The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
An experimental comparison of click position-bias models
Abstract
Search engine click logs provide an invaluable source of relevance information, but this information is biased. A key source of bias is presentation order: the probability of click is influenced by a document's position in the results page. This paper focuses on explaining that bias, modelling how probability of click depends on position. We propose four simple hypotheses about how position bias might arise. We carry out a large data-gathering effort, where we perturb the ranking of a major search engine, to see how clicks are affected. We then explore which of the four hypotheses best explains the real-world position effects, and compare these to a simple logistic regression model. The data are not well explained by simple position models, where some users click indiscriminately on rank 1 or there is a simple decay of attention over ranks. A 'cascade' model, where users view results from top to bottom and leave as soon as they see a worthwhile document, is our best explanation for position bias in early ranks
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Accurately interpreting clickthrough data as implicit feedback
Joachims, T., Granka, L., Pan, B., Hembrooke, H., & Gay, G. (2005) · Proceedings of the 28th annual international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval · doi:10.1145/1076034.1076063 · Cited by 1,408
Cited by
Bias and Debias in Recommender System: A Survey and Future Directions
Chen, J., Dong, H., Wang, X., Feng, F., Wang, M., & He, X. (2023) · ACM Transactions on Information Systems · doi:10.1145/3564284 · Cited by 741
Unbiased Learning-to-Rank with Biased Feedback
Joachims, T., Swaminathan, A., & Schnabel, T. (2017) · Proceedings of the Tenth ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining · doi:10.1145/3018661.3018699 · Cited by 531
Test Collection Based Evaluation of Information Retrieval Systems
Sanderson, M. (2010) · Foundations and Trends® in Information Retrieval · doi:10.1561/1500000009 · Cited by 485
Chuklin, A., Markov, I., & de Rijke, M. (2015) · Synthesis Lectures on Information Concepts, Retrieval, and Services · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-02294-4 · Cited by 398
Conversational Recommender System
Sun, Y., & Zhang, Y. (2018) · The 41st International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research & Development in Information Retrieval · doi:10.1145/3209978.3210002 · Cited by 378
Metadata
- Authors
- Craswell, N., Zoeter, O., Taylor, M., & Ramsey, B.
- Venue
- Proceedings of the international conference on Web search and web data mining - WSDM '08
- Publisher
- ACM Press
- Published
- 2008
- Pages
- 87
- OpenAlex
- W1992549066
- Cited by
- 942
- References
- 1
- Type
- conference abstract
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: An experimental comparison of click position-bias models. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1145/1341531.1341545
- The paper
- Craswell, N., Zoeter, O., Taylor, M., & Ramsey, B. (2008). An experimental comparison of click position-bias models. Proceedings of the international conference on Web search and web data mining - WSDM '08. https://doi.org/10.1145/1341531.1341545
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.