skip to main content
10.1145/1498759.1498786acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageswsdmConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Discovering and using groups to improve personalized search

Published: 09 February 2009 Publication History

Abstract

Personalized Web search takes advantage of information about an individual to identify the most relevant results for that person. A challenge for personalization lies in collecting user profiles that are rich enough to do this successfully. One way an individual's profile can be augmented is by using data from other people. To better understand whether groups of people can be used to benefit personalized search, we explore the similarity of query selection, desktop information, and explicit relevance judgments across people grouped in different ways. The groupings we explore fall along two dimensions: the longevity of the group members' relationship, and how explicitly the group is formed. We find that some groupings provide valuable insight into what members consider relevant to queries related to the group focus, but that it can be difficult to identify valuable groups implicitly. Building on these findings, we explore an algorithm to "groupize" (versus "personalize") Web search results that leads to a significant improvement in result ranking on group-relevant queries.

References

[1]
Almeida, R. and Almeida, V. (2004). A community-aware search engine. In Proc. of WWW '04, 413--421.
[2]
Amershi, S. and Morris, M. R. (2008). CoSearch: A system for co-located collaborative Web search. In Proc. of CHI '08.
[3]
Belkin, N. J., Cool, C., Croft, W. B., and Callan, J. P. (1993). The effect of multiple query representations on information retrieval system performance. In Proc. Of SIGIR '93, 339--346.
[4]
Dou, Z., Song, R., and Wen, J. R. (2007). A large-scale evaluation and analysis of personalized search strategies. In Proc. of WWW '07, 581--590.
[5]
Freyne, J. and Smyth, B. (2006). Cooperating search communities. In Proc. of AH '06, 101--110.
[6]
Järvelin, K. and Kekäläinen, J. (2000). IR evaluation methods for retrieving highly relevant documents. In Proc. of SIGIR '00.
[7]
Jones, R., Kumar, R., Pang, B., and Tomkins, A. (2007). "I know what you did last summer": Query logs and user privacy. In Proc. CIKM '07, 909--914.
[8]
Lee, Y-J. (2005). VizSearch: A collaborative Web searching environment. Computers & Education, 44(4): 423--439.
[9]
Mei, Q. and Church, K. (2008). Entropy of search logs: How hard is search? With personalization? With backoff? In Proc. of WSDM '08.
[10]
Morris, M. R., Teevan, J., and Bush, S. (2008). Enhancing collaborative Web search with personalization: Groupization, smart splitting, and group hit-highlighting. Proc. of CSCW '08.
[11]
Morris, M. R. (2008). A survey of collaborative Web search practices. In Proc. of CHI '08, 1657--1660.
[12]
Morris, M. R. and Horvitz, E. (2007). SearchTogether: An interface for collaborative Web search. In Proc. of UIST '07.
[13]
O'Conner, M., Cosley, D., Konstan, J., and Riedl, J. (2001). PolyLens: A recommender system for groups of users. In Proc. of ESCW '01, 199--218.
[14]
Pickens, J., Golovchinsky, G., Shah, C., Qvarfordt, P., Back, M. (2008). Algorithmic mediation for collaborative exploratory search. In Proc. of SIGIR 2008.
[15]
Pitkow, J., Schutze, H., Cass, T., Cooley, R., Turnbull, D., Edmonds, A., Adar, E., and Breuel, T. (2002). Personalized search. Communications of the ACM, 45(9): 50--55.
[16]
Shen, X., Tan, B., and Zhai, C. X. (2005). Implicit user modeling for personalized search. Proc. of CIKM '05, 824--831.
[17]
Smyth, B. (2007). A community-based approach to personalizing Web search. IEEE Computer, 40(8): 42--50.
[18]
Sparck Jones, K., Walker, S., and Robertson, S. A. (1998). Probabilistic model of information retrieval: Development and status. TR-446, Cambridge University Computer Laboratory.
[19]
Spink, A. and Jansen, B. (2004). Web Search: Public Searching of the Web. Kluwer Academic Publishers.
[20]
Sugiyama, K., Hatano, K., and Yoshikawa, M. (2004). Adaptive Web search based on user profile constructed without any effort from users. In Proc. of WWW '04, 675--684.
[21]
Sun, J.-T., Zeng, H.-J., Liu, H., Lu, Y., and Chen, Z. (2005). CubeSVD: A novel approach to personalized Web search. In Proc. of WWW '05, 382--390.
[22]
Teevan, J., Dumais, S. T., and Horvitz, E. (2005). Personalizing search via automated analysis of interests and activities. In Proc. of SIGIR '05, 449--456.
[23]
Teevan, J., Dumais, S. T., and Horvitz, E. (2005). Beyond the commons: On the value of personalizing Web search. In Proc. of PIA '05 Workshop, 84--92.
[24]
Twidale, M., Nichols, D. and Paice, C. (1997). Browsing is a collaborative process. IP&M, 33(6): 761--783.
[25]
Voorhees, E. and Harman, D. (Eds.) (2005). TREC: Experimental Evaluation of Information Retrieval. MIT Press.

Cited By

View all

Recommendations

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences
WSDM '09: Proceedings of the Second ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining
February 2009
314 pages
ISBN:9781605583907
DOI:10.1145/1498759
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

Sponsors

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 09 February 2009

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Check for updates

Author Tags

  1. collaborative filtering
  2. collaborative search
  3. personalization

Qualifiers

  • Research-article

Conference

WSDM'09
Sponsor:

Acceptance Rates

Overall Acceptance Rate 498 of 2,863 submissions, 17%

Upcoming Conference

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • Downloads (Last 12 months)23
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)3
Reflects downloads up to 12 Jan 2025

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all

View Options

Login options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media