[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/ skip to main content
10.1145/2740908.2743060acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesthewebconfConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

A Study of Distinctiveness in Web Results of Two Search Engines

Published: 18 May 2015 Publication History

Abstract

Google and Bing have emerged as the diarchy that arbitrates what documents are seen by Web searchers, particularly those desiring English language documents. We seek to study how distinctive are the top results presented to the users by the two search engines. A recent eye-tracking has shown that the web searchers decide whether to look at a document primarily based on the snippet and secondarily on the title of the document on the web search result page, and rarely based on the URL of the document. Given that the snippet and title generated by different search engines for the same document are often syntactically different, we first develop tools appropriate for conducting this study. Our empirical evaluation using these tools shows a surprising agreement in the results produced by the two engines for a wide variety of queries used in our study. Thus, this study raises the open question whether it is feasible to design a search engine that would produce results distinct from those produced by Google and Bing that the users will find helpful.

References

[1]
D. Antoniades, I. Polakis, G. Kontaxis, E. Athanasopoulos, S. Ioannidis, E. P. Markatos, and T. Karagiannis. we.b: The web of short URLs. In 20th international conference on World Wide Web, pages 715--724. ACM, 2011.
[2]
B. W. Bader and T. G. Kolda. Matlab tensor toolbox version 2.2. Albuquerque, NM, USA: Sandia National Laboratories, 2007.
[3]
J. Bar-Ilan. Search engine ability to cope with the changing web. In Web dynamics, pages 195--215. Springer, 2004.
[4]
Z. Bar-Yossef, I. Keidar, and U. Schonfeld. Do not crawl in the DUST: different urls with similar text. ACM Transactions on the Web, 3(1):3, 2009.
[5]
K. Bharat and A. Broder. A technique for measuring the relative size and overlap of public web search engines. Computer Networks and ISDN Systems, 30(1):379--388, 1998.
[6]
A. Broder. A taxonomy of web search. ACM Sigir forum, 36(2):3--10, 2002.
[7]
C. D. Brown and H. T. Davis. Receiver operating characteristics curves and related decision measures: A tutorial. Chemometrics and Intelligent Laboratory Systems, 80(1):24--38, 2006.
[8]
E. C. Chi and T. G. Kolda. On tensors, sparsity, and nonnegative factorizations. SIAM Journal on Matrix Analysis and Applications, 33(4):1272--1299, 2012.
[9]
H. Chu and M. Rosenthal. Search engines for the world wide web: A comparative study and evaluation methodology. In American Society for Information Science, volume 33, pages 127--135, 1996.
[10]
W. Ding and G. Marchionini. A comparative study of web search service performance. In ASIS Annual Meeting, volume 33, pages 136--42. ERIC, 1996.
[11]
E. Enge, S. Spencer, J. Stricchiola, and R. Fishkin. The art of SEO. O'Reilly, 2012.
[12]
Federal Communications Commission. Editorializing by broadcast licensees. Washington, DC: GPO, 1949.
[13]
S. Gauch and G. Wang. Information fusion with profusion. In 1st World Conference of the Web Society, 1996.
[14]
Z. Guan and E. Cutrell. An eye tracking study of the effect of target rank on web search. In SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, pages 417--420. ACM, 2007.
[15]
A. Gulli and A. Signorini. The indexable web is more than 11.5 billion pages. In 14th international conference on World Wide Web, pages 902--903. ACM, 2005.
[16]
A. Hannak, P. Sapiezynski, A. Molavi Kakhki, B. Krishnamurthy, D. Lazer, A. Mislove, and C. Wilson. Measuring personalization of web search. In 22nd international conference on World Wide Web, pages 527--538. ACM, 2013.
[17]
R. A. Harshman. Foundations of the parafac procedure: models and conditions for an" explanatory" multimodal factor analysis. Technical report, UCLA, 1970.
[18]
T. G. Kolda and B. W. Bader. Tensor decompositions and applications. SIAM review, 51(3):455--500, 2009.
[19]
F. W. Lancaster and E. G. Fayen. Information Retrieval On-Line. Melville Publishing Co., 1973.
[20]
S. Lawrence and C. L. Giles. Searching the world wide web. Science, 280(5360):98--100, 1998.
[21]
S. H. Lee, S. J. Kim, and S. H. Hong. On URL normalization. In Computational Science and Its Applications--ICCSA 2005, pages 1076--1085. Springer, 2005.
[22]
T. Lei, R. Cai, J.-M. Yang, Y. Ke, X. Fan, and L. Zhang. A pattern tree-based approach to learning URL normalization rules. In 19th international conference on World Wide Web, pages 611--620. ACM, 2010.
[23]
D. Lewandowski. Web search engine research. Emerald Group Publishing, 2012.
[24]
V. Maltese, F. Giunchiglia, K. Denecke, P. Lewis, C. Wallner, A. Baldry, and D. Madalli. On the interdisciplinary foundations of diversity. University of Trento, 2009.
[25]
M.-C. Marcos and C. González-Caro. Comportamiento de los usuarios en la página de resultados de los buscadores. un estudio basado en eye tracking. El profesional de la información, 19(4):348--358, 2010.
[26]
A. Pirkola. The effectiveness of web search engines to index new sites from different countries. Information Research: An International Electronic Journal, 14(2), 2009.
[27]
K. Purcell, J. Brenner, and L. Rainie. Search engine use 2012. Pew Internet & American Life Project, 2012.
[28]
E. Selberg and O. Etzioni. Multi-service search and comparison using the metacrawler. In 4th international conference on World Wide Web, 1995.
[29]
A. Spink, B. J. Jansen, C. Blakely, and S. Koshman. A study of results overlap and uniqueness among major web search engines. Information Processing & Management, 42(5):1379--1391, 2006.
[30]
A. Spink, B. J. Jansen, and C. Wang. Comparison of major web search engine overlap: 2005 and 2007. In 14th Australasian World Wide Web Conference, 2008.
[31]
N. J. Stroud and A. Muddiman. Exposure to news and diverse views in the internet age. ISJLP, 8:605, 2012.
[32]
D. Wilkinson and M. Thelwall. Search markets and search results: The case of Bing. Library & Information Science Research, 35(4):318--325, 2013.

Cited By

View all
  • (2023)Theories, algorithms and applications in tensor learningApplied Intelligence10.1007/s10489-023-04538-z53:17(20514-20534)Online publication date: 15-Apr-2023
  • (2021)Horizontal Web Searching and Navigational Resource IdentificationResult Page Generation for Web Searching10.4018/978-1-7998-0961-6.ch003(16-27)Online publication date: 2021
  • (2020)Search Engine Similarity Analysis: A Combined Content and Rankings ApproachWeb Information Systems Engineering – WISE 202010.1007/978-3-030-62008-0_2(21-37)Online publication date: 21-Oct-2020
  • 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 '15 Companion: Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on World Wide Web
May 2015
1602 pages
ISBN:9781450334730
DOI:10.1145/2740908

Sponsors

  • IW3C2: International World Wide Web Conference Committee

In-Cooperation

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 18 May 2015

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Check for updates

Author Tags

  1. bing
  2. google
  3. search engine
  4. search result comparison
  5. web search

Qualifiers

  • Research-article

Conference

WWW '15
Sponsor:
  • IW3C2

Acceptance Rates

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

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • Downloads (Last 12 months)13
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0
Reflects downloads up to 05 Jan 2025

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all
  • (2023)Theories, algorithms and applications in tensor learningApplied Intelligence10.1007/s10489-023-04538-z53:17(20514-20534)Online publication date: 15-Apr-2023
  • (2021)Horizontal Web Searching and Navigational Resource IdentificationResult Page Generation for Web Searching10.4018/978-1-7998-0961-6.ch003(16-27)Online publication date: 2021
  • (2020)Search Engine Similarity Analysis: A Combined Content and Rankings ApproachWeb Information Systems Engineering – WISE 202010.1007/978-3-030-62008-0_2(21-37)Online publication date: 21-Oct-2020
  • (2019)A Hybrid BitFunnel and Partitioned Elias-Fano Inverted IndexThe World Wide Web Conference10.1145/3308558.3313553(1153-1163)Online publication date: 13-May-2019
  • (2019)FacIt: Factorizing Tensors into Interpretable and Scrutinizable Patterns2019 IEEE Visualization Conference (VIS)10.1109/VISUAL.2019.8933750(1-5)Online publication date: Oct-2019
  • (2017)Homogeneity in Web Search ResultsACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology10.1145/30577318:5(1-35)Online publication date: 12-Jul-2017
  • (2017)On Low Overlap among Search Results of Academic Search EnginesProceedings of the 26th International Conference on World Wide Web Companion10.1145/3041021.3054265(823-824)Online publication date: 3-Apr-2017
  • (2017)Learning From Hidden TraitsIEEE Transactions on Signal Processing10.1109/TSP.2016.261449165:1(256-269)Online publication date: 1-Jan-2017
  • (2016)Tensors for Data Mining and Data FusionACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology10.1145/29159218:2(1-44)Online publication date: 3-Oct-2016
  • (2015)Overlap Between Google and Bing Web Search Results!Proceedings of the 2015 ACM on Conference on Online Social Networks10.1145/2817946.2820604(95-95)Online publication date: 2-Nov-2015
  • Show More Cited By

View Options

Login options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media