skip to main content
10.1145/2766462.2767721acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesirConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Different Users, Different Opinions: Predicting Search Satisfaction with Mouse Movement Information

Published: 09 August 2015 Publication History

Abstract

Satisfaction prediction is one of the prime concerns in search performance evaluation. It is a non-trivial task for two major reasons: (1) The definition of satisfaction is rather subjective and different users may have different opinions in satisfaction judgement. (2) Most existing studies on satisfaction prediction mainly rely on users' click-through or query reformulation behaviors but there are many sessions without such kind of interactions. To shed light on these research questions, we construct an experimental search engine that could collect users' satisfaction feedback as well as mouse click-through/movement data. Different from existing studies, we compare for the first time search users' and external assessors' opinions on satisfaction. We find that search users pay more attention to the utility of results while external assessors emphasize on the efforts spent in search sessions. Inspired by recent studies in predicting result relevance based on mouse movement patterns (namely motifs), we propose to estimate the utilities of search results and the efforts in search sessions with motifs extracted from mouse movement data on search result pages (SERPs). Besides the existing frequency-based motif selection method, two novel selection strategies (distance-based and distribution-based) are also adopted to extract high quality motifs for satisfaction prediction. Experimental results on over 1,000 user sessions show that the proposed strategies outperform existing methods and also have promising generalization capability for different users and queries.

References

[1]
M. Ageev, D. Lagun, and E. Agichtein. Improving search result summaries by using searcher behavior data. In SIGIR'13, pages 13--22. ACM, 2013.
[2]
I. Arapakis, M. Lalmas, and G. Valkanas. Understanding within-content engagement through pattern analysis of mouse gestures. In CIKM'14, pages 1439--1448. ACM, 2014.
[3]
J. Cohen. Weighted kappa: Nominal scale agreement provision for scaled disagreement or partial credit. Psychological bulletin, 70(4):213, 1968.
[4]
H. A. Feild, J. Allan, and R. Jones. Predicting searcher frustration. In SIGIR'10, pages 34--41. ACM, 2010.
[5]
Q. Guo and E. Agichtein. Exploring mouse movements for inferring query intent. In SIGIR'08, pages 707--708. ACM, 2008.
[6]
Q. Guo and E. Agichtein. Towards predicting web searcher gaze position from mouse movements. In CHI'10, pages 3601--3606. ACM, 2010.
[7]
Q. Guo and E. Agichtein. Beyond dwell time: estimating document relevance from cursor movements and other post-click searcher behavior. In WWW'12, pages 569--578. ACM, 2012.
[8]
Q. Guo, D. Lagun, and E. Agichtein. Predicting web search success with fine-grained interaction data. In CIKM'12, pages 2050--2054. ACM, 2012.
[9]
Q. Guo, D. Lagun, D. Savenkov, and Q. Liu. Improving relevance prediction by addressing biases and sparsity in web search click data. In WSCD'12, pages 71--75, 2012.
[10]
Q. Guo, R. W. White, S. T. Dumais, J. Wang, and B. Anderson. Predicting query performance using query, result, and user interaction features. In Adaptivity, Personalization and Fusion of Heterogeneous Information, pages 198--201, 2010.
[11]
J. Huang, R. White, and G. Buscher. User see, user point: gaze and cursor alignment in web search. In SIGCHI'12, pages 1341--1350. ACM, 2012.
[12]
J. Huang, R. W. White, G. Buscher, and K. Wang. Improving searcher models using mouse cursor activity. In SIGIR'12, pages 195--204. ACM, 2012.
[13]
J. Huang, R. W. White, and S. Dumais. No clicks, no problem: using cursor movements to understand and improve search. In SIGCHI'11, pages 1225--1234. ACM, 2011.
[14]
S. B. Huffman and M. Hochster. How well does result relevance predict session satisfaction? In SIGIR'07, pages 567--574. ACM, 2007.
[15]
K. Jarvelin, S. L. Price, L. M. Delcambre, and M. L. Nielsen. Discounted cumulated gain based evaluation of multiple-query ir sessions. In Advances in Information Retrieval, pages 4--15. Springer, 2008.
[16]
J. Jiang, A. H. Awadallah, X. Shi, and R. W. White. Understanding and predicting graded search satisfaction. In WSDM'15, 2015.
[17]
J. Jiang, D. He, and J. Allan. Searching, browsing, and clicking in a search session: Changes in user behavior by task and over time. 2014.
[18]
D. Kelly. Methods for evaluating interactive information retrieval systems with users. Foundations and Trends in Information Retrieval, 3(1--2):1--224, 2009.
[19]
D. Lagun, M. Ageev, Q. Guo, and E. Agichtein. Discovering common motifs in cursor movement data for improving web search. In WSDM'14, 2014.
[20]
J. Li, S. Huffman, and A. Tokuda. Good abandonment in mobile and pc internet search. In SIGIR'09, pages 43--50. ACM, 2009.
[21]
Y. Liu, R. Song, M. Zhang, Z. Dou, T. Yamamoto, M. Kato, H. Ohshima, and K. Zhou. Overview of the ntcir-11 imine task. In NTCIR, volume 14, 2014.
[22]
Y. Liu, C. Wang, K. Zhou, J. Nie, M. Zhang, and S. Ma. From skimming to reading: A two-stage examination model for web search. In CIKM'14, 2014.
[23]
M.Ageev, Q.Guo, D.Lagun, and E.Agichtein. Find it if you can: A game for modeling different types of web search success using interaction data. In SIGIR'11, 2011.
[24]
T. Rakthanmanon, B. Campana, A. Mueen, G. Batista, B. Westover, Q. Zhu, J. Zakaria, and E. Keogh. Searching and mining trillions of time series subsequences under dynamic time warping. In SIGKDD'12, 2012.
[25]
K. Rodden, X. Fu, A. Aula, and I. Spiro. Eye-mouse coordination patterns on web search results pages. In CHI'08, pages 2997--3002. ACM, 2008.
[26]
H. Sakoe and S. Chiba. Dynamic programming algorithm optimization for spoken word recognition. 1978.
[27]
L. T. Su. Evaluation measures for interactive information retrieval. Information Processing & Management, 28(4):503--516, 1992.
[28]
S. Verberne, M. Heijden, M. Hinne, M. Sappelli, S. Koldijk, E. Hoenkamp, and W. Kraaij. Reliability and validity of query intent assessments. JASIST, 64(11):2224--2237, 2013.
[29]
C. Wang, Y. Liu, M. Zhang, S. Ma, M. Zheng, J. Qian, and K. Zhang. Incorporating vertical results into search click models. In SIGIR'13, pages 503--512. ACM, 2013.

Cited By

View all

Index Terms

  1. Different Users, Different Opinions: Predicting Search Satisfaction with Mouse Movement Information

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Information & Contributors

    Information

    Published In

    cover image ACM Conferences
    SIGIR '15: Proceedings of the 38th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval
    August 2015
    1198 pages
    ISBN:9781450336215
    DOI:10.1145/2766462
    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 August 2015

    Permissions

    Request permissions for this article.

    Check for updates

    Author Tags

    1. mouse movement
    2. search satisfaction
    3. user behavior

    Qualifiers

    • Research-article

    Conference

    SIGIR '15
    Sponsor:

    Acceptance Rates

    SIGIR '15 Paper Acceptance Rate 70 of 351 submissions, 20%;
    Overall Acceptance Rate 792 of 3,983 submissions, 20%

    Contributors

    Other Metrics

    Bibliometrics & Citations

    Bibliometrics

    Article Metrics

    • Downloads (Last 12 months)31
    • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)5
    Reflects downloads up to 07 Nov 2024

    Other Metrics

    Citations

    Cited By

    View all

    View Options

    Get Access

    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