• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Towards a Model of Understanding Social Search
 

Towards a Model of Understanding Social Search

on

  • 4,936 views

This is a talk by Brynn Evans and Ed Chi, given at CSCW 2008 in the Social Sensemaking session.

This is a talk by Brynn Evans and Ed Chi, given at CSCW 2008 in the Social Sensemaking session.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
4,936
Views on SlideShare
4,748
Embed Views
188

Actions

Likes
11
Downloads
138
Comments
2

4 Embeds 188

http://foaf.tistory.com 165
http://www.linkedin.com 10
https://www.linkedin.com 8
http://www.slideshare.net 5

Accessibility

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

CC Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike LicenseCC Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike LicenseCC Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike License

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel

12 of 2 previous next

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
  • Best one
    Hope you are in good health. My name is AMANDA . I am a single girl, Am looking for reliable and honest person. please have a little time for me. Please reach me back amanda_n14144@yahoo.com so that i can explain all about myself .
    Best regards AMANDA.
    amanda_n14144@yahoo.com
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
  • A short summary of the talk is here:
    http://brynnevans.com/blog/2008/10/15/user-needs-during-social-search/

    A few comments have cropped up here:
    http://brynnevans.com/blog/2008/11/12/cscw08-talk-on-social-search/
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Towards a Model of Understanding Social Search Towards a Model of Understanding Social Search Presentation Transcript

    • Photo Credit: David Wild Towards a Model of Understanding Social Search Brynn M. Evans Ed H. Chi UC San Diego PARC CSCW 2008 bmevans@cogsci.ucsd.edu echi@parc.com Nov 11, 2008
    • Photo Credit: Image Source
    • Search is more than a database query.
    • Janet’s extended search process BEFORE had partial knowledge, needed specific information DURING Google AFTER shared information with colleagues
    • Search can be social.
    • What is social search?
    • social search : an umbrella term used to describe search acts that make use of social interactions with others.
    • social search : an umbrella term used to describe search acts that make use of social interactions with others. Where those interactions may be: • explicit or implicit, TWIDALE; MORRIS GLANCE; GOLDBERG; RIEDL; SMYTH • co-located or remote, KUHLTHAU; TWIDALE; WILSON • synchronous or asynchronous.
    • What are we trying to do? goal : Learn about the role of social interactions in search. method : Analyze 150 responses to a critical-incident survey. (F LANAGAN 1954)
    • The Survey Mechanical Turk -- micro-task market (KITTUR, CHI & SUH, 2008) 27-question critical-incident questionnaire on people’s most recent search experience.
    • The Survey We sought the context and purpose of the search experience.
    • The Survey We sought the context and purpose of the search experience. BEFORE DURING AFTER
    • The Survey We sought the context and purpose of the search experience. • when did the episode occur? BEFORE • what were you doing before the search? • did you talk with anyone prior to searching? DURING AFTER
    • The Survey We sought the context and purpose of the search experience. • when did the episode occur? BEFORE • what were you doing before the search? • did you talk with anyone prior to searching? DURING • what steps did you take in your search? • did you interact with anyone? AFTER
    • The Survey We sought the context and purpose of the search experience. • when did the episode occur? BEFORE • what were you doing before the search? • did you talk with anyone prior to searching? DURING • what steps did you take in your search? • did you interact with anyone? • what did you do immediately after? AFTER • did you share your results with anyone?
    • Subject Sample • N = 150 • Anonymous, English-speaking users • diverse backgrounds Profession Employer 9% Education Universities (London, Illinois, Missouri, Northeastern) 9% Financial Liberty Mutual, Ernst & Young 7% Healthcare ChartOne Inc, Mid State Health Systems 6% Govt. Agency IRS, US Army, Navy, Air Force, Dept of Commerce 6% Software Oracle, EA Games 6% Retail Target, Circuit City 5% Research LexisNexis, GE Plastics
    • Subject Sample • N = 150 • Anonymous, English-speaking users • diverse backgrounds Profession Employer 9% Education Universities (London, Illinois, Missouri, Northeastern) 9% Financial Liberty Mutual, Ernst & Young 7% Healthcare ChartOne Inc, Mid State Health Systems 6% Govt. Agency IRS, US Army, Navy, Air Force, Dept of Commerce 6% Software Oracle, EA Games 6% Retail Target, Circuit City 5% Research LexisNexis, GE Plastics
    • Subject Sample • N = 150 • Anonymous, English-speaking users • diverse backgrounds Profession Employer 9% Education Universities (London, Illinois, Missouri, Northeastern) 9% Financial Liberty Mutual, Ernst & Young 7% Healthcare ChartOne Inc, Mid State Health Systems 6% Govt. Agency IRS, US Army, Navy, Air Force, Dept of Commerce 6% Software Oracle, EA Games 6% Retail Target, Circuit City 5% Research LexisNexis, GE Plastics
    • Subject Sample • N = 150 • Anonymous, English-speaking users • diverse backgrounds Profession Employer 9% Education Universities (London, Illinois, Missouri, Northeastern) 9% Financial Liberty Mutual, Ernst & Young 7% Healthcare ChartOne Inc, Mid State Health Systems 6% Govt. Agency IRS, US Army, Navy, Air Force, Dept of Commerce 6% Software Oracle, EA Games 6% Retail Target, Circuit City 5% Research LexisNexis, GE Plastics
    • Subject Sample • N = 150 • Anonymous, English-speaking users • diverse backgrounds Profession Employer 9% Education Universities (London, Illinois, Missouri, Northeastern) 9% Financial Liberty Mutual, Ernst & Young 7% Healthcare ChartOne Inc, Mid State Health Systems 6% Govt. Agency IRS, US Army, Navy, Air Force, Dept of Commerce 6% Software Oracle, EA Games 6% Retail Target, Circuit City 5% Research LexisNexis, GE Plastics
    • Model of Search
    • externally-motivated self-motivated framing Before Search searchers searchers the context 31% 69% SOCIAL INTERACTIONS GATHER REQUIREMENTS refining the FORMULATE REPRESENTATION requirements 28% 13% 59% During Search navigational transactional informational FORAGING step A step A search process step B step B “evidence file” TRANSACTION SENSEMAKING search product /end product After Search 28% 72% DO NOTHING TAKE ACTION ORGANIZE DISTRIBUTE to self 15% to proximate 87% to public 2% others others
    • Before Search externally-motivated self-motivated framing searchers searchers the context 31% 69% SOCIAL INTERACTIONS GATHER REQUIREMENTS refining the FORMULATE REPRESENTATION requirements 28% 13% 59% During Search navigational transactional informational FORAGING step A step A search process step B step B “evidence file” TRANSACTION SENSEMAKING search product /end product After Search 28% 72% DO NOTHING TAKE ACTION ORGANIZE DISTRIBUTE to self 15% to proximate 87% to public 2% others others
    • externally-motivated searchers specific request from a boss, customer, or client
    • externally-motivated searchers specific request from a boss, customer, or client Photo Credit: tuexperto_com5
    • externally-motivated searchers self-motivated searchers specific request from a boss, self-initiated search for personal or customer, or client work related information Photo Credit: tuexperto_com5
    • externally-motivated searchers self-motivated searchers specific request from a boss, self-initiated search for personal or customer, or client work related information Photo Credit: tuexperto_com5 Photo Source: Peter Voerman
    • Before Search externally- framing motivated self-motivated the context users users 31% 69% search preparation
    • Before Search externally- framing motivated self-motivated the context users users 31% 69% GATHER REQUIREMENTS refining the requirements FORMULATE REPRESENTATION
    • Before Search externally- framing motivated self-motivated the context users users 31% 69% GATHER REQUIREMENTS SOCIAL INTERACTIONS refining the requirements 43% users FORMULATE REPRESENTATION
    • Before Search externally- framing motivated self-motivated the context users users 70% 31% 30% 69% SOCIAL INTERACTIONS GATHER REQUIREMENTS SOCIAL INTERACTIONS refining the requirements 43% users FORMULATE REPRESENTATION
    • Before Search framing externally-motivated self-motivated the context users users 70% 30% SOCIAL INTERACTIONS refining the GATHER REQUIREMENTS requirements 43% users FORMULATE REPRESENTATION REASONS FOR BEING SOCIAL
    • Before Search framing externally-motivated self-motivated the context users users 70% 30% SOCIAL INTERACTIONS refining the GATHER REQUIREMENTS requirements 43% users FORMULATE REPRESENTATION externally- REASONS motivated FOR 1. establish guidelines BEING SOCIAL
    • Before Search framing externally-motivated self-motivated the context users users 70% 30% SOCIAL INTERACTIONS refining the GATHER REQUIREMENTS requirements 43% users FORMULATE REPRESENTATION externally- self-motivated REASONS motivated FOR 1. establish guidelines 1. establish guidelines BEING 2. seek advice 3. brainstorm SOCIAL 4. collect search tips (e.g., keywords, URLs)
    • externally-motivated self-motivated framing Before Search searchers searchers the context 31% 69% SOCIAL INTERACTIONS GATHER REQUIREMENTS refining the FORMULATE REPRESENTATION requirements 28% 13% 59% During Search navigational transactional informational FORAGING step A step A search process step B step B “evidence file” TRANSACTION SENSEMAKING search product /end product After Search 28% 72% DO NOTHING TAKE ACTION ORGANIZE DISTRIBUTE to self 15% to proximate 87% to public 2% others others
    • During Search 3 types of information needs (BRODER 2002)
    • During Search 3 types of information needs (BRODER 2002) navigational 28% step A step B Photo Credit: Library of Congress via pingnews
    • During Search 3 types of information needs (BRODER 2002) navigational 28% transactional 13% step A step A step B step B TRANSACTION Photo Credit: Library of Congress via pingnews Photo Credit: Jeremy Goldman
    • During Search 3 types of information needs informational 59% FORAGING search process “evidence file” SENSEMAKING Photo Credit: Children at Risk Foundation
    • During Search 3 types of information needs informational 40% FORAGING SOCIAL INTERACTIONS search process “evidence file” SENSEMAKING Photo Credit: Children at Risk Foundation
    • externally-motivated self-motivated framing Before Search searchers searchers the context 31% 69% SOCIAL INTERACTIONS GATHER REQUIREMENTS refining the FORMULATE REPRESENTATION requirements 28% 13% 59% During Search navigational transactional informational FORAGING step A step A search process step B step B “evidence file” TRANSACTION SENSEMAKING search product /end product After Search 28% 72% DO NOTHING TAKE ACTION ORGANIZE DISTRIBUTE to self 15% to proximate 87% to public 2% others others
    • After Search search product / end product
    • After Search search product / end product 28% DO NOTHING
    • After Search search product / end product 72% 28% TAKE ACTION DO NOTHING
    • After Search search product / end product 72% 28% TAKE ACTION DO NOTHING ORGANIZE
    • After Search search product / end product 72% 28% TAKE ACTION DO NOTHING ORGANIZE DISTRIBUTE 67% of all users
    • After Search search product / end product 72% 28% TAKE ACTION DO NOTHING ORGANIZE DISTRIBUTE 67% of all users
    • After Search search product / end product 72% 28% TAKE ACTION DO NOTHING ORGANIZE DISTRIBUTE 67% of all users to proximate 87% 86 to public 2% 2 others users others users
    • After Search search product / end product 72% 28% TAKE ACTION DO NOTHING ORGANIZE DISTRIBUTE 67% of all users to proximate 87% 86 to public 2% 2 to self 15% 15 others users others users users
    • After Search search product / end product 72% 28% TAKE ACTION DO NOTHING ORGANIZE DISTRIBUTE 67% of all users to proximate 87% 86 to public 2% 2 to self 15% 15 others users others users users 59% of all users shared information with others
    • After Search DISTRIBUTE 67% of all users to proximate 87% 86 to public 2% 2 to self 15% 15 others users others users users 59% of all users shared information with others externally- self-motivated REASONS motivated FOR 1. obligation 1. obligation SHARING 2. thought others would be interested 3. to get feedback
    • Limitations What does it mean to be an active social searcher? What considerations go into seeking help from social networks? Is social search more useful for certain types of info? Procedural knowledge? Experience-based knowledge? How is the experience different for search failures? Will we see more cases of social outreach during failed searches? Will searchers exploit all options before admitting failure?
    • Conclusion
    • externally-motivated self-motivated framing Before Search searchers searchers the context 31% 69% SOCIAL INTERACTIONS GATHER REQUIREMENTS refining the FORMULATE REPRESENTATION requirements 28% 13% 59% During Search navigational transactional informational FORAGING step A step A search process step B step B “evidence file” TRANSACTION SENSEMAKING search product /end product After Search 28% 72% DO NOTHING TAKE ACTION ORGANIZE DISTRIBUTE to self 15% to proximate 87% to public 2% others others
    • externally-motivated self-motivated framing Before Search searchers searchers the context 31% 69% SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 43% users engaged in pre-search social interactions. GATHER REQUIREMENTS refining the FORMULATE REPRESENTATION requirements 28% 13% 59% During Search navigational transactional informational FORAGING step A step A search process step B step B “evidence file” TRANSACTION SENSEMAKING search product /end product After Search 28% 72% DO NOTHING TAKE ACTION ORGANIZE DISTRIBUTE to self 15% to proximate 87% to public 2% others others
    • externally-motivated self-motivated framing Before Search searchers searchers the context 31% 69% SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 43% users engaged in pre-search social interactions. GATHER REQUIREMENTS refining the reasons for interacting: to get advice, guidelines, feedback, FORMULATE REPRESENTATION requirements or search tips 28% 13% 59% During Search navigational transactional informational FORAGING step A step A search process step B step B “evidence file” TRANSACTION SENSEMAKING search product /end product After Search 28% 72% DO NOTHING TAKE ACTION ORGANIZE DISTRIBUTE to self 15% to proximate 87% to public 2% others others
    • externally-motivated self-motivated framing Before Search searchers searchers the context 31% 69% SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 43% users engaged in pre-search social interactions. GATHER REQUIREMENTS refining the reasons for interacting: to get advice, guidelines, feedback, FORMULATE REPRESENTATION requirements or search tips 28% 13% 59% During Search navigational transactional informational FORAGING step A step A search 3 types of search: informational search provides a step B step B process compelling case for social file” “evidence search support. TRANSACTION SENSEMAKING search product /end product After Search 28% 72% DO NOTHING TAKE ACTION ORGANIZE DISTRIBUTE to self 15% to proximate 87% to public 2% others others
    • externally-motivated self-motivated framing Before Search searchers searchers the context 31% 69% SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 43% users engaged in pre-search social interactions. GATHER REQUIREMENTS refining the reasons for interacting: to get advice, guidelines, feedback, FORMULATE REPRESENTATION requirements or search tips 28% 13% 59% During Search navigational transactional informational FORAGING step A step A search 3 types of search: informational search provides a step B step B process compelling case for social file” “evidence search support. TRANSACTION SENSEMAKING search product /end product After Search 28% 72% DO NOTHING TAKE ACTION 59% users engaged in post-search sharing. ORGANIZE DISTRIBUTE to self 15% to proximate 87% to public 2% others others
    • externally-motivated self-motivated framing Before Search searchers searchers the context 31% 69% SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 43% users engaged in pre-search social interactions. GATHER REQUIREMENTS refining the reasons for interacting: to get advice, guidelines, feedback, FORMULATE REPRESENTATION requirements or search tips 28% 13% 59% During Search navigational transactional informational FORAGING step A step A search 3 types of search: informational search provides a step B step B process compelling case for social file” “evidence search support. TRANSACTION SENSEMAKING search product /end product After Search 28% 72% DO NOTHING TAKE ACTION 59% users engaged in post-search sharing. ORGANIZE DISTRIBUTE reasons for interacting: thought others might be interested, to self 15% feedback, out of obligation to get to proximate 87% to public 2% others others
    • Design Principles
    • Before Search, users need: access resources during preparation • instant messaging (IM) access to friends near the search box Photo Credit: Jeff Hester
    • Before Search, users need: access resources during preparation • instant messaging (IM) access to friends near the search box Photo Credit: Jeff Hester During Search, users need: help evaluating & validating results • related keywords or search trails Similar to: GLANCE; SMYTH • tag clouds from domain experts Photo Credit: Rooney John
    • Before Search, users need: access resources during preparation • instant messaging (IM) access to friends near the search box Photo Credit: Jeff Hester During Search, users need: help evaluating & validating results MR. TAGGY • related keywords or search trails Similar to: GLANCE; SMYTH • tag clouds from domain experts Photo Credit: Rooney John
    • Before Search, users need: access resources during preparation • instant messaging (IM) access to friends near the search box Photo Credit: Jeff Hester During Search, users need: help evaluating & validating results MR. TAGGY • related keywords or search trails Similar to: GLANCE; SMYTH • tag clouds from domain experts Photo Credit: Rooney John After Search, users need: facilities for sharing search findings SPARTAG.US (PARC) • sharing tools built-in to the site or search page
    • Photo Credit: Image Source
    • Thank You! Brynn M. Evans Ed H. Chi bmevans@gmail.com echi@parc.com http://brynnevans.com http://www-users.cs.umn.edu/~echi/