Coping with Noisy Search Experiences

  • Pierre-Antoine ChampinEmail author
  • Peter Briggs
  • Maurice Coyle
  • Barry Smyth
Conference paper


The so-called Social Web has helped to change the very nature of the Internet by emphasising the role of our online experiences as new forms of content and service knowledge. In this paper we describe an approach to improving mainstream Web search by harnessing the search experiences of groups of like-minded searchers.We focus on the HeyStaks system ( and look in particular at the experiential knowledge that drives its search recommendations. Specifically we describe how this knowledge can be noisy, and we describe and evaluate a recommendation technique for coping with this noise and discuss how it may be incorporated into HeyStaks as a useful feature.


Recommender System Search Experience Popularity Measure Weighted Accuracy Recommendation Knowledge 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    P. Briggs and B. Smyth. Provenance, trust, and sharing in peer-to-peer case-based web search. In ECCBR, pages 89–103, 2008.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    R. Burke. Hybrid recommender systems: Survey and experiments. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 12(4):331–370, 2002.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    P. A. Chirita, W. Nejdl, R. Paiu, and C. Kohlschütter. Using odp metadata to personalize search. In SIGIR ’05: Proceedings of the 28th annual international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval, pages 178–185, New York, NY, USA, 2005. ACM.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    A. Cordier, B. Mascret, and A. Mille. Extending Case-Based reasoning with traces. In Grand Challenges for reasoning from experiences, Workshop at IJCAI’09, July 2009.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    I. Koychev and I. Schwab. Adaptation to drifting user’s interests. In Proceedings of ECML2000 Workshop: Machine Learning in New Information Age, pages 39–46, 2000.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    S. K. Lam and J. Riedl. Shilling recommender systems for fun and profit. In Proceedings of the 13th international conference on World Wide Web, pages 393–402, New York, NY, USA, 2004. ACM.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    S. Ma, X. Li, Y. Ding, M. E. Orlowska, B. Benatallah, F. Casati, D. Georgakopoulos, C. Bartolini, W. Sadiq, and C. Godart. A recommender system with Interest-Drifting. LECTURE NOTES IN COMPUTER SCIENCE, 4831:633, 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    M. R. Morris. A survey of collaborative web search practices. In CHI, pages 1657–1660, 2008.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    M. R. Morris and E. Horvitz. SearchTogether: an interface for collaborative web search. In Proceedings of the 20th annual ACM symposium on User interface software and technology, pages 3–12, Newport, Rhode Island, USA, 2007. ACM.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    J. O’Donovan and B. Smyth. Trust in recommender systems. In Proceedings of the 10th international conference on Intelligent user interfaces, pages 167–174, San Diego, California, USA, 2005. ACM.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    M. P. O’Mahony, N. J. Hurley, and G. C. Silvestre. Detecting noise in recommender system databases. In Proceedings of the 11th international conference on Intelligent user interfaces, pages 109–115, Sydney, Australia, 2006. ACM.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    J. Pujol, R. Sanguesa, and J. Bermudez. Porqpine: A distributed and collaborative search engine. In Proc. 12th Intl. World Wide Web Conference, 2003.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    J. R. Quinlan. C4. 5: programs for machine learning. Morgan Kaufmann, 1993.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    M. C. Reddy and P. R. Spence. Collaborative information seeking: A field study of a multidisciplinary patient care team. Inf. Process. Manage., 44(1):242–255, 2008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    J. B. Schafer, J. A. Konstan, and J. Riedl. Meta-recommendation systems: user-controlled integration of diverse recommendations. In Proceedings of the eleventh international conference on Information and knowledge management, pages 43–51. ACM New York, NY, USA, 2002.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    B. Smyth. A community-based approach to personalizing web search. IEEE Computer, 40(8):42–50, 2007.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    B. Smyth, P. Briggs, M. Coyle, and M. O’Mahony. Google? shared! a case-study in social web search. In Proceedings of the 1st and 17th International Conference on User Modeling, Adaptation and Personalization (UMAP ’09), Trento, Italy, 2009. Springer.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    B. Smyth and P. Champin. The experience web: A Case-Based reasoning perspective. In Grand Challenges for reasoning from experiences, Workshop at IJCAI’09, July 2009.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    B. Smyth and M. T. Keane. Remembering to forget: A Competence-Preserving case deletion policy for Case-Based reasoning systems. In IJCAI, pages 377–383, 1995. Best paper award.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    B. Smyth and E. McKenna. Competence models and the maintenance problem. Computational Intelligence, 17(2):235–249, 2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    J.-T. Sun, H.-J. Zeng, H. Liu, Y. Lu, and Z. Chen. Cubesvd: a novel approach to personalized web search. In WWW ’05: Proceedings of the 14th international conference on World Wide Web, pages 382–390, New York, NY, USA, 2005. ACM Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pierre-Antoine Champin
    • 1
    Email author
  • Peter Briggs
    • 2
  • Maurice Coyle
    • 2
  • Barry Smyth
    • 2
  1. 1.LIRIS, Université de Lyon, CNRS, UMR5205, Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1VilleurbanneFrance
  2. 2.CLARITY: Centre for Sensor Web Technologies School of Computer Science and InformaticsUniversity College DublinDublinIreland

Personalised recommendations