바로가기메뉴

본문 바로가기 주메뉴 바로가기

logo

논문 상세

이전 다음
논문 투고

Vol.29 No.2
Citation Share

통합 검색 환경에서 이용자 적합성 판단 기준에 관한 탐색적 연구

Users' Relevance Criteria in Universal Search in Korea : An Exploratory Study

정보관리학회지 / Journal of the Korean Society for Information Management, (P)1013-0799; (E)2586-2073
2012, v.29 no.2, pp.113-133
https://doi.org/10.3743/KOSIM.2012.29.2.113
박정아 (다음커뮤니케이션)
박정아. (2012). 통합 검색 환경에서 이용자 적합성 판단 기준에 관한 탐색적 연구. 정보관리학회지, 29(2), 113-133, https://doi.org/10.3743/KOSIM.2012.29.2.113
  • 다운로드 수
  • 조회수
PDF 다운로드

초록

본 연구는 한국 통합 검색 환경에서의 이용자 적합성 판단 기준에 관한 탐색적 연구이다. 이를 위해 10명의 참가자들을 대상으로 반구조화(semi-structured) 인터뷰를 수행하여 데이터를 수집하였다. 참가자들은 네이버, 다음 등과 같은 통합 검색 환경에서 본인들이 관심 있거나 필요로 하는 다양한 검색을 수행하고, 그 과정에서 문서가 적합한지와 그 판단 기준에 대해 기술하였다. 연구 결과 8개의 적합성 판단 기준과 비적합성 판단 기준, 그리고 검색 환경이 변화하여도 이용자가 적합성을 판단하는 기준들이 크게 변화하지는 않지만 데이터 증가와 이용자 요구의 고도화로 특수성과 구체성이 중요한 적합성 판단 기준으로 부각되는 점을 발견하였다.

keywords
information retrieval, relevance, user-oriented relevance, relevance criteria, user study, user relevance, 정보검색, 적합성, 이용자 중심 적합성, 적합성 판단 기준, 이용자 연구, information retrieval, relevance, user-oriented relevance, relevance criteria, user study, user relevance

Abstract

This study is an exploratory research on the user relevance criteria in Korean search service environments that provide integrated search results. Data were collected from 10 participants using a semi-structured interview technique. The participants conducted a web search using integrated search services, such as Naver or Daum on a self-selected topic. They were asked to judge the relevance of retrieved documents and to report their relevance criteria. As a result, the research indicated 8 user-defined relevance and non-relevance criteria. The research shows that specificity and richness are the two most important criteria yet, the user’s relevance criteria have not changed much despite the change in search environment.

keywords
information retrieval, relevance, user-oriented relevance, relevance criteria, user study, user relevance, 정보검색, 적합성, 이용자 중심 적합성, 적합성 판단 기준, 이용자 연구, information retrieval, relevance, user-oriented relevance, relevance criteria, user study, user relevance

참고문헌

1.

박소연. (2008). 주요 검색 포탈들의 통합 검색 서비스 비교 평가. 한국도서관·정보학회지, 39(1), 265-278.

2.

Barry, C. L.. (1994). User-defined relevance criteria : An exploratory study. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 45, 149-159.

3.

Barry, C. L.. (1998). Users' criteria for relevance evaluation : A cross-situational comparison. Information Processing & Management, 34, 219-236.

4.

Bateman, J.. (1998). Changes in relevance criteria: A longitudinal study (23-32). ASIS Proceedings.

5.

Bilal, D.. (2000). Children's use of the Yahooligans! web search engine : I. Cognitive, physical and affective behaviors on fact-based search tasks. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 51, 646-65.

6.

Borlund, P.. (2003). The concept of relevance in IR. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 54, 913-925.

7.

Choi, Y.. (2002). Users' relevance criteria in image retrieval in American history. Information Processing & Management, 38, 695-726.

8.

Cooper, W. S.. (1971). A definition of relevance for information retrieval. Information Storage and Retrieval, 7, 19-37.

9.

Cosijn, E.. (2000). Dimensions of relevance. Information Processing & Management, 36, 533-550.

10.

Cuadra, C. A.. (1967). Experimental studies of relevance judgments: Final report. System Development Corp..

11.

Cuadra, C. A.. (1967). Opening the black box of"relevance". Journal of Documentation, 23, 291-303.

12.

Fitzgerald, M. A.. (2001). Relevance judging, evaluation, and decision making in virtual library : A descriptive study. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 52, 989-1010.

13.

Freund, L.. (2008). Exploiting task-document relations in support of information retrieval in the workplace.

14.

Froehlich, T. J.. (1994). Relevance reconsidered : Towards an agenda for the 21st century : Introduction to special topic issue on relevance research. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 45, 124-134.

15.

Greisdorf, H.. (2003). Relevance thresholds : A multi-stage predictive model of how users evaluate information. Information Processing & Management, 39, 403-423.

16.

Hirsh, S. G.. (1999). Children's relevance criteria and information seeking on electronic resources. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 50, 1265-1283.

17.

Hjørland, B.. (2002). Work tasks and socio-cognitive:A specific example.

18.

Krippendorf, K.. (1980). Content analysis : An introduction to its methodology:Sage.

19.

Maglaughlin, K. L.. (2002). User perspective on relevance criteria : A comparison among relevant, partially relevant, and not-relevant. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 53, 327-342.

20.

Mizzaro, S.. (1997). Relevance : The whole history. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 48, 810-832.

21.

Moon, I.. (2006). NHN: The little search engine that could:Businessweek.

22.

Park, T. K.. (1993). The nature of relevance in information retrieval : An empirical study. Library Quarterly, 63, 318-351.

23.

Park, T. K.. (1994). Toward a theory of user-based relevance : A call for a new paradigm of inquiry. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 45, 135-141.

24.

Park, H.. (1997). Relevance of science information : Origins and dimensions of relevance and their implications to information retrieval. Information Processing & Management, 33, 339-352.

25.

Rees, A. M.. (1967). A field experiment approach to the study of relevance assessments in relation to document searching, 2. Cleveland. Center for Documentation and Communication Research, School of Library Science, Case Western Reserve University.

26.

Saracevic, T.. (1975). Relevance : A review of and a framework for the thinking on the notion in information science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 26, 321-343.

27.

Saracevic, T.. (2007). Relevance : A review of the literature and a framework for thinking on the notion in information science. Part III : Behavior and effects of relevance. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58, 2126-2144.

28.

Savolainen, R.. (2006). User-defined relevance criteria in web searching. Journal of Documentation, 62, 685-707.

29.

Schamber, L.. (1991). Users' criteria for evaluation in a multimedia environment (126-133). Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science. Learned Information, Inc..

30.

Schamber, L.. (1994). Relevance and information behavior, In Annual review of information science and technology (ARIST):Learned Information, Inc.

31.

Schamber, L.. (1996). User criteria in relevance evaluation: Toward development of a measurement scale (218-225). Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the American Society for Information Science. InformationToday.

32.

Schamber, L.. (1990). A re-examination of relevance : Toward a dynamic, situational definition. Information Processing & Management, 26, 755-775.

33.

Taylor, A. R.. (2007). Relationships between categories of relevance criteria and stage in task completion. Information Processing & Management, 43, 1071-1084.

34.

Wang, P.. (1998). A cognitive model of document use during a research project : Study I. Document selection. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 49, 115-133.

35.

Wang, P.. (1999). A cognitive model of document use during a research project : Study II. Decisions at the reading and citing stages. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 50, 98-144.

36.

Xu, Y.. (2006). Relevance judgmen t- What do information consumers consider beyond topicality?. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57, 961-973.

37.

Yang, M.. (2004). Exploring users' video relevance criteria - A pilot study (229-238). Proceedings of the 67th annual meeting of the American Society for Information Science and Technology (ASIST '04). Information Today.

정보관리학회지

논문 투고 OA 정책