There are a number of new sites proclaiming to do social search, and yet each implementation takes somewhat a different approach. It’s fine if social search does not have one clear, precise definition. The goal of this project was, simply, to learn about the role of social interactions during search, such as:
- Where are social interactions useful in the search process?
- Why are social interactions useful when they occur?
I did this work with Ed Chi at PARC, and it has been written up in more detail on my blog, on PARC’s blog, and in the full paper.
In brief summary, we ran a critical-incident survey on Mechanical Turk asking 150 users to recount their most recent search experience. We didn’t provide grand incentives for completing our survey (merely 20-35 cents), but we structured the survey in a narrative format and figured that most people completed it because it was fun or interesting. (This is a major reason for Turker participation.)
From this we constructed a model of social search, identifying two classes of searchers and three types of searches (or information needs, based on Broder’s taxonomy). Not every search is “created equal” so to speak:
Self-motivated users—performing self-initiated searches—were the most interesting because of their search habits, propensity to seek help from others, and the reasons behind their social exchanges. For this class of users, a majority performed informational, exploratory searches where the search query was ambiguous, unclear, or poorly specified, leading to a need for guidance from others. Their social interactions, therefore, were primarily used to brainstorm, get more information, and further develop their search schema before embarking on their search. Finally, the search process didn’t end after these users identified preliminary search results—they often shared their findings out of interest to others, but also to get feedback, validate their results, and contemplate refining and repeating their search.
It is noteworthy that we did not ask users to report social search experiences in the survey. Instead, we asked for their most recent search act, regardless of what it was, expecting that across all 150 examples we would be able to begin finding generalizable patterns. Indeed, a large majority performed social search acts, but nearly all of the social exchanges were done through real-world interactions—not through online tools. It is no surprise that online tools need to better support social search experiences (our study is only further proof of this); but our study does contribute to a better understanding of user needs during “social” search, which may lead to tools that can best identify and support the class of users and search types best suited for explicit and implicit social support during search.
Finally, in response to the questions I posed at the very beginning:
Where are social interactions useful in the search process?
Before, during, and after a “search act”! Over 2/3 of our sample interacted with others at some point during the course of searching. However, social interactions may not benefit everyone equally—they appear to provide the best support for self-motivated users and users performing informational searches.
Why are social interactions useful when they occur?
It depends! The reasons for engaging with others ranged from a need to establish search guidelines to a need for brainstorming, collecting search tips, seeking advice, getting feedback, and validating search results. Social support during search may be best appreciated and adopted if it directly addresses these types of user needs.
Tags: social search