Comparing In Situ and Multidimensional Relevance Judgments

To address concerns of TREC-style relevance judgments, we explore two improvements. The first one seeks to make relevance judgments contextual, collecting in situ feedback of users in an interactive search session and embracing usefulness as the primary judgment criterion. The second one collects multidimensional assessments to complement relevance or usefulness judgments, with four distinct alternative aspects examined in this paper - novelty, understandability, reliability, and effort. We evaluate different types of judgments by correlating them with six user experience measures collected from a lab user study. Results show that switching from TREC-style relevance criteria to usefulness is fruitful, but in situ judgments do not exhibit clear benefits over the judgments collected without context. In contrast, combining relevance or usefulness with the four alternative judgments consistently improves the correlation with user experience measures, suggesting future IR systems should adopt multi-aspect search result judgments in development and evaluation. We further examine implicit feedback techniques for predicting these judgments. We find that click dwell time, a popular indicator of search result quality, is able to predict some but not all dimensions of the judgments. We enrich the current implicit feedback methods using post-click user interaction in a search session and achieve better prediction for all six dimensions of judgments.