The effects of expertise and feedback on search term selection and subsequent learning
Abstract
Query formation and expansion is an integral part of nearly every effort to search for information. In the work reported here we investigate the effects of domain knowledge and feedback on search term selection and reformation. We explore differences between experts and novices as they generate search terms over 10 successive trials and under two feedback conditions. Search attempts were coded on quantitative dimensions such as the number of unique terms and average time per trial, and as a whole in an attempt to characterize the user's conceptual map for the topic under differing conditions of participant‐defined domain expertise. Nine distinct strategies were identified. Differences emerged as a function of both expertise and feedback. In addition, strategic behavior varied depending on prior search conditions. The results are considered from both a theoretical and design perspective, and have direct implications for digital library usability and metadata generation, and query expansion systems.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Users with high topic knowledge issue longer and more complex queries during their search than novice users.
“Users with high topic knowledge issue longer and more complex queries during their search than novice users (Hembrooke et al., 2005).”
From Core Elements in the Process of Citing Publications: Conceptual Overview of the Literature (2018) · cites this paper as Hembrooke et al., 2005
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 40 · Cited by 97
- Authors
- Hembrooke, H. A., Granka, L. A., Gay, G. K., & Liddy, E. D.
- Affiliations
- Cornell University (US)
- Syracuse University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Hembrooke, Helene A.
- Granka, Laura A.
- Gay, Geraldine K.
- Liddy, Elizabeth D.
- Venue
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2005-04-07
- Volume
- 56
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 861-871
- ISSN
- 1532-2882 (ISSN-L)
- 1532-2890
- OpenAlex
- W2049871121
- Cited by
- 97
- References
- 40
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 4
- FWCI
- 8.64
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Science Foundation
- Syracuse University
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Information Retrieval and Search Behavior
- Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › Library Science and Information Literacy
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Usability and User Interface Design
- Keywords
- keyword selection, query expansion, domain knowledge, feedback, expert-novice differences, search strategies, concept maps, metadata generation, information retrieval
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
