Advertisement

Optimizing Relevance Ranking to Enhance the User’s Discovery Experience

  • Tamar Sadeh
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 385)

Abstract

With the introduction of library discovery systems, the display of results according to relevance, as determined by the system, has become a norm. To investigate how relevance ranking could be optimized, a provider of a widely used discovery system developed methods of evaluating the system’s relevance ranking. As a result, new factors were added to the calculation of search results’ relevance—information about the individual user and the user’s information needs, and an indicator representing the academic significance of materials. Methods of monitoring the impact of changes were also established.

Keywords

relevance ranking user experience discovery systems personalized ranking 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Centre for Information Behaviour and the Evaluation of Research (CIBER): Information Behaviour of the Researcher of the Future (2008)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    OCLC Online Computer Library Center: Perceptions of Libraries and Information Resources: A Report to the OCLC Membership. OCLC, Dublin, Ohio (2005)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    OCLC Online Computer Library Center: College Students’ Perceptions of Libraries and Information Resources: A Report to the OCLC Membership. OCLC, Dublin, Ohio (2006)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sadeh, T.: Multiple Dimensions of Search Results. Paper given at Analogous Spaces Interdisciplinary Conference. Ghent University, Belgium (2008)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hearst, M.A.: Clustering versus Faceted Categories for Information Exploration. Communications of the ACM 49(4), 59–61 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Saracevic, T.: Relevance: A Review of and a Framework for the Thinking on the Notion in Information Science. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 26(6), 321–343 (1975)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Saracevic, T.: Relevance: A Review of the Literature and a Framework for Thinking on the Notion in Information Science. Part II: Nature and Manifestations of Relevance. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 58(13), 1915–1933 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Maglaughlin, K.L., Sonnenwald, D.H.: User Perspectives on Relevance Criteria: A Comparison among Relevant, Partially Relevant, and Not-Relevant Judgments. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 53(5), 327–342 (2002)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Markey, K.: The Online Library Catalog: Paradise Lost and Paradise Regained? D-Lib Magazine 13(1/2) (2007)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Markey, K.: Twenty-five Years of End-User Searching, Part 2: Future Research Directions. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 58(8), 1123–1130 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Anderson, T.D.: Uncertainty in Action: Observing Information Seeking within the Creative Processes of Scholarly Research. IR Information Research 12(1) (2006)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hanson, C., Hessel, H., Boudewyns, D., Fransen, J., Friedman-Shedlov, L., Hearn, S., Herther, N., Theis-Mahon, N., Morris, D., Traill, S., West, A.: Discoverability: Phase 2. Final Report, University of Minnesota Libraries (2010)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tamar Sadeh
    • 1
  1. 1.Ex Libris GroupJerusalemIsrael

Personalised recommendations