Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,287

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Proceedings of the 28th ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management

·2019

Abstract

To determine key factors that affect a user's behavior with search results, we conducted a controlled eye-tracking study of users completing search tasks using both desktop and mobile devices. We focus our investigation on users' behavior from their query to the first action they take with the search engine results page (SERP): either a click on a search result or a reformulation of their query. We found that a user deciding to reformulate a query rather than click on a result is best understood as being caused by the user's examination pattern not including a relevant search result. If a user sees a relevant result, they are very likely to click it. Of note, users do not look at all search results and their examination may be influenced by other factors. The key factors we found to explain a user's examination pattern are: the rank of search results, the user type, and the query quality. While existing research has identified rank and user types as important factors affecting examination patterns, to our knowledge, query quality is a new discovery. We found that user queries can be understood as either of weak or strong quality. Weak queries are those that the user may believe are more likely to fail compared to a strong query, and as a result, we find that users modify their examination patterns to view fewer documents when they issue a weak query, i.e. they give up sooner.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/3357384

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Cited by

See all 1,287

Metadata

Publisher
ACM
Published
2019-11-03
OpenAlex
W1602136775
Cited by
1,287
References
2
Type
paratext
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

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.