skip to main content

Title: Assessing Google Search’s New Features in Supporting Credibility Judgments of Unknown Websites
This study assesses the awareness and perceived utility of two features Google Search introduced in February 2021: “About this result” and “More about this page”. Google stated that the goal of these features is to help users vet unfamiliar web domains (or sources). We investigated whether the features were sufficiently prominent to be detected by frequent users of Google Search, and their perceived utility for making credibility judgments of sources, in one-on-one user studies with 25 undergraduate college students, who identify as frequent users of Google Search. Our results indicate a lack of adoption or awareness of these features by our participants and neutral-positive perceptions of their utility in evaluating web sources. We also examined the perceived usefulness of nine other domain credibility signals collected from the W3C.  more » « less
Award ID(s):
Author(s) / Creator(s):
; ; ; ;
Date Published:
Journal Name:
Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Human Information Interaction and Retrieval
Page Range / eLocation ID:
303 to 307
Medium: X
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. When one searches for political candidates on Google, a panel composed of recent news stories, known as Top stories, is commonly shown at the top of the search results page. These stories are selected by an algorithm that chooses from hundreds of thousands of articles published by thousands of news publishers. In our previous work, we identified 56 news sources that contributed 2/3 of all Top stories for 30 political candidates running in the primaries of 2020 US Presidential Election. In this paper, we survey US voters to elicit their familiarity and trust with these 56 news outlets. We find that some of the most frequent outlets are not familiar to all voters (e.g. The Hill or Politico), or particularly trusted by voters of any political stripes (e.g. Washington Examiner or The Daily Beast). Why then, are such sources shown so frequently in Top stories? We theorize that Google is sampling news articles from sources with different political leanings to offer a balanced coverage. This is reminiscent of the so-called “fairness doctrine” (1949-1987) policy in the United States that required broadcasters (radio or TV stations) to air contrasting views about controversial matters. Because there are fewer right-leaning publications than center or left-leaning ones, in order to maintain this “fair” balance, hyper-partisan far-right news sources of low trust receive more visibility than some news sources that are more familiar to and trusted by the public. 
    more » « less
  2. Background Home health aides (HHAs) provide necessary hands-on care to older adults and those with chronic conditions in their homes. Despite their integral role, HHAs experience numerous challenges in their work, including their ability to communicate with other health care professionals about patient care while caring for patients and access to educational resources. Although technological interventions have the potential to address these challenges, little is known about the technological landscape and existing technology-based interventions designed for and used by this workforce. Objective We conducted a scoping review of the scientific literature to identify existing studies that have described, designed, deployed, or tested technology-based tools and apps intended for use by HHAs to care for patients at home. To complement our literature review, we conducted a landscape analysis of existing mobile apps intended for HHAs providing in-home care. Methods We searched the following databases from their inception to October 2020: Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, Cochrane Library, and CINAHL (EBSCO). A total of 3 researchers screened the yield using prespecified inclusion and exclusion criteria. In addition, 4 researchers independently reviewed these articles, and a fifth researcher arbitrated when needed. Among studies that met the inclusion criteria, data were extracted and summarized narratively. An analysis of mobile health apps designed for HHAs was performed using a predefined set of terms to search Google Play and Apple App stores. Overall, 2 researchers independently screened the resulting apps, and those that met the inclusion criteria were categorized according to their intended purpose and functionality. Results Of the 8643 studies retrieved, 182 (2.11%) underwent full-text review, and 4.9% (9/182) met our inclusion criteria. Approximately half (4/9, 44%) of the studies were descriptive in nature, proposing technology-based systems (eg, web portals and dashboards) or prototypes without a technical or user-based evaluation of the technology. In most (7/9, 78%) papers, HHAs were just one of several users and not the sole or primary intended users of the technology. Our review of mobile apps yielded 166 Android and iOS apps, of which 48 (29%) met the inclusion criteria. These apps provided HHAs with one or more of the following functions: electronic visit verification (29/48, 60%), clocking in and out (23/48, 48%), documentation (22/48, 46%), task checklist (19/48, 40%), communication between HHA and agency (14/48, 29%), patient information (6/48, 13%), resources (5/48, 10%), and communication between HHA and patients (4/48, 8%). Of the 48 apps, 25 (52%) performed monitoring functions, 4 (8%) performed supporting functions, and 19 (40%) performed both. Conclusions A limited number of studies and mobile apps have been designed to support HHAs in their work. Further research and rigorous evaluation of technology-based tools are needed to assess their impact on the work HHAs provide in patient’s homes. 
    more » « less
  3. Agapito, G. (Ed.)
    The portable document format (PDF) is currently one of the most popular formats for offline sharing biomedical information. Recently, HTML-based formats for web-first biomedical information sharing have gained popularity. However, machine-interpretable information is required by literature search engines, such as Google Scholar, to index articles in a context-aware manner for accurate biomedical literature searches. The lack of technological infrastructure to add machine-interpretable metadata to expanding biomedical information, on the other hand, renders them unreachable to search engines. Therefore, we developed a portable technical infrastructure (goSemantically) and packaged it as a Google Docs add-ons. The “goSemantically” assists authors in adding machine-interpretable metadata at the terminology and document structural levels While authoring biomedical content. The “goSemantically” leverages the NCBO Bioportal resources and introduces a mechanism to annotate biomedical information with relevant machine-interpretable metadata (semantic vocabularies). The “goSemantically” also acquires meta tags designed for search engine optimization and tailored to accommodate biomedical information. Thus, individual authors can conveniently author and publish biomedical content in a truly decentralized fashion. Users can also export and host content with relevant machine-interpretable metadata (semantic vocabularies) in interoperable formats such as HTML and JSON-LD. To experience the described features, run this code with Google Doc 
    more » « less
  4. null (Ed.)
    Prior work suggests that users conceptualize the organization of personal collections of digital files through the lens of similarity. However, it is unclear to what degree similar files are actually located near one another (e.g., in the same directory) in actual file collections, or whether leveraging file similarity can improve information retrieval and organization for disorganized collections of files. To this end, we conducted an online study combining automated analysis of 50 Google Drive and Dropbox users' cloud accounts with a survey asking about pairs of files from those accounts. We found that many files located in different parts of file hierarchies were similar in how they were perceived by participants, as well as in their algorithmically extractable features. Participants often wished to co-manage similar files (e.g., deleting one file implied deleting the other file) even if they were far apart in the file hierarchy. To further understand this relationship, we built regression models, finding several algorithmically extractable file features to be predictive of human perceptions of file similarity and desired file co-management. Our findings pave the way for leveraging file similarity to automatically recommend access, move, or delete operations based on users' prior interactions with similar files. 
    more » « less
  5. This research shows that members of different ideological groups in the United States can use different search terms when looking for information about political candidates, but that difference is not enough to yield divergent search results on Google. Search engines are central in information seeking during elections, and have important implications for the distribution of information and, by extension, for democratic society. Using a method involving surveys, qualitative coding, and quantitative analysis of search terms and search results, we show that the sources of information that are returned by Google for both liberal and conservative search terms are strongly correlated. We collected search terms from people with different ideological positions about Senate candidates in the 2018 midterm election from the two main parties in the U.S., in three large and politically distinct states: California, Ohio, and Texas. We then used those search terms to scrape web results and analyze them. Our analysis shows that, in terms of the differences arising from individual search term choices, Google results exhibit a mainstreaming effect that partially neutralizes differentiation of search behaviors, by providing a set of common results, even to dissimilar searches. Based on this analysis, this article offers two main contributions: first, in the development of a method for determining group-level differences based on search input bias; and second, in demonstrating how search engines respond to diverse information seeking behavior and whether that may have implications for public discourse. 
    more » « less