Collaborative Information Seeking: Intent

Over on the FXPAL blog, Gene and I added the 2nd of a series of posts mapping out the collaborative information seeking systems domain.  Here is an excerpt:

When we view collaboration from the IR perspective, it becomes clear that collaboration does not merely refer to a decision to work together.  Rather, it refers to a decision to work together on an information need.  Users who have actively and consciously decided to work with each other on a specific information need are explicitly(intentionally) engaged in collaborative information seeking.  A user whose information seeking activities are influenced (for the better, of course) by others, but without the user’s active involvement, is implicitly or non-intentionally collaborating with others.

Posted in Collaborative Information Seeking, Information Retrieval Foundations | Leave a comment

Why No Exploratory Search on the Web?

Daniel makes a provocative statement:

“One of the recurring objections to exploratory search is that it can’t work for the web.”

While I suspect that he is correct about this being the common wisdom, I find myself wondering about the sources of that conception.  Why is this a commonly held belief?  I can think of five possible objections to exploratory search on the web, five reasons why companies might say that exploratory search can’t work:

Continue reading

Posted in Information Retrieval Foundations, Social Implications | 2 Comments

Overloaded Operator: Collaboration

I just want to announce that over on the FXPAL blog, Gene Golovchinsky and I are starting a series of posts about what we think it means to collaborate during the information seeking process. There are many different dimensions and scenarios, and many other researchers that have looked at this problem as well.  We are going to describe what we believe are the most important dimensions, tie those dimensions to related work from other researchers, and hopefully have some good comments-section discussion with all interested parties, while we’re at it.  We should have at least five, maybe more, posts in the series.

Gene kicks things off by asking “What does it mean to collaborate while searching“.  I will have a post by the middle of next week on the effect of intent on search collaboration. Please join us.

Posted in Collaborative Information Seeking, General | Leave a comment

Computers and Poetry

I first became fascinated with the relationship between computers, information, language, and emotion back in 1984 when I read an Analog article about a computer than had been used to automatically generate poetry.  A week later, I was on my father’s IBM PC, writing a Basic program on (if memory serves me correctly) Dos 2.1 that did exactly that.  It was the first computer program that I had ever written, and I was using it to generate part-of-speech structured poetry.  It therefore wasn’t that far of a stretch, many years later in computer science grad school, when I took up Information Retrieval as my primary research field.  I have always had an interest in the relationship between expression and information. So I was quite surprised when I saw this article about how the first computer was used to generate love poetry:

Back in 1952 a team of scientists was desperate to test the capabilities of Mark One `Baby`, the computer built at Manchester University. One of them, Christopher Strachey, devised a quirky software programme by entering hundreds of romantic verbs and nouns into the new machine. He then sat back as Mark One `Baby` trawled the literary database to create a stream of light-hearted verse.

There must be some underlying similarity shared by those attracted to computering technology, a love of language and structure, information and randomness, self-expression and programming, that leads us to create these sorts of systems. This is not a new or unique observation; the article simply reminded me of how I got my start on a path that eventually led me into Information Retrieval.

Posted in General | Leave a comment

Creating Passionate Search Users

I was listening recently to a podcast on IT Conversations, published 1/17/2009, entitled “Creating Passionate Users”.  It is a conversation between Tim O’Reilly and Kathy Sierra.  

Tim O’Reilly: You talk about creating passionate users.  What are some of the things that make people passionate?

Continue reading

Posted in Social Implications | 2 Comments

Music and GooTube

Google has had somewhat of an odd relationship over the years to music information, and music information retrieval.  They’ve never really had a consistent policy, research, or product agenda around music.  The specifics of that history is too rich to recount in its entirety here; if readers are interested, perhaps that can be the subject of future blog entries.  Instead, I’ll pass along this little tidbid from the Read/Write Web blog.  It seems that a clever teenager had written a media player application that streams music directly from Google’s YouTube service, bypassing Google’s web pages.  Here is the jist of the controversy:

Continue reading

Posted in Music IR | Leave a comment

Exploration and Explanation

Sometimes, the story is as good as the moral.  Sometimes, the journey is as good as the destination.  So in Information Retrieval, why are we too often satisfied with producing results, but not with explaining how the results were arrived at?

Daniel Tunkelang talks a lot about the need for transparency in search, in being able to give the user enough understanding and control over the results produced, so that the user can engage the search engine in a dialogue and instruct it to the point that results improve.  Only with transparency can the user truly engage in Exploratory Search.  

I would like to suggest a name for this goal of transparency: Explanatory Search.  If the search engine can explain to the user why certain results were retrieved, then the user has the best chance of explaining back to the engine a refined description of his or her information need.  This can only make the user experience better.  Exploratory Search requires Explanatory Search.

Posted in General, Information Retrieval Foundations | 8 Comments

Genome Music

Somehow, I don’t think this is what the Pandora.com founders had in mind when they created the Music Genome Project a decade ago at Stanford:

After creating pictures from the human DNA code and getting an incredible amount of positive response, the step to convert the data to audio came into our mind quite fast. After some thinking and lots of tests, we are converting the whole human genome to audio and streaming them now to the Internet, 24/7. The idea is quite simple, every base is read and broadcasted instead converting it to a color. With DNA-Radio we don’t visualize the chromosome, we sonify it and have now completed a full audio-visual DNA representation of human chromosomes.

It reminds me of a keynote talk that Thomas Dolby (of “She Blinded me with Science” 1980s fame — one of my childhood favorites) gave at ISMIR 2005.  He was working on a “sonifications” project, in which he converted raw data into pleasing sound.  In one of his examples, he put a “read head” on rotating image of the sun and converted the swirling masses of fire and solar flares into audio.  It was a fantastic presentation, made even more memorable by the fact that Dolby’s brother gave the other keynote that day.  Who is his brother?  Venerable information retrieval luminary, Stephen Robertson.  Music and information retrieval together — what a heady time.

Posted in Music IR | Leave a comment

Google to become a Music Content Company?

Some speculation from Liz Gannes of the GigaOM network:

YouTube and Universal Music Group are in talks to create a music video site called “Vevo,” according to reports by CNET and the Wall Street Journal […] Creating a labels-only music video site would shatter YouTube’s would-be role as a single searchable hub for all the world’s video. However, YouTube is under pressure to make money, and it doesn’t want to lose what little premium content it has — Warner Music Group content vanished from the site after a licensing spat in December, and NBC still hasn’t come back after yanking its YouTube channel in 2007 in preparation for Hulu’s launch. 

One of Google’s longest-running, deepest-held principles is that they will only show advertising if it is relevant.  Google also has repeatedly said that it is not a media company.  If it now begins to sell display advertising next to the music videos that it hosts, much of what fundamentally made Google Google will be gone.  The very fact that it is in talks to do all this already demonstrates significant departure from the principles that made Google great.

Posted in Music IR | Leave a comment

Ranked Lists and the Paradox of Choice

A thread in the comments section over on Daniel’s blog prompted me to think about the issue of ranked list results presentation in a new manner.  How do we decide how far to scroll down a ranked list of results, or when to switch and try a different search query or even a different search engine?  

When a search engine gives you nothing but line after line of results, it doesn’t matter if those results are segmented into pages of 10 or 100, or are infinitely scrolling.  You constantly are faced with the choice of whether or not you should go further in the results to find the information that you seek.  Having 2.7 million results come back as result to your query means that you are faced with 2.7 million choices.  You look at the 1st result and then have to decide whether you want to go on to the 2nd result.  You look at the 2nd result and have to decide whether to look at the 3rd, and so on.  

Continue reading

Posted in Information Retrieval Foundations | 6 Comments