CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 6

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Creating temporally dynamic web search snippets

Svore, Krysta M., Teevan, Jaime, Dumais, Susan T., Kulkarni, Anagha·2012·Proceedings of the 35th international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval
DOI 10.1145/2348283.2348461
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Content on the Internet is always changing. We explore the value of biasing search result snippets towards new webpage content. We present results from a user study comparing traditional query-focused snippets with snippets that emphasize new page content for two query types: general and trending. Our results indicate that searchers prefer the inclusion of temporal information for trending queries but not for general queries, and that this is particularly valuable for pages that have not been recently crawled.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/2348283.2348461

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. 10.1145/1518701.1518909 · DOI
  2. Alonso , O. , Baeza-Yates , R. & Gertz , M. Effectiveness of temporal snippets . WWW 2009: Workshop on Web Search Results Summarization and Presentation. Alonso, O., Baeza-Yates, R. & Gertz, M. Effectiveness of temporal snippets. WWW 2009: Workshop on Web Search Results Summarization and Presentation.
  3. Campos , R. , Dias , G. & Jorge , A.M. What is the temporal value of web snippets? WWW 2011: Temporal Web Analytics Workshop. Campos, R., Dias, G. & Jorge, A.M. What is the temporal value of web snippets? WWW 2011: Temporal Web Analytics Workshop.
  4. 10.1145/1498759.1498825 · DOI
  5. 10.1145/1935826.1935862 · DOI · Paper page
  6. 10.1145/290941.290947 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Svore, K. M., Teevan, J., Dumais, S. T., & Kulkarni, A.
Affiliations
  • Microsoft Research, Redmond, WA, USA
  • Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
Venue
Proceedings of the 35th international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval
Publisher
ACM
Published
2012-08-12
Pages
1045-1046
DOI
10.1145/2348283.2348461
Cited by
6
References
0
Licence
www.acm.org/publications/policies/copyright_policy#Background (vor)

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