.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. Li, Y. & Belkin, N.J. (2008). A faceted approach to conceptualizing tasks in information seeking. Inform Process Manag, 44, 1822--1837. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Lin, S.-J. (2001). Modeling and Supporting Multiple Information Seeking Episodes over the Web. Unpublished dissertation. Rutgers University.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Tang, R., Shaw, W.M., & Vevea, J.L. (1999). Towards the identification of the optimal number of relevance categories. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Tec, 50(3), 254--264. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Taylor, R.S. (1968). Question negotiation and information seeking in libraries. College & Research Libraries, 29, 178--194.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Taylor, A. R., Cool, C., Belkin, N.J., & Amadio, W.J. (2007). Relationships between categories of relevance criteria and stage in task completion. Inform Process Manag 43, 1071--1084. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Toms, E., MacKenzie, T., Jordan, C., O'Brien, H., Freund, L., Toze, S., et al. (2007). How task affects information search. In Workshop Pre-proceedings in Initiative for the Evaluation of XML Retrieval (INEX), 337--341.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Vakkari, P., & Hakala, N. (2000). Changes in relevance criteria and problem stages in task performance. J. Doc. 56(5), 540--562.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. Vakkari, P., Pennanen, M., & Serola, S. (2003). Changes of search terms and tactics while writing a research proposal: A longitudinal research. Inform Process Manag, 39, 445--463. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Vakkari, P. H., N. (2000). Changes in relevance criteria and problem stages in task performance. J. Doc., 56(5), 540--562.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. White, R., & Kelly, D. (2006). A study of the effects of personalization and task information on implicit feedback performance. Proc. CIKM, 297--306. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. White, R.W., Ruthven, I., & Jose, J.M. (2005). A study of factors affecting the utility of implicit relevance feedback. Proc. SIGIR, 35--42. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Personalizing information retrieval for multi-session tasks: the roles of task stage and task type

      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
        SIGIR '10: Proceedings of the 33rd international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval
        July 2010
        944 pages
        ISBN:9781450301534
        DOI:10.1145/1835449

        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: 19 July 2010

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article

        Acceptance Rates

        SIGIR '10 Paper Acceptance Rate87of520submissions,17%Overall Acceptance Rate792of3,983submissions,20%

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader