1. 17:610:551:01 Where Should the Person Stop and the Information Search Interface Start? Marcia Bates Presented by Albena Stoyanova-Tzankova March 2004

2. Problem Statement The implicit or explicit goal of information retrieval (IR) systems to date has been the eventual automation of every part of the process. Implicit assumption: - The system (and behind that, the system designer) knows best. However: - Sometimes people want to direct their own searches and to have control over them. - They may still want the power and speed of an automated IR system, but only to do certain things.

3. Question Not: How can we automate everything in an IR system? But: What capabilities should we design for the system to do, and what capabilities should we enable the searcher to exercise?

4. How can the labor be divided between system and user? Five levels of system involvement (SI) in searching. Any given IR system may contain subsystems or features drawn from various levels.

5. Level of system involvement Level 0 - No system involvement. All search activities human generated and executed. Level 1 - Displays possible activities. System lists search activities when asked. Said activities may or may not be executable by system. Level 2 - Executes activities on command. System executes specific actions at human command

6. Level of system involvement (cont.) Level 3 - Monitors search and recommends. System monitors search process and recommends search activities: a) Only when searcher asks for suggestions. b) Always when it identifies a need. Level 4 - Executes automatically. System executes actions automatically and then: a) Informs the searcher. b) Does not inform the searcher.

7. Levels of search activities 1.Move 2.Tactic 3.Stratagem 4.Strategy

8. Move (Level 1) An identifiable thought or action that is a part of information searching. Examples: “enter term A”, “enter AND operator”, etc.

9. Tactic (Level 2) One or a handful of moves made to improve or speed the search. Conceptually different from the “moves”.

10. Examples for tactics Monitoring tactics - CHECK: To review the original request and compare it to the current search topic to see that it is the same; - RECORD: To keep track of trails followed and of desirable trails not followed or not completed. File structure tactics - SELECT: To break down complex search queries into sub-problems and work on one problem at a time. - SURVEY: To review, at each decision point of the search, the available options before selection.

11. Examples for tactics (cont.) Search formulation tactics - SPECIFY: To search on terms that are as specific as the information desired. - EXHAUST: To include most or all elements of the query in the initial search formulation; to add one or more of the query elements to an already-prepared search formulation. - REDUCE: To minimize the number of elements of the query in the initial search formulation; to subtract one or more of the query elements from an already-prepared search formulation.

12. Examples for tactics (cont.) Term tactics - SUPER: To move upward hierarchically to a broader term. - SUB: To move downward hierarchically to a more specific (subordinate) term. - REARRANGE: To reverse or rearrange the words in search terms in any or all reasonable orders. Idea tactics - FOCUS: To look at the query more narrowly, in one or both of two senses: 1) to move from the whole query to a part of it; 2) to move from a broader to a narrower conceptualization of the query.

13. Stratagem (level 3) Complex of a number of moves and/or tactics Contains both a) a search domain b) a mode of searching selected to be particularly effective in that domain.

14. Examples for stratagems Journal run - Having identified a journal central to one’s topic, one reads or browses through issues or volumes of the journal. Citation search - Using a citation index or database, one starts with a citation and determines what other works have cited it. Area Scan - After location a subject area of interest in a classification scheme, one browses materials in the same general area.

15. Examples for stratagems (cont.) Footnote Chase - One follows up footnotes or references, moving backward in time to other related materials. Index or Catalog Subject Search - One looks up subject indexing terms or free text terms in a catalog or abstracting and indexing service and locates references of interest. Author Subject Search - Having found an author writing on a topic of interest, one looks up that author in catalogs, bibliographies, or indexes to see if he or she has written any other materials on the same subject.

16. Strategie (Level 4) A plan, which may contain - moves, - tactics, - and/or stratagems for an entire information search.

17. Example for a search strategie To write a five-page report on the history of the Universal Classification Scheme: Search the online catalog by subject or title for a basic text on library classification and cataloging. Locate the text and read basic information about the history of the scheme. Note references in the text to books and articles giving more detail on the scheme. Look up call numbers or referenced books and journals in the catalog. Locate items.

18. System involvement and search activity combined

19. Level 0 system involvement No system involvement in the designated search activity. The searcher have to break down every strategic intent into a series of moves that the system could understand Example: searching on the term “literacy” while using the tactic CONTARY - Move 1: think up the tactic - Move 2: think of the the logical opposite “illiteracy” - Move 3: search on the term “illiteracy” (may involve one or several further moves, e.g. verifying the term in the thesaurus, then entering as a controlled vocabulary and free text term in an online search).

20. Level 1 system involvement The searcher can ask information about searching. Most of the information currently offered to the searcher is on the move level. 1-1 - close to the current help screens in IR systems -the user is told how to use commands or feature. -Example: the instruction “To search by subject enter Find subj”

21. Level 1 system involvement (cont.) 1-2 - in response to request from a searcher, the system provides information on tactics the searcher can use. - Example : if the searcher asks for help on tactics, the system may suggest CONTRARY, even there is no CONTARY command 1-3 - in response to request from a searcher, the system responds with lists and descriptions of stratagems. 1-4 - the system would describe an entire search strategy - applicable where a type of need is very common and a certain sequence of steps can be identified.

22. Level 2 system involvement The system executes search activities at the searcher’s command 2-1 - level of moves - the level at which most online systems work most of the time 2-2 - the searcher can tell the system to carry out a tactic - examples: allowing the searcher to edit search formulation on screen (similar to editing in word processing); can be implemented for REDUCE, EXHAUST, etc.

23. Level 2 system involvement (cont.) 2-3 - the searcher can call up stratagems from the system - Example (Journal Run): a) The searcher inputs or selects through a menu the phrase Journal Run b) The system asks for the journal title and years to be reviewed, and whether the searcher wants to see contents lists or the full text of the journal articles first. 2-4 - the searcher can call up an entire search strategy - Variants: a) The user is shown a prompt screen, which asks for the relevant information needed by the system to carry out the search b) The searcher is shown a full array of search devices – moves, tactics, stratagems, and strategies. He/she may then select any desired combination.

24. Level 3 system involvement The system monitors and reacts to the search dynamically. The configurations begin to show artificial intelligence. 3-1 - The system monitors searcher moves and suggests improvements. - Example: incorrectly spelled or nonexistent commands. 3-2 - Recommendations are made when some tactics would be beneficial or when current tactical behavior is observed to be inadequate. - Example: the use of all very broad terms in the search formulations can lead to a message suggesting SPECIFY.

25. Level 3 system involvement (cont.) 3-3 - The system monitors the searches to suggest stratagems. - Example: The searcher enters a standard Boolean search in a bibliographic database: a) Where the number of publications in the retrieved set from any one journal exceeds a certain threshold, then the journal run stratagem is suggested. b) Where the number of publications by any one author in the retrieved set exceeds another threshold, the author subject search is suggested. 3-4 - If the system recognizes that the user inputs elements for a certain strategy, it might suggest that the user call up the strategy instead.

26. Level 4 system involvement The system conducts the given activity automatically for the user. 4a: The user is informed of what the system is doing as it goes along. - preferred by professional searchers. 4b: The user is informed only of the final result.

27. Recommendations and implications for future development The implementation of operational IR systems at the levels of tactics (2) and stratagems (3) should be an area for recommended development. Human’s desire to have control of tools or powerful machinery should be considered (especially when trying to implement level 4b). Human focus should be preferred to system focus: the search steps that usually characterize human thinking about finding information should be considered. The wider variety of information sources (not just bibliographic citations) results in a wide variety of stratagems.They both should be considered for inclusion in experimental IR systems. Search capabilities should be made available at different levels. A good IR system can enhance our search abilities in unpredictable and creative ways.