Comparing collaborative and independent search in a recall-oriented task

ABSTRACT

Search interfaces are mainly designed to support a single searcher at a time. We therefore have a limited understanding of how an interface can support search where more than one searcher concurrently pursues a shared information need. This paper investigated the performance and user behaviour of concurrent search. Based on a recall-oriented search task, a user study was carried out to compare an independent search condition to collaborative search conditions. The results show that the collaborative conditions helped searchers diversify search vocabulary while reducing redundant documents to be bookmarked within teams. However, these effects were found to be insufficient to improve the retrieval effectiveness. We discussed the implications for concurrent search support based on our findings.

REFERENCES

• 1: J. Allan. Hard track overview in trec 2005 high accuracy retrieval from documents. In NIST Special Publication: SP 500--266 The Fourteenth TREC, 2005.
• 2: Ronald M. Baecker , Jonathan Grudin , William A. S. Buxton , Saul Greenberg, Human-computer interaction: toward the year 2000, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., San Francisco, CA, 1995
• 3: P. Borlund. Experimental components for the evaluation of interactive information retrieval systems. Journal of Documentation, 56(1):71--90, 2000.
• 4: Katriina Byström , Kalervo Järvelin, Task complexity affects information seeking and use, Information Processing and Management: an International Journal, v.31 n.2, p.191-213, March/April 1995 [doi>10.1016/0306-4573(94)00041-Z]
• 5: David Goldberg , David Nichols , Brian M. Oki , Douglas Terry, Using collaborative filtering to weave an information tapestry, Communications of the ACM, v.35 n.12, p.61-70, Dec. 1992 [doi>10.1145/138859.138867]
• 6: Preben Hansen , Kalervo Järvelin, Collaborative information retrieval in an information-intensive domain, Information Processing and Management: an International Journal, v.41 n.5, p.1101-1119, September 2005 [doi>10.1016/j.ipm.2004.04.016]
• 7: IRF, editor. Proceedings of the First Information Retrieval Facility Symposium (IRFS), Vienna, Austria, 2007. Matrixware.
• 8: Meredith Ringel Morris , Eric Horvitz, SearchTogether: an interface for collaborative web search, Proceedings of the 20th annual ACM symposium on User interface software and technology, October 07-10, 2007, Newport, Rhode Island, USA [doi>10.1145/1294211.1294215]
• 9: I. Ounis, C. Lioma, C. Macdonald, and V. Plachouras. Research directions in terrier: a search engine for advanced retrieval on the web. Novatica/UPGRADE Special Issue on Web Information Access, 8(1):49--56, 2007.
• 10: I. Ruthven, M. Baillie, and D. Elsweiler. The relative effects of knowledge, interest and confidence in assessing relevance. Journal of Documentation, 63(4):482--504, 2007.
• 11: A. F. Smeaton, H. Lee, C. Foley, and S. McGivney. Collaborative video searching on a tabletop. Multimedia Syst., 12(4--5):375--391, 2007.
• 12: Amanda Spink, Term relevance feedback and query expansion: relation to design, Proceedings of the 17th annual international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval, p.81-90, July 03-06, 1994, Dublin, Ireland
• 13: E. Voorhees. Overview of the trec 2005 robust retrieval track. In NIST Special Publication: SP 500--266 The Fourteenth TREC, 2005.

INDEX TERMS

Primary Classification:
  H. Information Systems
  H.3 INFORMATION STORAGE AND RETRIEVAL
      H.3.3 Information Search and Retrieval