4.7 Article

Image searching on the Excite Web search engine

期刊

INFORMATION PROCESSING & MANAGEMENT
卷 37, 期 2, 页码 295-311

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/S0306-4573(00)00033-9

关键词

images; World Wide Web; excite; information seeking; queries

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A growing body of research is beginning to explore the information-seeking behavior of Web users. The vast majority of these studies have concentrated on the area of textual information retrieval (IR). Little research has examined how people search for non-textual information on the Internet, and few large-scale studies has investigated visual information-seeking behavior with general-purpose Web search engines. This study examined visual information needs as expressed in users' Web image queries. The data set examined consisted of 1,025,908 sequential queries from 211,058 users of Excite, a major Internet search service. Twenty-eight terms were used to identify queries for both still and moving images, resulting in a subset of 33,149 image queries by 9855 users. We provide data on: (1) image queries - the number of queries and the number of search terms per user, (2) image search sessions - the number of queries per user, modifications made to subsequent queries in a session, and (3) image terms - their rank/frequency distribution and the most highly used search terms. On average, there were 3.36 image queries per user containing an average of 3.74 terms per query. Image queries contained a large number of unique terms. The most frequently occurring image related terms appeared less than 10% of the time, with most terms occurring only once. We contrast this to earlier work by P.G.B. Enser, Journal of Documentation 51 (2) (1995) 126-170, who examined written queries for pictorial information in a non-digital environment. Implications for the development of models for visual information retrieval, and for the design of Web search engines are discussed. (C) 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据