Search results

We discuss results from recent relevance research with implications for information professionals. Our studies show that beyond the usual concern with high relevance and non‐relevance judgements, that partially relevant judgements by users are important. We call for the adoption of a more complex view of human relevance judgements in the education and practice of information professionals.

Users' relevance judgements are central to both the systems and user‐oriented approaches to information retrieval (IR). A basic assumption of IR and online searching research has been that users always require the most ‘highly’ relevant items when using an IR system. This paper reports the results from research that sought to examine users conducting their initial online search on a particular information problem. Findings from three separate studies of relevance judgements by 44 initial search users were examined, including two studies of 13 end‐users and a study of 18 users engaged in mediated online searches. Results show that the number of items judged ‘partially’ relevant (on the scale: relevant; partially relevant; not relevant) was found to correlate positively with changes in users': (1) criteria for making relevance judgements; (2) information problem definition; and (3) personal knowledge due to the search interaction; and also (4) search intermediaries' perceptions that a user's question and information problem has changed during the mediated search interaction. Items judged ‘highly’ relevant were not correlated with these factors. Results of the three studies suggest that: (1) a relationship exists between partially relevant items retrieved and changes in the users' information problem or question during an information seeking process; (2) partial relevance judgements play an important role for users in the early stages of seeking information on a particidar information problem; and (3) ‘highly’ relevant items may or may not be the only items useful at the early stages of users' information seeking processes. Implications for the development of IR systems, relevance research and searching practice are also examined.

Analysis of user viewing and query‐matching behavior furnishes additional evidence that the relevance of retrieved images for system users may arise from descriptions of objects and content‐based elements that are not evident or not even present in the image. This investigation looks at how users assign pre‐determined query terms to retrieved images, as well as looking at a post‐retrieval process of image engagement to user cognitive assessments of meaningful terms. Additionally, affective/emotion‐based query terms appear to be an important descriptive category for image retrieval. A system for capturing (eliciting) human interpretations derived from cognitive engagements with viewed images could further enhance the efficiency of image retrieval systems stemming from traditional indexing methods and technology‐based content extraction algorithms. An approach to such a system is posited.

In vol. 6, 1976, of Advances in Librarianship, I published a review about relevance under the same title, without, of course, “Part I” in the title (Saracevic, 1976). [A substantively similar article was published in the Journal of the American Society for Information Science (Saracevic, 1975)]. I did not plan then to have another related review 30 years later—but things happen. The 1976 work “attempted to trace the evolution of thinking on relevance, a key notion in information science, [and] to provide a framework within which the widely dissonant ideas on relevance might be interpreted and related to one another” (ibid.: 338).