Search evolution for ease and speed: A call to action for what’s been lost

Abstract

In recent years, leading website search engines have abandoned vital search features supporting complex information needs, evolving instead for the marketplace and for users seeking speedy answers to easy questions. The consequences are troubling, for researchers and for information science educators, with concerns ranging from the very relevance of search results and the unknowing of what is missing, to the novice searcher’s waning ability to frame potent queries and to learn ways to refine results. We report on a grounded theory study of search experiences of information professionals and graduate students (n = 20) that contributes a holistic understanding of web searching, using its findings both to frame what is lacking in the design evolution of search engines for complex information needs and to outline a way forward. One goal of the study was to evaluate an established model of web searching, called Net Lenses, a theoretical framework shown to be highly relevant during the study’s grounded theory secondary literature review. The original Net Lenses research used phenomenography to identify variation in the web search experiences of university students (n = 41), evidencing four categories according to the characteristics of searcher awareness, approach to learning, response to obstacles and search outcomes. This study validated the model and led to an expanded version, Net Lenses 2.0, with five categories of search experience, reflecting the complex information needs of more advanced searchers. This resultant Net Lenses 2.0 model is discussed with its implications for search engine design, for advanced searchers and also for learning-to-search modes, much needed by searchers seeking to develop their abilities. The study’s implications coalesce in a call to action for more inclusive search interface design, and an agenda is put forth for how information researchers, educators and literacy advocates can move forward in their intersecting domains.

Keywords

Complex search information behaviour information needs search engines search interface design threshold concepts

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Alotaibi

Johnson

(2020) Why we like Google Scholar: Postgraduate students’ perceptions of factors influencing their intention to use. Aslib Journal of Information Management 72: 587–603.

Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL) (2015) Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education. Chicago, IL: ACRL. Available at: http://www.ala.org/acrl/standards/ilframework (accessed 19 August 2020).

Bates

(1979) Information search tactics. Journal of the American Society for Information Science 30(4): 205–214.

Bates

(1987) How to use information search tactics online. Online 11(5): 47–54.

Bates

(1989) The design of browsing and berrypicking techniques for the online search interface. Online Review 13(5): 407–424.

Bates

(2019) How search really works. UX Radio. Available at: www.soundcloud.com/ux-radio/how-search-really-works-with-dr-marcia-bates (accessed 19 August 2020).

Berliner

(1994) Expertise: The wonder of exemplary performances. In: Mangieri

Block

(eds) Creating Powerful Thinking in Teachers and Students: Diverse Perspectives. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace College, pp. 141–186.

Blachman

(2015) Google guide. Available at: www.googleguide.com/creative_commons_license.html (accessed 19 August 2020).

Bozdag

Van den Hoven

(2015) Breaking the filter bubble: Democracy and design. Ethics and Information Technology 17: 249–265.

10.

Brace

(2012) A model-based approach to requirements analysis for complex products in engineering design. PhD Thesis, Aalto University, Espoo.

11.

Branch

(2000) Investigating the information-seeking processes of adolescents: The value of using think alouds and think afters. Library and Information Science Research 22(4): 371–392.

12.

Charmaz

(2003) Qualitative interviewing and grounded theory analysis. In: Holstein

Gubrium

(eds) Inside Interviewing: Lenses, New Concerns. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, pp. 311–330.

13.

Charmaz

(2014) Constructing Grounded Theory. 2nd edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

14.

Chu

Law

(2007) Development of information search expertise: Research students’ knowledge of source types. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science 39(1): 27–40.

15.

Crotty

(2019) Access alone isn’t enough: Revisiting calls for discovery, infrastructure, technology, and training. Available at: scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2019/01/31/access-alone-isnt-enough-revisiting-calls-for-discovery-infrastructure-technology-and-training/ (accessed 27 August 2020).

16.

Davis

(2014) Constructivist grounded theory. In: Bruce

Davis

Hughes

, et al. (eds) Information Experience: Approaches to Theory & Practice. Bingley: Emerald Publishing, pp. 38–39.

17.

Dey

(1999) Grounding Grounded Theory. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

18.

Dreyfus

(2004) The five-stage model of adult skill acquisition. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society 24(3): 177–181.

19.

Duarte

Oliveira

Jr Côgo

, et al. (2015) Dico: A conceptual model to support the design and evaluation of advanced search features for exploratory search. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 9299: 87–104.

20.

Edwards

(2004) Web-based information searching: Understanding student experiences to enhance the development of this critical graduate attribute. In: Appleton

Macpherson

Orr

(eds) Third International Lifelong Learning Conference, Central Queensland University, pp. 106–115.

21.

Edwards

(2006) Panning for Gold: Information Literacy and the Net Lenses Model. Adelaide, Australia: Auslib Press.

22.

Edwards

(2017) Net Lenses: Understanding Student Experiences to Enhance the Learning Environment. Available at: https://research.qut.edu.au/netlenses/ (accessed 29 August 2020).

23.

Edwards

Bruce

(2002) Needles, haystacks, filters and me: The IT confidence dilemma. In: Lifelong Learning Conference, Yeppoon, Central Queensland, Australia, 16–19 June 2002.

24.

Edwards

Bruce

(2010) The assignment that triggered change: Assessment and the relational learning model for generic capabilities. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education 29(2): 141–157.

25.

Eickhoff

Dungs

Tran

(2015) An eye-tracking study of query reformulation. In: Proceedings of the 38th international ACM SIGIR conference on research and development in information retrieval, 9–13 August, Santiago, Chile, pp. 13–22. New York: ACM.

26.

Else.is (2018) Sample pages. Available at: http://else.is (accessed 19 August 2020).

27.

Ericsson

Simon

(1993) Protocol Analysis: Verbal Reports as Data. 2nd edn. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

28.

Fessl

Apaolaza

Gledson

, et al. (2019) Mirror, mirror on my search: Data-driven reflection and experimentation with search behaviour. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 11722: 83–97.

29.

Fessl

Wertner

Pammer-Schindler

(2018) Digging for gold: Motivating users to explore alternative search interfaces. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 11082: 636–639.

30.

Fister

MacMillan

(2020) Information literacy in the age of algorithms. Available at: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED605107.pdf (accessed 4 December 2020).

31.

Francis

(2004) Designers search strategies influenced by the interaction with information retrieval systems (IRS): Within the early stages of the design process. Proceedings of APCHI, Rotorua, New Zealand: Lecture Notes in Computer Science 3101: 646–650.

32.

Ghosh

Shah

(2017) Information seeking in learning-oriented search. Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology 54(1): 682–684.

33.

Ghosh

Rath

Shah

, et al. (2018) Searching as learning: Exploring search behavior and learning outcomes in learning-related tasks. In: CHIIR ‘18: Proceedings of the 2018 conference on human information interaction & retrieval, New Brunswick, NJ, 11–15 March, pp. 22–31. New York: ACM.

34.

Google Scholar (n.d.-a) About. Available at: scholar.google.com/intl/en/scholar/about.html (accessed 19 August 2020).

35.

Google Scholar (n.d.-b) Inclusion guidelines. Available at: scholar.google.com/intl/en/scholar/inclusion.html (accessed 19 August 2020).

36.

Google Webmasters Support (2019) Structured data markup for datasets. Available at: support.google.com/webmasters/thread/1960710 (accessed 19 August 2020).

37.

Halevi

Moed

Bar-Ilan

(2017) Suitability of Google Scholar as a source of scientific information and as a source of data for scientific evaluation: Review of the literature. Journal of Informetrics 11(3): 823–834.

38.

Han

Hansen

, et al. (2020) Examining the classification and evolution of novice users’ mental models of an academic database in the search task completion process. Journal of Information Science 46(2): 205–225.

39.

Hansen

Rieh

(2016) Editorial: Recent advances on searching as learning: An introduction to the special issue. Journal of Information Science 42(1): 3–6.

40.

Hsieh-Yee

(1993) Effects of search experience and subject knowledge on the search tactics of novice and experienced searchers. Journal of the American Society for Information Science 44(3): 161–174.

41.

Hsieh-Yee

(2001) Research on Web search behavior. Library and Information Science Research 23(2): 167–185.

42.

Hunt

(2017) Googling gives us answers: But deprives us of intelligence. Available at: qz.com/961379/googles-search-algorithms-act-as-our-brains-but-what-are-they-trying-to-get-us-to-think (accessed 19 August 2020).

43.

Hunt

(2020) What might a post-Google web search engine actually look like? Available at: medium.com/ted-hunt/what-might-a-post-google-web-search-engine-actually-look-like-bdacf539f435 (accessed 19 August 2020).

44.

Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) (2019) Engineering and technology Wiki: List of IEEE milestones. Available at: ethw.org/Milestones:List_of_IEEE_Milestones (accessed 29 August 2020).

45.

Just

Latzer

(2017) Governance by algorithms: Reality construction by algorithmic selection on the Internet. Media, Culture & Society 39(2): 238–258.

46.

Kvale

Brinkmann

(2014) Interviews: Learning the Craft of Qualitative Research Interviewing. 3rd edn. London: SAGE.

47.

Latzer

Hollnbuchner

Just

, et al. (2016) The economics of algorithmic selection on the Internet. In: Bauer

Latzer

(eds) Handbook on the Economics of the Internet. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar, pp. 395–425.

48.

Laubheimer

(2016) Seven ways to improve your website’s or intranet’s built-in search engine. Available at: https://www.nngroup.com/articles/internal-website-search/ (accessed 29 August 2020).

49.

Leslie

(2014) Google makes us all dumber: The neuroscience of search engines. Salon, 12 October. Available at: https://www.salon.com/2014/10/12/google_makes_us_all_dumber_the_neuroscience_of_search_engines/ (accessed 29 August 2020).

50.

Lillard

(2015) Bates’ Berrypicking model (1989, 2002, 2005). In: Al-Suqri

Al-Aufi

(eds) Information Seeking Behavior and Technology Adoption: Theories and Trends. Hershey, PA: Information Science, pp. 113–123.

51.

Luh

Yang

Huang

(2016) Estimating Google’s search engine ranking function from a search engine optimization perspective. Online Information Review 40(2): 239–255.

52.

Marchionini

(2019) Search, sense making and learning: Closing gaps. Information and Learning Sciences 120(1/2): 74–86.

53.

Marton

(1994) On the structure of awareness. In: Bowden

Walsh

(eds) Phenomenographic Research: Variations in Method. Melbourne, VIC, Australia: RMIT University Press, pp. 176–205.

54.

Marton

Booth

(1997) Learning and Awareness. New York: Psychology Press.

55.

Martzoukou

(2008) Students’ attitudes towards Web search engines: Increasing appreciation of sophisticated search strategies. Libri 58(3): 182–201.

56.

Meyer

JHF

Land

(2003) Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge (1): Linkages to ways of thinking and practising within the disciplines. In: Rust

(ed.) Improving Student Learning: Ten Years On. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 1–16.

57.

Moraveji

Russell

Bien

, et al. (2011) Measuring improvement in user search performance resulting from optimal search tips. In: Proceedings of the 34th ACM SIGIR conference on research and development in information retrieval, Beijing, China, 24–28 July, pp. 355–363. New York: ACM.

58.

(2020) Change in Google Search is killing it. Available at: https://uxdesign.cc/change-in-google-search-is-killing-it-e52a098b271e (accessed 29 August 2020).

59.

Nielsen

(2000) Novice vs. expert users. Available at: https://www.nngroup.com/articles/novice-vs-expert-users/ (accessed 29 August 2020).

60.

Nielsen

(2004) When search engines become answer engines. Available at: https://www.nngroup.com/articles/search-engines-become-answer-engines/ (accessed 29 August 2020).

61.

Nielsen

(2010) Testing expert users. Available at: https://www.nngroup.com/articles/testing-expert-users/ (accessed 29 August 2020).

62.

Noble

(2018) Algorithms of Oppression: How Search Engines Reinforce Racism. New York: New York University Press.

63.

Colón-Aguirre

(2019) A comparative study of perceptions and use of Google Scholar and academic library discovery systems. College & Research Libraries 80(6): 876–891.

64.

Tang

(2018) How do university students receive, read, find, share, and store news? A survey study on mobile news behavior. Journal of Library & Information Studies 16(1): 1–21.

65.

Okhovati

Sharifpoor

Aazami

, et al. (2017) Novice and experienced users’ search performance and satisfaction with Web of Science and Scopus. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science 49(4): 359–367.

66.

Ondrusek

Ren

Yang

(2019) A content analysis of errors in MLIS students’ online searching assignments. Journal of Education for Library and Information Science 60(4): 312–328.

67.

Pariser

(2011) The Filter Bubble: How the New Personalized Web Is Changing What We Read and How We Think. New York: Penguin Books.

68.

Price

(2020) Seventeen great search engines you can use instead of Google. Search Engine Journal. Available at: https://www.searchenginejournal.com/alternative-search-engines/271409 (accessed 19 August 2020).

69.

Rieh

Collins-Thompson

Hansen

, et al. (2016) Towards searching as a learning process: A review of current perspectives and future directions. Journal of Information Science 42(1): 19–34.

70.

Robertson

(2016) Search then and now, with particular reference to the Web. In: Proceedings of the International Society for Knowledge Organization, annual Tony Kent Strix lecture, London, 31 October.

71.

Rubin

(2011) Qualitative Interviewing: The Art of Hearing Data. 3rd edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

72.

Russell

(2019) The Joy of Search. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

73.

Salehi

Ashman

(2019) Use of Web search engines and personalisation in information searching for educational purposes. Information Research 23(2): paper788. Available at: http://InformationR.net/ir/23-2/paper788.html (accessed 19 August 2020).

74.

Schön

(1983) The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Practice. New York: Basic Books.

75.

Schön

(1987) Educating the Reflective Practitioner. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

76.

Schonfeld

(2015) Meeting researchers where they start: Streamlining access to scholarly resources. Available at: https://sr.ithaka.org/publications/meeting-researchers-where-they-start-streamlining-access-to-scholarly-resources/ (accessed 4 December 2020).

77.

Shieber

(2020) Google backtracks on search results design. Techcrunch, 24 January. Available at: https://techcrunch.com/2020/01/24/google-backtracks-on-search-results-design/ (accessed 19 August 2020).

78.

Siemens

(2017) Semantic search tool for document tagging, indexing and search: Semantic knowledge management tool (SKMT). U.S. Patent 9684683B2, USA.

79.

Simon

Chase

(1973) Skill in chess. American Scientist 61: 394–403.

80.

Srinivasan

(2018) Keynote: The people’s Internet: How to arrive at a digital world that respects human values. In: Proceedings of the annual conference of the Association for Information Science and Technology, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 11 November.

81.

StatCounter (2020) Search engine market share worldwide. Available at: https://gs.statcounter.com/search-engine-market-share (accessed 19 August 2020).

82.

Summit

(2002) Reflections on the beginnings of Dialog. Association of Independent Information Professionals (AIIP) Connections 16(1): 11–15.

83.

Theng

Lee

Chu

, et al. (2016) Scaffolding in information search: Effects on less experienced searchers. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science 48(2): 177–190.

84.

Tucker

(2016) Learning experiences and the liminality of expertise. In: Land

Meyer

Flanagan

(eds) Threshold Concepts in Practice. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers, pp. 93–106.

85.

Tucker

(2020) Curriculum design on the edge: A case illustration of liminal learning activities for search expertise. In: Timmermans

Land

(eds) Threshold Concepts on the Edge. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill, pp. 239–254.

86.

Tucker

Bruce

Edwards

(2016) Using grounded theory to discover threshold concepts in transformative learning experiences. In: Tight

Huisman

(eds) Theory and Method in Higher Education, Vol. 2. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing, pp. 23–46.

87.

Tucker

Weedman

Bruce

, et al. (2014) Learning portals: Analyzing threshold concept theory for LIS education. Journal of Education for Library and Information Science 55(2): 150–165.

88.

Tufekci

(2015) Algorithmic harms beyond Facebook and Google: Emergent challenges of computational agency. Colorado Technology Law Journal 13(2): 203–217.

89.

Vaidhyanathan

(2012) Googlization of Everything: And Why We Should Worry. Updated edn. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

90.

Vaidhyanathan

(2018) Antisocial Media: How Facebook Disconnects Us and Undermines Democracy. New York: Oxford University Press.

91.

Vega

(2017) Novices and expert users, not novices or expert users. In: Proceedings of the Society for Technical Communication summit proceedings, Washington, DC, 7–10 May, pp. 193–197. Available at: https://www.stc.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/STC-Summit-Proceedings-2017.pdf (accessed 19 August 2020).

92.

Walton

Pickard

Dodd

(2018) Information discernment, mis-information and pro-active scepticism. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science 50(3): 296–309.

93.

Winograd

Flores

(1986) Understanding Computers and Cognition: A New Foundation for Design. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing.

94.

Zittrain

(2019) Annals of technology: The hidden costs of automated thinking. The New Yorker, 23 July. Available at: https://www.newyorker.com/tech/annals-of-technology/the-hidden-costs-of-automated-thinking (accessed 19 August 2020).