towards a model of understanding social search
DESCRIPTION
This is a talk by Brynn Evans and Ed Chi, given at CSCW 2008 in the Social Sensemaking session.TRANSCRIPT
Brynn M. EvansUC San Diego
Ed H. ChiPARC
Towards a Model of Understanding Social Search
Photo Credit: David Wild
CSCW 2008 Nov 11, 2008
Photo Credit: Image Source
Search is more than a database query.
Janet’s extended search process
BEFORE
DURING
AFTER
had partial knowledge, needed specific information
shared information with colleagues
Search can be social.
What is 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.
social search :
Where those interactions may be:• explicit or implicit,
• co-located or remote,
• synchronous or asynchronous.
GLANCE; GOLDBERG; RIEDL; SMYTHTWIDALE; MORRIS
KUHLTHAU; TWIDALE; WILSON
What are we trying to do?
Learn about the role of social interactions in search.
goal :
Analyze 150 responses to a critical-incident survey.
method :(FLANAGAN 1954)
The Survey
27-question critical-incident questionnaireon people’s most recent search experience.
Mechanical Turk -- micro-task market(KITTUR, CHI & SUH, 2008)
The SurveyWe sought the context and purpose of the search experience.
The SurveyWe sought the context and purpose of the search experience.
BEFORE
DURING
AFTER
The SurveyWe sought the context and purpose of the search experience.
BEFORE
DURING
AFTER
• when did the episode occur?• what were you doing before the search?• did you talk with anyone prior to searching?
The SurveyWe sought the context and purpose of the search experience.
BEFORE
DURING
AFTER
• what steps did you take in your search?• did you interact with anyone?
• when did the episode occur?• what were you doing before the search?• did you talk with anyone prior to searching?
The SurveyWe sought the context and purpose of the search experience.
BEFORE
DURING
AFTER • what did you do immediately after?• did you share your results with anyone?
• when did the episode occur?• what were you doing before the search?• did you talk with anyone prior to searching?
• what steps did you take in your search?• did you interact with anyone?
Subject Sample• N = 150• Anonymous, English-speaking users• diverse backgrounds
9% Education9% Financial 7% Healthcare6% Govt. Agency6% Software6% Retail5% Research
Profession Employer
Universities (London, Illinois, Missouri, Northeastern)Liberty Mutual, Ernst & YoungChartOne Inc, Mid State Health Systems IRS, US Army, Navy, Air Force, Dept of CommerceOracle, EA GamesTarget, Circuit CityLexisNexis, GE Plastics
Subject Sample• N = 150• Anonymous, English-speaking users• diverse backgrounds
9% Education9% Financial 7% Healthcare6% Govt. Agency6% Software6% Retail5% Research
Profession Employer
Universities (London, Illinois, Missouri, Northeastern)Liberty Mutual, Ernst & YoungChartOne Inc, Mid State Health Systems IRS, US Army, Navy, Air Force, Dept of CommerceOracle, EA GamesTarget, Circuit CityLexisNexis, GE Plastics
Subject Sample• N = 150• Anonymous, English-speaking users• diverse backgrounds
9% Education9% Financial 7% Healthcare6% Govt. Agency6% Software6% Retail5% Research
Profession Employer
Universities (London, Illinois, Missouri, Northeastern)Liberty Mutual, Ernst & YoungChartOne Inc, Mid State Health Systems IRS, US Army, Navy, Air Force, Dept of CommerceOracle, EA GamesTarget, Circuit CityLexisNexis, GE Plastics
Subject Sample• N = 150• Anonymous, English-speaking users• diverse backgrounds
9% Education9% Financial 7% Healthcare6% Govt. Agency6% Software6% Retail5% Research
Profession Employer
Universities (London, Illinois, Missouri, Northeastern)Liberty Mutual, Ernst & YoungChartOne Inc, Mid State Health Systems IRS, US Army, Navy, Air Force, Dept of CommerceOracle, EA GamesTarget, Circuit CityLexisNexis, GE Plastics
Subject Sample• N = 150• Anonymous, English-speaking users• diverse backgrounds
9% Education9% Financial 7% Healthcare6% Govt. Agency6% Software6% Retail5% Research
Profession Employer
Universities (London, Illinois, Missouri, Northeastern)Liberty Mutual, Ernst & YoungChartOne Inc, Mid State Health Systems IRS, US Army, Navy, Air Force, Dept of CommerceOracle, EA GamesTarget, Circuit CityLexisNexis, GE Plastics
Model of Search
“evidence file”
SENSEMAKING
process
searchFORAGING
Bef
ore
Sear
ch externally-motivated searchers
31%
framing the context
refining the
requirementsFORMULATE REPRESENTATION
GATHER REQUIREMENTS
69%
13% 59%28%
transactional
self-motivated searchers
navigational informational
Dur
ing
Sear
chA
fter
Sea
rch
step A
step B
TRANSACTION
step A
step B
DO NOTHING
search product /end product
ORGANIZE DISTRIBUTE
TAKE ACTION
28% 72%
SOCIAL INTERACTIONS
to publicothers
to proximateothers
to self 15% 87% 2%
“evidence file”
SENSEMAKING
process
searchFORAGING
externally-motivated searchers
31%
framing the context
refining the
requirementsFORMULATE REPRESENTATION
GATHER REQUIREMENTS
69%
13% 59%28%
transactional
self-motivated searchers
navigational informational
Dur
ing
Sear
chA
fter
Sea
rch
step A
step B
TRANSACTION
step A
step B
DO NOTHING
search product /end product
ORGANIZE DISTRIBUTE
TAKE ACTION
28% 72%
SOCIAL INTERACTIONS
to publicothers
to proximateothers
to self 15% 87% 2%
Bef
ore
Sear
ch
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
self-motivated searchers
self-initiated search for personal or work related information
externally-motivated searchers
specific request from a boss, customer, or client
Photo Credit: tuexperto_com5
self-motivated searchers
self-initiated search for personal or work related information
externally-motivated searchers
specific request from a boss, customer, or client
Photo Source: Peter Voerman
Photo Credit: tuexperto_com5
Before Search
31% 69%
search preparation
framing the context
externally-motivated
usersself-motivated
users
FORMULATE REPRESENTATION
GATHER REQUIREMENTS
Before Search
31% 69%
framing the context
refining the requirements
externally-motivated
usersself-motivated
users
FORMULATE REPRESENTATION
GATHER REQUIREMENTS
Before Search
31% 69%
framing the context
refining the requirements
externally-motivated
usersself-motivated
users
users43%
SOCIAL INTERACTIONS
FORMULATE REPRESENTATION
GATHER REQUIREMENTS
Before Search
31% 69%
framing the context
refining the requirements
externally-motivated
usersself-motivated
users
70% 30% SOCIAL INTERACTIONS
users43%
SOCIAL INTERACTIONS
Before Searchexternally-motivated
usersframing
the context
refining the requirements
FORMULATE REPRESENTATION
GATHER REQUIREMENTS
self-motivated users
SOCIAL INTERACTIONS
43% users
30%70%
REASONS FOR
BEING
SOCIAL
Before Searchexternally-motivated
usersframing
the context
refining the requirements
FORMULATE REPRESENTATION
GATHER REQUIREMENTS
self-motivated users
SOCIAL INTERACTIONS
43% users
30%70%
1. establish guidelines
externally-motivated REASONS
FOR
BEING
SOCIAL
Before Searchexternally-motivated
usersframing
the context
refining the requirements
FORMULATE REPRESENTATION
GATHER REQUIREMENTS
self-motivated users
SOCIAL INTERACTIONS
43% users
30%70%
1. establish guidelines
externally-motivated
1. establish guidelines2. seek advice3. brainstorm4. collect search tips (e.g., keywords, URLs)
self-motivatedREASONS
FOR
BEING
SOCIAL
“evidence file”
SENSEMAKING
process
searchFORAGING
Bef
ore
Sear
ch externally-motivated searchers
31%
framing the context
refining the
requirementsFORMULATE REPRESENTATION
GATHER REQUIREMENTS
69%
13% 59%28%
transactional
self-motivated searchers
navigational informational
Dur
ing
Sear
chA
fter
Sea
rch
step A
step B
TRANSACTION
step A
step B
DO NOTHING
search product /end product
ORGANIZE DISTRIBUTE
TAKE ACTION
28% 72%
SOCIAL INTERACTIONS
to publicothers
to proximateothers
to self 15% 87% 2%
During Search
3 types of information needs (BRODER 2002)
During Search
3 types of information needs
28%navigational
step A
step B
Photo Credit: Library of Congress via pingnews
(BRODER 2002)
During Search
3 types of information needs
13%transactional
TRANSACTION
step A
step B
28%navigational
step A
step B
Photo Credit: Jeremy GoldmanPhoto Credit: Library of Congress via pingnews
(BRODER 2002)
59%informational
FORAGINGsearch
process
“evidence file”
SENSEMAKING
During Search
3 types of information needs
Photo Credit: Children at Risk Foundation
informational
FORAGINGsearch
process
“evidence file”
SENSEMAKING
During Search
3 types of information needs
SOCIAL INTERACTIONS
40%
Photo Credit: Children at Risk Foundation
“evidence file”
SENSEMAKING
process
searchFORAGING
Bef
ore
Sear
ch externally-motivated searchers
31%
framing the context
refining the
requirementsFORMULATE REPRESENTATION
GATHER REQUIREMENTS
69%
13% 59%28%
transactional
self-motivated searchers
navigational informational
Dur
ing
Sear
chA
fter
Sea
rch
step A
step B
TRANSACTION
step A
step B
DO NOTHING
search product /end product
ORGANIZE DISTRIBUTE
TAKE ACTION
28% 72%
SOCIAL INTERACTIONS
to publicothers
to proximateothers
to self 15% 87% 2%
After Search
search product / end product
After Search
search product / end product
DO NOTHING
28%
After Search
search product / end product
DO NOTHING
28%
TAKE ACTION
72%
After Search
search product / end product
ORGANIZE
DO NOTHING
28%
TAKE ACTION
72%
After Search
search product / end product
ORGANIZE
DO NOTHING
28%
TAKE ACTION
72%
DISTRIBUTE 67% of all users
After Search
search product / end product
ORGANIZE
DO NOTHING
28%
TAKE ACTION
72%
DISTRIBUTE 67% of all users
After Search
search product / end product
ORGANIZE
DO NOTHING
28%
TAKE ACTION
72%
DISTRIBUTE 67% of all users
to publicothers
2%2 users
to proximateothers
87%86 users
After Search
search product / end product
ORGANIZE
DO NOTHING
28%
TAKE ACTION
72%
DISTRIBUTE 67% of all users
to self 15%15 users
to publicothers
2%2 users
to proximateothers
87%86 users
After Search
search product / end product
ORGANIZE
DO NOTHING
28%
TAKE ACTION
72%
59% of all users shared information with others
DISTRIBUTE 67% of all users
to self 15%15 users
to publicothers
2%2 users
to proximateothers
87%86 users
After Search
1. obligation
externally-motivated
1. obligation2. thought others would be interested3. to get feedback
self-motivatedREASONS FOR
SHARING
59% of all users shared information with others
DISTRIBUTE 67% of all users
to self 15%15 users
to publicothers
2%2 users
to proximateothers
87%86 users
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
“evidence file”
SENSEMAKING
process
searchFORAGING
externally-motivated searchers
31%
framing the context
refining the
requirementsFORMULATE REPRESENTATION
GATHER REQUIREMENTS
69%
13% 59%28%
transactional
self-motivated searchers
navigational informational
step A
step B
TRANSACTION
step A
step B
DO NOTHING
search product /end product
ORGANIZE DISTRIBUTE
TAKE ACTION
28% 72%
SOCIAL INTERACTIONS
to publicothers
to proximateothers
to self 15% 87% 2%
Bef
ore
Sear
chD
urin
g Se
arch
Aft
er S
earc
h
“evidence file”
SENSEMAKING
process
searchFORAGING
externally-motivated searchers
31%
framing the context
refining the
requirementsFORMULATE REPRESENTATION
GATHER REQUIREMENTS
69%
13% 59%28%
transactional
self-motivated searchers
navigational informational
step A
step B
TRANSACTION
step A
step B
DO NOTHING
search product /end product
ORGANIZE DISTRIBUTE
TAKE ACTION
28% 72%
SOCIAL INTERACTIONS
to publicothers
to proximateothers
to self 15% 87% 2%
43% users engaged in pre-search social interactions.B
efor
e Se
arch
Dur
ing
Sear
chA
fter
Sea
rch
“evidence file”
SENSEMAKING
process
searchFORAGING
externally-motivated searchers
31%
framing the context
refining the
requirementsFORMULATE REPRESENTATION
GATHER REQUIREMENTS
69%
13% 59%28%
transactional
self-motivated searchers
navigational informational
step A
step B
TRANSACTION
step A
step B
DO NOTHING
search product /end product
ORGANIZE DISTRIBUTE
TAKE ACTION
28% 72%
SOCIAL INTERACTIONS
to publicothers
to proximateothers
to self 15% 87% 2%
43% users engaged in pre-search social interactions.B
efor
e Se
arch
Dur
ing
Sear
chA
fter
Sea
rch
reasons for interacting: to get advice, guidelines, feedback, or search tips
“evidence file”
SENSEMAKING
process
searchFORAGING
externally-motivated searchers
31%
framing the context
refining the
requirementsFORMULATE REPRESENTATION
GATHER REQUIREMENTS
69%
13% 59%28%
transactional
self-motivated searchers
navigational informational
step A
step B
TRANSACTION
step A
step B
DO NOTHING
search product /end product
ORGANIZE DISTRIBUTE
TAKE ACTION
28% 72%
SOCIAL INTERACTIONS
to publicothers
to proximateothers
to self 15% 87% 2%
43% users engaged in pre-search social interactions.B
efor
e Se
arch
Dur
ing
Sear
chA
fter
Sea
rch
3 types of search: informational search provides a compelling case for social search support.
reasons for interacting: to get advice, guidelines, feedback, or search tips
“evidence file”
SENSEMAKING
process
searchFORAGING
externally-motivated searchers
31%
framing the context
refining the
requirementsFORMULATE REPRESENTATION
GATHER REQUIREMENTS
69%
13% 59%28%
transactional
self-motivated searchers
navigational informational
step A
step B
TRANSACTION
step A
step B
DO NOTHING
search product /end product
ORGANIZE DISTRIBUTE
TAKE ACTION
28% 72%
SOCIAL INTERACTIONS
to publicothers
to proximateothers
to self 15% 87% 2%
43% users engaged in pre-search social interactions.
59% users engaged in post-search sharing.
Bef
ore
Sear
chD
urin
g Se
arch
Aft
er S
earc
h
3 types of search: informational search provides a compelling case for social search support.
reasons for interacting: to get advice, guidelines, feedback, or search tips
“evidence file”
SENSEMAKING
process
searchFORAGING
externally-motivated searchers
31%
framing the context
refining the
requirementsFORMULATE REPRESENTATION
GATHER REQUIREMENTS
69%
13% 59%28%
transactional
self-motivated searchers
navigational informational
step A
step B
TRANSACTION
step A
step B
DO NOTHING
search product /end product
ORGANIZE DISTRIBUTE
TAKE ACTION
28% 72%
SOCIAL INTERACTIONS
to publicothers
to proximateothers
to self 15% 87% 2%
43% users engaged in pre-search social interactions.
59% users engaged in post-search sharing.
Bef
ore
Sear
chD
urin
g Se
arch
Aft
er S
earc
h
3 types of search: informational search provides a compelling case for social search support.
reasons for interacting: thought others might be interested, to get feedback, out of obligation
reasons for interacting: to get advice, guidelines, feedback, or search tips
Design Principles
EX:
• instant messaging (IM) access to friends near the search box
access resources during preparationBefore Search, users need:
Photo Credit: Jeff Hester
EX:
• related keywords or search trails
• tag clouds from domain experts
help evaluating & validating resultsDuring Search, users need:
Similar to: GLANCE; SMYTH
Photo Credit: Rooney John
• instant messaging (IM) access to friends near the search box
access resources during preparationBefore Search, users need:
Photo Credit: Jeff Hester
EX:
• related keywords or search trails
• tag clouds from domain experts
help evaluating & validating resultsDuring Search, users need:
Similar to: GLANCE; SMYTH
Photo Credit: Rooney John
• instant messaging (IM) access to friends near the search box
access resources during preparationBefore Search, users need:
Photo Credit: Jeff Hester
MR. TAGGY
EX:
• related keywords or search trails
• tag clouds from domain experts
help evaluating & validating resultsDuring Search, users need:
Similar to: GLANCE; SMYTH
Photo Credit: Rooney John
• instant messaging (IM) access to friends near the search box
access resources during preparationBefore Search, users need:
Photo Credit: Jeff Hester
• sharing tools built-in to the site or search page
facilities for sharing search findingsAfter Search, users need: SPARTAG.US (PARC)
MR. TAGGY
Photo Credit: Image Source
Thank You!
Ed H. Chi
[email protected]://www-users.cs.umn.edu/~echi/
Brynn M. Evans
[email protected]://brynnevans.com