skip to main content
10.1145/3524458.3547222acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesgooditConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Don’t Judge by Looks: Search User Interface to Make Searchers Reflect on Their Relevance Criteria and Promote Content-Quality-Oriented Web Searches

Published: 07 September 2022 Publication History

Abstract

Searchers often judge the webpage quality by the visual appearance, even for tasks where the content quality is more important such as health information. We propose a search user interface (UI) that makes searchers reflect on their webpage selection criteria and promote content-quality-oriented web searches regardless of visual appearances. The proposed UI visualizes how often searchers have browsed high-quality webpages during a search session. It does not explicitly tell the searcher that a high-quality webpage means high content quality; instead, the searcher is expected to reflect on their relevance criteria and improve their search behavior towards careful information seeking by considering the relationship between their page selection and the visualized score on the UI. We conducted an online user study to verify the effectiveness of the proposed UI, and the results indicated that participants without a university education tended to focus on the content quality of webpages and browsed higher-quality pages with the proposed UI than with a conventional UI.

References

[1]
Dara Bahri, Yi Tay, Che Zheng, Cliff Brunk, Donald Metzler, and Andrew Tomkins. 2021. Generative Models Are Unsupervised Predictors of Page Quality: A Colossal-Scale Study. In Proc. of WSDM 2021. 301–309.
[2]
D. Barr, R. Levy, C. Scheepers, and H. Tily. 2013. Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language 68, 3 (2013), 255–278.
[3]
Scott Bateman, Jaime Teevan, and Ryen W. White. 2012. The Search Dashboard: How Reflection and Comparison Impact Search Behavior. In Proc. of CHI 2012. 1785–1794.
[4]
Charles L. A. Clarke, Eugene Agichtein, Susan Dumais, and Ryen W. White. 2007. The Influence of Caption Features on Clickthrough Patterns in Web Search. In Proc. of SIGIR 2017. 135–142.
[5]
Rob Ennals, Beth Trushkowsky, and John Mark Agosta. 2010. Highlighting Disputed Claims on the Web. In Proc. of WWW 2010. 341–350.
[6]
Yvonne Kammerer, Ivar Bråten, Peter Gerjets, and Helge I. Strømsø. 2013. The Role of Internet-Specific Epistemic Beliefs in Laypersons’ Source Evaluations and Decisions during Web Search on a Medical Issue. Computers in Human Behavior 29, 3 (2013), 1193–1203.
[7]
Matthew Kay, Gregory L. Nelson, and Eric B. Hekler. 2016. Researcher-Centered Design of Statistics: Why Bayesian Statistics Better Fit the Culture and Incentives of HCI. In Proc. of CHI 2016. 4521–4532.
[8]
Jaewon Kim, Paul Thomas, Ramesh Sankaranarayana, Tom Gedeon, and Hwan-Jin Yoon. 2017. What Snippet Size is Needed in Mobile Web Search?. In Proc. of CHIIR 2017. 97–106.
[9]
Takashi Kusumi, Rumi Hirayama, and Yoshihisa Kashima. 2017. Risk Perception and Risk Talk: The Case of the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Radiation Risk. Risk Analysis 37, 12 (2017), 2305–2320.
[10]
Gitte Lindgaard, Cathy Dudek, Devjani Sen, Livia Sumegi, and Patrick Noonan. 2011. An Exploration of Relations between Visual Appeal, Trustworthiness and Perceived Usability of Homepages. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction 18, 1(2011).
[11]
Chao Liu, Ryen W. White, and Susan Dumais. 2010. Understanding Web Browsing Behaviors through Weibull Analysis of Dwell Time. In Proc. of SIGIR 2010. 379–386.
[12]
Marc Meola. 2004. Chucking the checklist: A contextual approach to teaching undergraduates Web-site evaluation. portal: Libraries and the Academy 4, 3 (2004), 331–344.
[13]
Meredith Ringel Morris, Jaime Teevan, and Katrina Panovich. 2010. What Do People Ask Their Social Networks, and Why? A Survey Study of Status Message Q&A Behavior. In Proc. of CHI 2010. 1739–1748.
[14]
Frances A. Pogacar, Amira Ghenai, Mark D. Smucker, and Charles L.A. Clarke. 2017. The Positive and Negative Influence of Search Results on People’s Decisions about the Efficacy of Medical Treatments. In Proc. of ICTIR 2017. 209–216.
[15]
Suppanut Pothirattanachaikul, Takehiro Yamamoto, Yusuke Yamamoto, and Masatoshi Yoshikawa. 2019. Analyzing the Effects of Document’s Opinion and Credibility on Search Behaviors and Belief Dynamics. In Proc. of CIKM 2019. 1653–1662.
[16]
Julia Schwarz and Meredith Morris. 2011. Augmenting Web Pages and Search Results to Support Credibility Assessment. In Proc. of CHI 2011. 1245–1254.
[17]
Elizabeth Sillence, Pam Briggs, Lesley Fishwick, and Peter Harris. 2004. Trust and Mistrust of Online Health Sites. In Proc. of CHI 2014. 663–670.
[18]
Ou Wu, Yunfei Chen, Bing Li, and Weiming Hu. 2011. Evaluating the Visual Quality of Web Pages Using a Computational Aesthetic Approach. In Proc. of WSDM 2011. 337–346.
[19]
Yusuke Yamamoto and Takehiro Yamamoto. 2018. Query Priming for Promoting Critical Thinking in Web Search. In Proc. of CHIIR 2018. 12–21.
[20]
Yusuke Yamamoto and Takehiro Yamamoto. 2020. Personalization Finder: A Search Interface for Identifying and Self-Controlling Web Search Personalization. In Proc. of JCDL 2020. 37–46.
[21]
Yusuke Yamamoto, Takehiro Yamamoto, Hiroaki Ohshima, and Hiroshi Kawakami. 2018. Web Access Literacy Scale to Evaluate How Critically Users Can Browse and Search for Web Information. In Proc. of WebSci 2018. 97–106.

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)Suggestive answers strategy in human-chatbot interaction: a route to engaged critical decision makingFrontiers in Psychology10.3389/fpsyg.2024.138223415Online publication date: 28-Mar-2024

Index Terms

  1. Don’t Judge by Looks: Search User Interface to Make Searchers Reflect on Their Relevance Criteria and Promote Content-Quality-Oriented Web Searches

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Information & Contributors

        Information

        Published In

        cover image ACM Conferences
        GoodIT '22: Proceedings of the 2022 ACM Conference on Information Technology for Social Good
        September 2022
        436 pages
        ISBN:9781450392846
        DOI:10.1145/3524458
        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].

        Sponsors

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        Published: 07 September 2022

        Permissions

        Request permissions for this article.

        Check for updates

        Author Tags

        1. behavior change
        2. critical information seeking
        3. human factor
        4. search interface
        5. web search

        Qualifiers

        • Research-article
        • Research
        • Refereed limited

        Conference

        GoodIT 2022
        Sponsor:

        Contributors

        Other Metrics

        Bibliometrics & Citations

        Bibliometrics

        Article Metrics

        • Downloads (Last 12 months)27
        • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0
        Reflects downloads up to 21 Oct 2024

        Other Metrics

        Citations

        Cited By

        View all
        • (2024)Suggestive answers strategy in human-chatbot interaction: a route to engaged critical decision makingFrontiers in Psychology10.3389/fpsyg.2024.138223415Online publication date: 28-Mar-2024

        View Options

        Get Access

        Login options

        View options

        PDF

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader

        HTML Format

        View this article in HTML Format.

        HTML Format

        Media

        Figures

        Other

        Tables

        Share

        Share

        Share this Publication link

        Share on social media