Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]

skip to main content
10.1145/3308558.3313450acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesthewebconfConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Exploring User Behavior in Email Re-Finding Tasks

Published: 13 May 2019 Publication History

Abstract

Email continues to be one of the most commonly used forms of online communication. As inboxes grow larger, users rely more heavily on email search to effectively find what they are looking for. However, previous studies on email have been exclusive to enterprises with access to large user logs, or limited to small-scale qualitative surveys and analyses on limited public datasets such as Enron1 and Avocado2. In this work, we propose a novel framework that allows for experimentation with real email data. In particular, our approach provides a realistic way of simulating email re-finding tasks in a crowdsourcing environment using the workers' personal email data. We use our approach to experiment with various ranking functions and quality degradation to measure how users behave under different conditions, and conduct analysis across various email types and attributes. Our results show that user behavior can be significantly impacted as a result of the quality of the search ranker, but only when differences in quality are very pronounced. Our analysis confirms that time-based ranking begins to fail as email age increases, suggesting that hybrid approaches may help bridge the gap between relevance-based rankers and the traditional time-based ranking approach. Finally, we also found that users typically reformulate search queries by either entirely re-writing the query, or simply appending terms to the query, which may have implications for email query suggestion facilities.

References

[1]
S. AbdelRahman, B. Hassan, and R. Bahgat. 2010. A New Email Retrieval Ranking Approach. IJCSIT 2, 5 (2010), 44-63.
[2]
D. Aberdeen, O. Pacovsky, and A. Slater. 2010. The Learning behind Gmail Priority Inbox. In NIPS Workshop on LCCC.
[3]
M. Ageev, Q. Guo, D. Lagun, and E. Agichtein. 2011. Find It if You Can: A Game for Modeling Different Types of Web Search Success Using Interaction Data. In Proc. SIGIR. 345-354.
[4]
Q. Ai, S. T. Dumais, N. Craswell, and D. Liebling. 2017. Characterizing Email Search Using Large-scale Behavioral Logs and Surveys. In Proc. WWW. 1511-1520.
[5]
H. Ali, F. Scholer, J. A. Thom, and M. Wu. 2009. User Interaction with Novel Web Search Interfaces. In Proc. OZCHI. 301-304.
[6]
T. Alrashed, A. H. Awadallah, and S. T. Dumais. 2018. The Lifetime of Email Messages: A Large-Scale Analysis of Email Revisitation. In Proc. CHIIR. 120-129.
[7]
I. Arapakis, X. Bai, and B. B. Cambazoglu. 2014. Impact of Response Latency on User Behavior in Web Search. In Proc. SIGIR. 103-112.
[8]
J. Arguello and R. Capra. 2014. The Effects of Vertical Rank and Border on Aggregated Search Coherence and Search Behavior. In Proc. CIKM. 539-548.
[9]
L. Azzopardi, D. Kelly, and K. Brennan. 2013. How Query Cost Affects Search Behavior. In Proc. SIGIR. 23-32.
[10]
X. Bai, I. Arapakis, B. B. Cambazoglu, and A. Freire. 2017. Understanding and Leveraging the Impact of Response Latency on User Behaviour in Web Search. ACM Trans. Information Systems 36, 2 (2017), 21:1-21:42.
[11]
R. Capra and M. A. Pe´rez-Qui&ntiled;ones. 2006. Factors and Evaluation of Refinding Behaviors. In SIGIR Workshop on PIM. 16-19.
[12]
D. Carmel, G. Halawi, L. Lewin-Eytan, Y. Maarek, and A. Raviv. 2015. Rank by Time or by Relevance? Revisiting Email Search. In Proc. CIKM. 283-292.
[13]
D. Carmel, L. Lewin-Eytan, A. Libov, Y. Maarek, and A. Raviv. 2017. The Demographics of Mail Search and Their Application to Query Suggestion. In Proc. WWW. 1541-1549.
[14]
D. Carmel, L. Lewin-Eytan, A. Libov, Y. Maarek, and A. Raviv. 2017. Promoting Relevant Results in Time-Ranked Mail Search. In Proc. WWW. 1551-1559.
[15]
M. E. Cecchinato, A. Sellen, M. Shokouhi, and G. Smyth. 2016. Finding Email in a Multi-Account, Multi-Device World. In Proc. SIGCHI. 1200-1210.
[16]
N. Craswell, H. Zaragoza, and S. Robertson. 2005. Microsoft Cambridge at TREC-14: Enterprise track. In Proc. TREC.
[17]
A. Crescenzi, D. Kelly, and L. Azzopardi. 2015. Time Pressure and System Delays in Information Search. In Proc. SIGIR. 767-770.
[18]
S. T. Dumais, E. Cutrell, J. J. Cadiz, G. Jancke, R. Sarin, and D. C. Robbins. 2003. Stuff I've Seen: A System for Personal Information Retrieval and Re-Use. In Proc. SIGIR. 72-79.
[19]
C. W. Dunnett. 1955. A Multiple Comparison Procedure for Comparing Several Treatments with a Control. J. American Stat. Assoc. 50 (1955), 1096-1121.
[20]
D. Elsweiler, M. Harvey, and M. Hacker. 2011. Understanding Re-finding Behavior in Naturalistic Email Interaction Logs. In Proc. SIGIR. 35-44.
[21]
M. Grbovic, G. Halawi, Z. Karnin, and Y. Maarek. 2014. How Many Folders Do You Really Need? Classifying Email into a Handful of Categories. In Proc. CIKM. 869-878.
[22]
M. Harvey and D. Elsweiler. 2012. Exploring Query Patterns in Email Search. In Proc. ECIR. 25-36.
[23]
A. Hassan. 2013. Identifying Web Search Query Reformulation using Concept based Matching. In Proc. EMNLP. 1000-1010.
[24]
J. He, M. Bron, L. Azzopardi, and A. de Vries. 2014. Studying User Browsing Behavior Through Gamified Search Tasks. In Proc. GamifIR. 49-52.
[25]
The Radicati Group, Inc.2018. Email Statistics Report, 2018-2022. https://www.radicati.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Email-Market-2018-2022-Executive-Summary.pdf. Online; accessed August, 2018.
[26]
B. J. Jansen, D. L. Booth, and A. Spink. 2009. Patterns of Query Reformulation during Web Searching. JASIST 60, 7 (2009), 1358-1371.
[27]
T. Jones, D. Hawking, P. Thomas, and R. Sankaranarayana. 2011. Relative Effect of Spam and Irrelevant Documents on User Interaction with Search Engines. In Proc. CIKM. 2113-2116.
[28]
G. Kazai and I. Zitouni. 2016. Quality Management in Crowdsourcing Using Gold Judges Behavior. In Proc. WSDM. 267-276.
[29]
D. Kelly and L. Azzopardi. 2015. How Many Results Per Page? A Study of SERP Size, Search Behavior and User Experience. In Proc. SIGIR. 183-192.
[30]
J. Y. Kim, N. Craswell, S. T. Dumais, F. Radlinski, and F. Liu. 2017. Understanding and Modeling Success in Email Search. In Proc. SIGIR. 265-274.
[31]
F. Kooti, L-C. Aiello, M. Grbovic, K. Lerman, and A. Mantrach. 2015. Evolution of Conversations in the Age of Email Overload. In Proc. WWW. 603-613.
[32]
M. Lease and E. Yilmaz. 2011. Crowdsourcing for Information Retrieval. SIGIR Forum 45(2011), 66-75.
[33]
Z. Liu, Y. Liu, K. Zhou, M. Zhang, and S. Ma. 2015. Influence of Vertical Result in Web Search Examination. In Proc. SIGIR. 193-202.
[34]
Y. Maarek. 2017. Web Mail is Not Dead! It's Just Not Human Anymore. In Proc. WWW. 5-5.
[35]
C. Macdonald and I. Ounis. 2006. Combining Fields in Known-item Email Search. In Proc. SIGIR. 675-676.
[36]
D. Maxwell, L. Azzopardi, and Y. Moshfeghi. 2017. A Study of Snippet Length and Informativeness: Behaviour, Performance and User Experience. In Proc. SIGIR. 135-144.
[37]
M. Meder, F. Hopfgartner, G. Kazai, and U. Kruschwitz. 2016. Third International Workshop on Gamification for Information Retrieval (GamifIR'16). In Proc. SIGIR. 1239-1240.
[38]
K. Narang, S. T. Dumais, N. Craswell, D. Liebling, and Q. Ai. 2017. Large-Scale Analysis of Email Search and Organizational Strategies. In Proc. CHIIR. 215-223.
[39]
P. Ogilvie and J. Callan. 2005. Experiments with Language Models for Known-Item Finding of E-mail Messages. In Proc. TREC.
[40]
K. Ong, K. Järvelin, M. Sanderson, and F. Scholer. 2017. Using Information Scent to Understand Mobile and Desktop Web Search Behavior. In Proc. SIGIR. 295-304.
[41]
K. Ong, K. Järvelin, M. Sanderson, and F. Scholer. 2018. QWERTY: The Effects of Typing on Web Search Behavior. In Proc. CHIIR. 281-284.
[42]
P. Ramarao, S. Iyengar, P. Chitnis, R. Udupa, and B. Ashok. 2016. InLook: Revisiting Email Search Experience. In Proc. SIGIR. 1117-1120.
[43]
B. Sarrafzadeh, A. H. Awadallah, C. H. Lin, C-J. Lee, M. Shokouhi, and S. T. Dumais. 2019. Characterizing and Predicting Email Deferral Behavior. In Proc. WSDM. 627-635.
[44]
M. Shokouhi, R. W. White, P. N. Bennett, and F. Radlinski. 2013. Fighting Search Engine Amnesia: Reranking Repeated Results. In Proc. SIGIR. 273-282.
[45]
P. Thomas, T. Jones, and D. Hawking. 2011. What Deliberately Degrading Search Quality Tells Us About Discount Functions. In Proc. SIGIR. 1107-1108.
[46]
E. M. Voorhees. 1999. The TREC-8 Question Answering Track Report. In Proc. TREC-8. 77-82.
[47]
S. Whittaker, T. Matthews, J. Cerruti, H. Badenes, and J. Tang. 2011. Am I Wasting My Time Organizing Email? A Study of Email Refinding. In Proc. SIGCHI. 3449-3458.
[48]
S. Whittaker and C. Sidner. 1996. Email Overload: Exploring Personal Information Management of Email. In Proc. SIGCHI. 276-283.
[49]
L. Yang, S. T. Dumais, P. N. Bennett, and A. H. Awadallah. 2017. Characterizing and Predicting Enterprise Email Reply Behavior. In Proc. SIGIR. 235-244.

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)On-Device Query Auto-completion for Email SearchAdvances in Information Retrieval10.1007/978-3-031-56027-9_18(295-309)Online publication date: 20-Mar-2024
  • (2023)EmFore: Online Learning of Email Folder Classification RulesProceedings of the 32nd ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management10.1145/3583780.3614863(2280-2290)Online publication date: 21-Oct-2023
  • (2021)Leveraging User Behavior History for Personalized Email SearchProceedings of the Web Conference 202110.1145/3442381.3450110(2858-2868)Online publication date: 19-Apr-2021
  • Show More Cited By

Recommendations

Comments

Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Other conferences
WWW '19: The World Wide Web Conference
May 2019
3620 pages
ISBN:9781450366748
DOI:10.1145/3308558
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

In-Cooperation

  • IW3C2: International World Wide Web Conference Committee

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 13 May 2019

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Check for updates

Author Tags

  1. email search
  2. result degradation
  3. search interface
  4. search result page
  5. user behavior

Qualifiers

  • Research-article
  • Research
  • Refereed limited

Conference

WWW '19
WWW '19: The Web Conference
May 13 - 17, 2019
CA, San Francisco, USA

Acceptance Rates

Overall Acceptance Rate 1,899 of 8,196 submissions, 23%

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • Downloads (Last 12 months)15
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)1
Reflects downloads up to 18 Feb 2025

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)On-Device Query Auto-completion for Email SearchAdvances in Information Retrieval10.1007/978-3-031-56027-9_18(295-309)Online publication date: 20-Mar-2024
  • (2023)EmFore: Online Learning of Email Folder Classification RulesProceedings of the 32nd ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management10.1145/3583780.3614863(2280-2290)Online publication date: 21-Oct-2023
  • (2021)Leveraging User Behavior History for Personalized Email SearchProceedings of the Web Conference 202110.1145/3442381.3450110(2858-2868)Online publication date: 19-Apr-2021
  • (2020)CC-News-EnProceedings of the 29th ACM International Conference on Information & Knowledge Management10.1145/3340531.3412762(3077-3084)Online publication date: 19-Oct-2020

View Options

Login options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

HTML Format

View this article in HTML Format.

HTML Format

Figures

Tables

Media

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media