skip to main content
10.1145/3301275.3302321acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesiuiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Open Access

SearchLens: composing and capturing complex user interests for exploratory search

Published:17 March 2019Publication History

ABSTRACT

Whether figuring out where to eat in an unfamiliar city or deciding which apartment to live in, consumer generated data (i.e. reviews and forum posts) are often an important influence in online decision making. To make sense of these rich repositories of diverse opinions, searchers need to sift through a large number of reviews to characterize each item based on aspects that they care about. We introduce a novel system, SearchLens, where searchers build up a collection of "Lenses" that reflect their different latent interests, and compose the Lenses to find relevant items across different contexts. Based on the Lenses, SearchLens generates personalized interfaces with visual explanations that promotes transparency and enables deeper exploration. While prior work found searchers may not wish to put in effort specifying their goals without immediate and sufficient benefits, results from a controlled lab study suggest that our approach incentivized participants to express their interests more richly than in a baseline condition, and a field study showed that participants found benefits in SearchLens while conducting their own tasks.

References

  1. Jae-wook Ahn and Peter Brusilovsky. 2009. Adaptive visualization of search results: Bringing user models to visual analytics. Information Visualization 8, 3 (2009), 167--179. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Jae-wook Ahn, Peter Brusilovsky, Jonathan Grady, Daqing He, and Sue Yeon Syn. 2007. Open user profiles for adaptive news systems: help or harm?. In Proceedings of the 16th international conference on World Wide Web. ACM, 11--20. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Nicholas J Belkin, Colleen Cool, Judy Jeng, Amymarie Keller, Diane Kelly, Ja-Young Kim, Hyuk-Jin Lee, Muh-Chyun (Morris) Tang, and Xiao-Jun Yuan. 2001. Rutgers' TREC 2001 interactive track experience. In TREC.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Nicholas J Belkin, Diane Kelly, G Kim, J-Y Kim, H-J Lee, Gheorghe Muresan, M-C Tang, X-J Yuan, and Colleen Cool. 2003. Query length in interactive information retrieval. In Proceedings of the 26th annual international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in informaion retrieval. ACM, 205--212. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Steven Bird and Edward Loper. 2004. NLTK: the natural language toolkit. In Proceedings of the ACL 2004 on Interactive poster and demonstration sessions. Association for Computational Linguistics, 31. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Christine Susan Bruce. 1999. Workplace experiences of information literacy. International journal of information management 19, 1 (1999), 33--47. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Chris Burges, Tal Shaked, Erin Renshaw, Ari Lazier, Matt Deeds, Nicole Hamilton, and Greg Hullender. 2005. Learning to rank using gradient descent. In Proceedings of the 22nd international conference on Machine learning. ACM, 89--96. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Zhe Cao, Tao Qin, Tie-Yan Liu, Ming-Feng Tsai, and Hang Li. 2007. Learning to rank: from pairwise approach to listwise approach. In Proceedings of the 24th international conference on Machine learning. ACM, 129--136. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Joseph Chee Chang, Saleema Amershi, and Ece Kamar. 2017. Revolt: Collaborative Crowdsourcing for Labeling Machine Learning Datasets. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '17). ACM, New York, NY, USA. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Joseph Chee Chang, Aniket Kittur, and Nathan Hahn. 2016. Alloy: Clustering with crowds and computation. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 3180--3191. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Liren Chen and Katia Sycara. 1998. WebMate: A personal agent for browsing and searching. In Proceedings of the second international conference on Autonomous agents. ACM, 132--139. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Nan-Chen Chen, Jina Suh, Johan Verwey, Gonzalo Ramos, Steven Drucker, and Patrice Simard. 2018. AnchorViz: Facilitating Classifier Error Discovery through Interactive Semantic Data Exploration. In 23rd International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces. ACM, 269--280. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Lydia B Chilton, Greg Little, Darren Edge, Daniel S Weld, and James A Landay. 2013. Cascade: Crowdsourcing taxonomy creation. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 1999--2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Jason Chuang, Daniel Ramage, Christopher Manning, and Jeffrey Heer. {n. d.}. Interpretation and trust: Designing model-driven visualizations for text analysis. In Proc. CHI 2012. ACM, 443--452. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Bart De Langhe, Philip M Fernbach, and Donald R Lichtenstein. 2015. Navigating by the stars: Investigating the actual and perceived validity of online user ratings. Journal of Consumer Research 42, 6 (2015), 817--833.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. Cecilia di Sciascio, Peter Brusilovsky, and Eduardo Veas. 2018. A Study on User-Controllable Social Exploratory Search. In 23rd International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces. ACM, 353--364. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Cecilia di Sciascio, Vedran Sabol, and Eduardo E Veas. 2016. Rank as you go: User-driven exploration of search results. In Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces. ACM, 118--129. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. James Fogarty, Desney Tan, Ashish Kapoor, and Simon Winder. 2008. CueFlik: interactive concept learning in image search. In Proceedings of the sigchi conference on human factors in computing systems. ACM, 29--38. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Kristofer Franzen and Jussi Karlgren. 2000. Verbosity and interface design. SICS Research Report (2000).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. G. W. Furnas. 1986. Generalized Fisheye Views. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '86). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 16--23. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Qiwei Gan, Qing Cao, and Donald Jones. 2012. Helpfulness of online user reviews: More is less. (2012).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Nathan Hahn, Joseph Chang, Ji Eun Kim, and Aniket Kittur. 2016. The Knowledge Accelerator: Big picture thinking in small pieces. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 2258--2270. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Marti Hearst. 2006. Design recommendations for hierarchical faceted search interfaces. In ACM SIGIR workshop on faceted search. Seattle, WA, 1--5.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Marti Hearst, Ame Elliott, Jennifer English, Rashmi Sinha, Kirsten Swearingen, and Ka-Ping Yee. 2002. Finding the flow in web site search. Commun. ACM 45, 9 (2002), 42--49. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Marti A Hearst. 2006. Clustering versus faceted categories for information exploration. Commun. ACM 49, 4 (2006), 59--61. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Marti A Hearst and Jan O Pedersen. 1996. Reexamining the cluster hypothesis: scatter/gather on retrieval results. In Proceedings of the 19th annual international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval. ACM, 76--84. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Marti A Hearst and Jan O Pedersen. 1996. Visualizing information retrieval results: a demonstration of the TileBar interface. In Conference Companion on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 394--395. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Orland Hoeber and Xue Dong Yang. 2006. A comparative user study of web search interfaces: HotMap, Concept Highlighter, and Google. In Web Intelligence, 2006. WI 2006. IEEE/WIC/ACM International Conference on. IEEE, 866--874. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Yelp Inc. 2016. The Yelp Dataset Challenge: Discover what insights lie hidden in our data. https://www.yelp.com/dataset/challenge. Accessed: 2017-09-10.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Bernard J Jansen, Amanda Spink, and Tefko Saracevic. 2000. Real life, real users, and real needs: a study and analysis of user queries on the web. Information processing & management 36, 2 (2000), 207--227. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Bryan Jurish and Kay-Michael Würzner. 2013. Word and Sentence Tokenization with Hidden Markov Models. JLCL 28, 2 (2013), 61--83.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Weize Kong and James Allan. 2014. Extending faceted search to the general web. In Proceedings of the 23rd ACM International Conference on Conference on Information and Knowledge Management. ACM, 839--848. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. Todd Kulesza, Saleema Amershi, Rich Caruana, Danyel Fisher, and Denis Charles. 2014. Structured labeling for facilitating concept evolution in machine learning. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 3075--3084. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. Julian McAuley and Jure Leskovec. 2013. Hidden factors and hidden topics: understanding rating dimensions with review text. In Proceedings of the 7th ACM conference on Recommender systems. ACM, 165--172. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. Tomas Mikolov, Kai Chen, Greg Corrado, and Jeffrey Dean. 2013. Efficient estimation of word representations in vector space. arXiv preprint arXiv:1301.3781 (2013).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Susan M Mudambi and David Schuff. 2010. Research note: What makes a helpful online review? A study of customer reviews on Amazon. com. MIS quarterly (2010), 185--200. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. Jaakko Peltonen, Kseniia Belorustceva, and Tuukka Ruotsalo. 2017. Topic-Relevance Map: Visualization for Improving Search Result Comprehension. In Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces. ACM, 611--622. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. Jaakko Peltonen, Jonathan Strahl, and Patrik Floréen. 2017. Negative Relevance Feedback for Exploratory Search with Visual Interactive Intent Modeling. In Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces. ACM, 149--159. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. Radim Rehurek and Petr Sojka. 2010. Software Framework for Topic Modelling with Large Corpora. In Proceedings of the LREC 2010 Workshop on New Challenges for NLP Frameworks. ELRA, Valletta, Malta, 45--50. http://is.muni.cz/publication/884893/en.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. Stephen Robertson, Hugo Zaragoza, et al. 2009. The probabilistic relevance framework: BM25 and beyond. Foundations and Trends® in Information Retrieval 3, 4 (2009), 333--389. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  41. Yong Rui, Thomas S Huang, Michael Ortega, and Sharad Mehrotra. 1998. Relevance feedback: a power tool for interactive content-based image retrieval. IEEE Transactions on circuits and systems for video technology 8, 5 (1998), 644--655. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  42. Gerard Salton and Chris Buckley. 1990. Improving retrieval performance by relevance feedback. Journal of the American society for information science 41, 4 (1990), 288--297.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  43. Badrul Sarwar, George Karypis, Joseph Konstan, and John Riedl. 2001. Item-based collaborative filtering recommendation algorithms. In Proceedings of the 10th international conference on World Wide Web. ACM, 285--295. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  44. Xuehua Shen, Bin Tan, and ChengXiang Zhai. 2005. Implicit user modeling for personalized search. In Proceedings of the 14th ACM international conference on Information and knowledge management. ACM, 824--831. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  45. Mirco Speretta and Susan Gauch. 2005. Personalized search based on user search histories. In Web Intelligence, 2005. Proceedings. The 2005 IEEE/WIC/ACM International Conference on. IEEE, 622--628. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  46. Jaime Teevan, Susan T Dumais, and Zachary Gutt. 2008. Challenges for supporting faceted search in large, heterogeneous corpora like the web. Proceedings of HCIR 2008 (2008), 87.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  47. Frank Van Ham and Adam Perer. 2009. "Search, show context, expand on demand": supporting large graph exploration with degree-of-interest. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 15, 6 (2009). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  48. Cornelis J Van Rijsbergen, Stephen Edward Robertson, and Martin F Porter. 1980. New models in probabilistic information retrieval. British Library Research and Development Department London.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  49. Ho Chung Wu, Robert Wing Pong Luk, Kam Fai Wong, and Kui Lam Kwok. 2008. Interpreting tf-idf term weights as making relevance decisions. ACM Transactions on Information Systems (TOIS) 26, 3 (2008), 13. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  50. Jinxi Xu and W Bruce Croft. 1996. Query expansion using local and global document analysis. In Proceedings of the 19th annual international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval. ACM, 4--11. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  51. Beverly Yang and Glen Jeh. 2006. Retroactive answering of search queries. In Proceedings of the 15th international conference on World Wide Web. ACM, 457--466. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  52. David Yarowsky. 1995. Unsupervised word sense disambiguation rivaling supervised methods. In Proceedings of the 33rd annual meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics. Association for Computational Linguistics, 189--196. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  53. Ka-Ping Yee, Kirsten Swearingen, Kevin Li, and Marti Hearst. 2003. Faceted metadata for image search and browsing. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems. ACM, 401--408. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  54. Oren Zamir and Oren Etzioni. 1999. Grouper: a dynamic clustering interface to Web search results. Computer Networks 31, 11 (1999), 1361--1374. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  55. Hua-Jun Zeng, Qi-Cai He, Zheng Chen, Wei-Ying Ma, and Jinwen Ma. 2004. Learning to cluster web search results. In Proceedings of the 27th annual international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval. ACM, 210--217. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. SearchLens: composing and capturing complex user interests for exploratory search

          Recommendations

          Comments

          Login options

          Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

          Sign in
          • Published in

            cover image ACM Conferences
            IUI '19: Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces
            March 2019
            713 pages
            ISBN:9781450362726
            DOI:10.1145/3301275

            Copyright © 2019 ACM

            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 the author(s) 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].

            Publisher

            Association for Computing Machinery

            New York, NY, United States

            Publication History

            • Published: 17 March 2019

            Permissions

            Request permissions about this article.

            Request Permissions

            Check for updates

            Qualifiers

            • research-article

            Acceptance Rates

            IUI '19 Paper Acceptance Rate71of282submissions,25%Overall Acceptance Rate746of2,811submissions,27%

          PDF Format

          View or Download as a PDF file.

          PDF

          eReader

          View online with eReader.

          eReader