Search (5 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Jansen, B.J."
  1. Liu, Z.; Jansen, B.J.: ASK: A taxonomy of accuracy, social, and knowledge information seeking posts in social question and answering (2017) 0.02
    0.024918701 = product of:
      0.099674806 = sum of:
        0.099674806 = weight(_text_:social in 3345) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.099674806 = score(doc=3345,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.5395851 = fieldWeight in 3345, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3345)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Abstract
    Many people turn to their social networks to find information through the practice of question and answering. We believe it is necessary to use different answering strategies based on the type of questions to accommodate the different information needs. In this research, we propose the ASK taxonomy that categorizes questions posted on social networking sites into three types according to the nature of the questioner's inquiry of accuracy, social, or knowledge. To automatically decide which answering strategy to use, we develop a predictive model based on ASK question types using question features from the perspectives of lexical, topical, contextual, and syntactic as well as answer features. By applying the classifier on an annotated data set, we present a comprehensive analysis to compare questions in terms of their word usage, topical interests, temporal and spatial restrictions, syntactic structure, and response characteristics. Our research results show that the three types of questions exhibited different characteristics in the way they are asked. Our automatic classification algorithm achieves an 83% correct labeling result, showing the value of the ASK taxonomy for the design of social question and answering systems.
  2. Reddy, M.C.; Jansen, B.J.: ¬A model for understanding collaborative information behavior in context : a study of two healthcare teams (2008) 0.01
    0.007842129 = product of:
      0.031368516 = sum of:
        0.031368516 = product of:
          0.06273703 = sum of:
            0.06273703 = weight(_text_:aspects in 2033) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.06273703 = score(doc=2033,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.20938325 = queryWeight, product of:
                  4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046325076 = queryNorm
                0.29962775 = fieldWeight in 2033, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2033)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Abstract
    Collaborative information behavior is an essential aspect of organizational work; however, we have very limited understanding of this behavior. Most models of information behavior focus on the individual seeker of information. In this paper, we report the results from two empirical studies that investigate aspects of collaborative information behavior in organizational settings. From these studies, we found that collaborative information behavior differs from individual information behavior with respect to how individuals interact with each other, the complexity of the information need, and the role of information technology. There are specific triggers for transitioning from individual to collaborative information behavior, including lack of domain expertise. The information retrieval technologies used affect collaborative information behavior by acting as important supporting mechanisms. From these results and prior work, we develop a model of collaborative information behavior along the axes of participant behavior, situational elements, and contextual triggers. We also present characteristics of collaborative information system including search, chat, and sharing. We discuss implications for the design of collaborative information retrieval systems and directions for future work.
  3. Jansen, B.J.; Spink, A.; Koshman, S.: Web searcher interaction with the Dogpile.com metasearch engine (2007) 0.01
    0.0065351077 = product of:
      0.026140431 = sum of:
        0.026140431 = product of:
          0.052280862 = sum of:
            0.052280862 = weight(_text_:aspects in 270) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.052280862 = score(doc=270,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.20938325 = queryWeight, product of:
                  4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046325076 = queryNorm
                0.2496898 = fieldWeight in 270, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=270)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Abstract
    Metasearch engines are an intuitive method for improving the performance of Web search by increasing coverage, returning large numbers of results with a focus on relevance, and presenting alternative views of information needs. However, the use of metasearch engines in an operational environment is not well understood. In this study, we investigate the usage of Dogpile.com, a major Web metasearch engine, with the aim of discovering how Web searchers interact with metasearch engines. We report results examining 2,465,145 interactions from 534,507 users of Dogpile.com on May 6, 2005 and compare these results with findings from other Web searching studies. We collect data on geographical location of searchers, use of system feedback, content selection, sessions, queries, and term usage. Findings show that Dogpile.com searchers are mainly from the USA (84% of searchers), use about 3 terms per query (mean = 2.85), implement system feedback moderately (8.4% of users), and generally (56% of users) spend less than one minute interacting with the Web search engine. Overall, metasearchers seem to have higher degrees of interaction than searchers on non-metasearch engines, but their sessions are for a shorter period of time. These aspects of metasearching may be what define the differences from other forms of Web searching. We discuss the implications of our findings in relation to metasearch for Web searchers, search engines, and content providers.
  4. Jansen, B.J.; Spink, A.; Blakely, C.; Koshman, S.: Defining a session on Web search engines (2007) 0.01
    0.0065351077 = product of:
      0.026140431 = sum of:
        0.026140431 = product of:
          0.052280862 = sum of:
            0.052280862 = weight(_text_:aspects in 285) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.052280862 = score(doc=285,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.20938325 = queryWeight, product of:
                  4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046325076 = queryNorm
                0.2496898 = fieldWeight in 285, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=285)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Abstract
    Detecting query reformulations within a session by a Web searcher is an important area of research for designing more helpful searching systems and targeting content to particular users. Methods explored by other researchers include both qualitative (i.e., the use of human judges to manually analyze query patterns on usually small samples) and nondeterministic algorithms, typically using large amounts of training data to predict query modification during sessions. In this article, we explore three alternative methods for detection of session boundaries. All three methods are computationally straightforward and therefore easily implemented for detection of session changes. We examine 2,465,145 interactions from 534,507 users of Dogpile.com on May 6, 2005. We compare session analysis using (a) Internet Protocol address and cookie; (b) Internet Protocol address, cookie, and a temporal limit on intrasession interactions; and (c) Internet Protocol address, cookie, and query reformulation patterns. Overall, our analysis shows that defining sessions by query reformulation along with Internet Protocol address and cookie provides the best measure, resulting in an 82% increase in the count of sessions. Regardless of the method used, the mean session length was fewer than three queries, and the mean session duration was less than 30 min. Searchers most often modified their query by changing query terms (nearly 23% of all query modifications) rather than adding or deleting terms. Implications are that for measuring searching traffic, unique sessions may be a better indicator than the common metric of unique visitors. This research also sheds light on the more complex aspects of Web searching involving query modifications and may lead to advances in searching tools.
  5. Zhang, Y.; Jansen, B.J.; Spink, A.: Identification of factors predicting clickthrough in Web searching using neural network analysis (2009) 0.00
    0.004707306 = product of:
      0.018829225 = sum of:
        0.018829225 = product of:
          0.03765845 = sum of:
            0.03765845 = weight(_text_:22 in 2742) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.03765845 = score(doc=2742,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.16222252 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046325076 = queryNorm
                0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2742, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2742)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Date
    22. 3.2009 17:49:11