WEB INFORMATION GATHERING TASKS
A Framework and Research Agenda
Anwar Alhenshiri, Carolyn Watters, Michael Shepherd and Jack Duffy
Faculty of Computer Science, Dalhousie University, 6050 University Avenue, Halifax, NS, Canada
Keywords: Web Information Retrieval, Web Tasks, Information Gathering, User Behaviour.
Abstract: This paper provides in-depth analysis of Web information gathering tasks. Research has focused on
categorizing Web tasks by creating a high-level framework of user goals and activities on the Web. Yet,
there has been very limited emphasis on improving the effectiveness of Web search for information
gathering under the concept of a complete task. This paper provides a framework in which subtasks
underlying the overall task of Web information gathering are considered. Moreover, the paper provides
research recommendations for techniques concerning collecting and gathering information on the Web.
1 INTRODUCTION
Web information retrieval has been studied in the
light of request-response for a relatively significant
period of time. The user submits a query trying to
convey their information need to the Web and in
return, they receive a response from the search
engine in the form of document hits. In many
occasions, a search activity may necessitate that the
user continues interacting with the search engine to
achieve a higher-level Web task (Kules, et al.,
2008). Research has studied user tasks in order to
identify a task framework that would help with
understanding user interactions with the Web
(Byström and Hansen, 2005). Web tasks have been
classified into fact finding, navigation, performing a
transaction, and information gathering (Broder,
2002; Kellar, et al., 2007). The latter represents a
great portion of the overall tasks on the Web,
between 51.7% (Broder, 2002) and 61.5% (Rose and
Levinson, 2004). Information gathering tasks imply
several steps and sequences within each step, longer
search time than other types (Mackay and Watters,
2008), and looking at several sources of information
to achieve the overall task (Terai, et al., 2008). This
type of task is common when a user is completing a
report or a project using information sources
published on the Web.
Current Web search and gathering techniques
provide limited support for the characteristics and
procedures involved in the information gathering
task. Web search is a one-session process―in most
cases―where the Web search engine provides no
means for connecting one search activity to the rest
of the activities in the task. Since information
mismatching and overloading are two significant
problems regarding how search engines gather
information (Tao and Li, 2009), it becomes the
user’s role to locate, compare, and manage the
required information in the task. A Web search
engine sees the sequences of a task as separate
interaction steps. It also provides no means for re-
finding information (Tauscher and Greenberg,
1997), which is an activity that represents one third
of the user interactions during information gathering
tasks according to Kellar and Watters (2006).
Moreover, search engines do not usually provide
support for representing task results according to the
type of information being sought in the task.
Consequently, there is a very limited understanding
by the design of current search engines of the fact
that a search operation may not be just a one-time
query, but rather a more complete and sophisticated
task.
This article provides a framework in which
subtasks underlying the information gathering task
are identified. In addition, based on research in the
literature regarding information gathering subtasks,
the paper provides practical recommendations for
Web tools intended for information gathering. The
paper is divided as follows. Section 2 describes the
related work. Research work concerning information
gathering on the Web is discussed in this section. A
131
Alhenshiri A., Watters C., Shepherd M. and Duffy J..
WEB INFORMATION GATHERING TASKS - A Framework and Research Agenda.
DOI: 10.5220/0003034101310140
In Proceedings of the International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Information Retrieval (KDIR-2010), pages 131-140
ISBN: 978-989-8425-28-7
Copyright
c
 2010 SCITEPRESS (Science and Technology Publications, Lda.)

framework for the subtasks that comprise the overall
task of Web information gathering is also provided
in this section. Section 3 provides a discussion of the
research findings indicated in Section 2. Section 4
presents practical recommendations for future
studies regarding the concept of Web information
gathering tasks and improving the effectiveness of
tools intended for this type of task. Section 5
concludes the paper and highlights future research
directions.
2 WEB INFORMATION
GATHERING
This section discusses research work related to the
concept of information gathering on the Web. The
aspects of information gathering that are researched
in the literature are discussed first. The discussion
follows by providing a framework for subtasks that
comprise the overall task of information gathering.
Techniques intended for improving particular
aspects of each subtask are discussed along with the
type of subtask being explored.
2.1 Research Rationale
Information gathering tasks involve collecting
information possibly of different types from
different sources to achieve an overall goal
identified in the task. Information gathering tasks are
mostly search-based as shown by Kellar, et al.
(2006). In addition, information gathering is
recognized as the most frequent task in re-finding
information on the Web (Kellar, et al., 2006).
Information gathering tasks have been studied as a
part of user interactions with the Web for searching
and navigation as discussed by Kules, et al. (2008)
and Alhenshiri, et al. (2010, 1). However, there has
been little effort to connect the concepts of finding,
re-finding, comparing, goal identification, and
decision making for the purpose of investigating
improvements to information gathering tools on the
Web.
Research has examined those aspects in isolation
without specific focus on evaluation within the
context of a complete task. Yamada and Kawano
(2009) used sections in Web pages located for an
information gathering task to extract links to other
pages. The target pages are considered a part of the
user plan for the task and suggested to the user to
continue gathering information. In a similar
approach, Bagchi and Lahoti (2009) used hyperlink
connectivity among Web pages to assist uses in
gathering information on the Web. They argued that
providing links to pages currently being viewed by
the user can facilitate the process of information
gathering. However, the only part of the information
gathering task considered in these two studies was
locating the intended information, i.e. finding.
Dearman, et al. (2008) investigated the subtask of
the information gathering task that concerns
information sources. Re-finding information on the
Web was also investigated either with respect to
locating previously found results (Tauscher and
Greenberg, 1997), or monitoring Web sources of
information (Kellar, et al., 2007). Issues with how
users deal with information gathering and how they
manage their time for the task were discussed in the
work of Murphy (2003). Finally, decision making
was investigated and considered as an intermediate
step in information gathering tasks (Yamaguchi, et
al., 2004).
In addition to those aspects that are involved in
information gathering, user interactions with the
Web have been studied in many directions under
different objectives. Rose and Levinson (2004)
attempted to identify a framework for user search
goals using ontologies in order to understand how
users interact with the Web. He and Goker (2000)
and Jansen, et al. (2007) attempted to identify
boundaries among user search sessions to be
potentially able to decide on the user search goal in
each session. Both studies intended to improve the
effectiveness of the Web search process by
providing more suitable results to the user’s goal.
Broder (2002) studied different user interactions
during Web search and identified three types of
tasks, namely: transactional, informational, and
browsing. Similarly, Kellar, et al. (2007) classified
Web tasks into navigation, information gathering,
and fact finding. These categorizations provided a
framework for the high-level types of tasks users
perform on the Web. Consequently, such
classifications can further be exploited to improve
the process of task accomplishment on the Web for
each type of task.
With respect to research regarding how users
gather information on the Web, several questions
remain open for further investigation. The concept
of information gathering remains unclear with
regard to the effectiveness of the tools used for
gathering and comparing Web information and the
challenges the user encounters during the gathering
process. In addition, most of the conducted research
in Web information retrieval attempted to improve
aspects of the subtasks underlying information
KDIR 2010 - International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Information Retrieval
132

gathering without considering the contribution of the
context of a whole task to the gathering process.
Studying the subtasks that comprise the overall task
of information gathering may permit for better
understanding of this type of task. In addition, it may
permit for further improvements in the field of
information retrieval since a great portion of users’
search activities on today’s Web are considered parts
of broader tasks. During information seeking, the
user information need is shown to be motivated by a
higher-level work task (Byström and Hansen, 2005;
Kules, et al., 2008). Before tackling the issue of
targeting possible improvements to the effectiveness
of Web information gathering tools, it is crucial to
understand the components (subtasks) of the
information gathering task and some examples of the
research that has been conducted so far for
investigating certain aspects in each subtask. The
following section illustrates the subtasks involved in
the Web information gathering task.
2.2 Subtasks in the Web Information
Gathering Task
The information gathering task can be studied
effectively by investigating the subtasks comprising
the overall task. Research in the literature reveals
those subtasks through how scholars investigated
Web information gathering. Based on the definition
provided earlier and the different aspects of Web
information gathering that have been studied and
investigated in the literature, the subtasks involved
in Web information gathering, which are shown in
the provided framework in Figure 1, can be
summarized in the following:
2.2.1 Interpreting the Task
Web information gathering tasks can be of varied
complexities. Interpreting the task is a concern to the
user and the tools used in the task. For users to start
performing information gathering, they have to
make a decision about the information required in
the task, the plan desired for performing the task,
and the tools to be used for accomplishing the task
(Yu and Lau, 2005; Terai, et al., 2008). Interpreting
the task includes identifying the information
required to be retrieved in the task, the sequences
and steps required to achieve the task, and the
information given in the task as a priori (Bell and
Ruthven, 2004). The user’s interpretation determines
the tools needed in the task and their effectiveness.
On the Web side, current Web information gathering
tools, including search engines, do not take into
account user differences. In addition, the type of task
performed on the Web cannot be identified easily by
relying only on search queries. Unless additional
information are provided by the user to the search
interface―such as in the form of a user profile―the
search engine cannot take into account the type of
user or the type of task being performed. With
information gathering tasks, the difficulty in
identifying the task and the information required in
the task increases because of the different possible
information and sources the task may require the
user to locate on the Web.
Figure 1: A framework for subtasks in the information
gathering task.
2.2.2 Finding Sources of Information on the
Web
The Web search engine is the tool predominantly
used for this subtask (Teevan, et al., 2004; Kellar, et
al., 2006). The user conveys their information need
to the search engine in the form of a search query
and receives a set of information sources that match
the search query but not necessarily satisfies the
intended information need (Manning, et al., 2008). A
study comparing users search behaviour shows that
55% of users’ search behaviour involves keyword
search to locate sources of information instead of
typing-in a URL into the Web browser (Teevan, et
al., 2004). In addition, 57% of internet users use
search engines daily (Hsieh-Yee, 2001). Therefore,
the search engine is recognized as the most used tool
for this subtask. The rest of the subtasks in
information gathering are performed by the user on
the Web browser using different utilities.
With regard to finding sources of information,
research has focused on improving the relevancy of
Web search results to match the user’s information
WEB INFORMATION GATHERING TASKS - A Framework and Research Agenda
133

need (Manning, et al., 2008). There are several
aspects of the Web search process that have been
investigated including indexing (Srihari, et al.,
2000), query matching (Kawano, 2000, Spink, et al.,
2001), search results ranking (Zhuang and Cuserzan,
2006; Zitouni, et al., 2008; Wang, et al., 2009), and
search results presentation (Alhenshiri, et al., 2010
(1), Teevan, et al., 2009). The latter aspect is
concerned with interacting with the user and
allowing them to perceive interesting information.
Search engines usually provide high recall of
relevant documents, but the results are incorrectly
ranked and presented to the user. Consequently, the
effectiveness in finding the intended sources is
usually concerned with how the results are presented
to the user (Alhenshiri and Blustein, 2010). In the
literature, there are several suggested improvements
with regard to results presentation. The two main
concepts regarding investigating such improvements
are visualization and clustering. However, there is
little focus on the specific aspects of visualization
and clustering that would particularly improve
gathering sources of Web information.
2.2.3 Finding Information on the Web
The result hits provided by search engines represent
sources of possible information of interest to the
user. The following subtask in information gathering
is locating task-relevant information among the
provided sources. This stage in information
gathering has been researched in several directions.
On the Web browser side of the subtask, results
presentation has been rigorously investigated for
providing recommendations for effective search
interfaces. Different forms of textual presentations
(Alonso and Baeza-Yates, 2003), visual
presentations (Bonnel, et al., 2005, 2006), and a mix
of both textual and visual presentations (Mukherjea
and Hara, 1999; Kunz and Botsch, 2002;
Rivadeneira and Bederson, 2003; Brown, et al.,
2003; Suvanaphen and Roberts, 2004) have been
investigated. Clustering of search results according
to different criteria was also considered (Carpineto,
et al., 2009).
Nonetheless, this subtask is usually studied as a
part of the previously discussed subtask in which
there is no obvious separation between locating an
information source and locating information of
interest on that source. The separation is actually
apparent. For example, users usually cannot make
decisions only by relying on the list of hits provided
by the search engine. Finding sources of information
is actually a different subtask from finding
information because of trust and familiarity issues
with Web sources (Alonso and Baeza-Yates, 2003).
Teevan, et al. (2009) showed that presenting Web
documents using visual snippets that consisted of the
most important image on the page (i.e. the page
logo) accompanied with text found in titles on the
page was favoured over text only summaries.
Presenting more features of the page in the result set
was more effective because users recognized the
nature of the document and were able to make more
effective decisions. The visual snippets and the
visualized glyphs in the work of Alhenshiri, et al.
(2010, 1) presented actual information about the
sources located by the search engine. In the
comparison study conducted by Alhenshiri, et al.
(2010, 1), participants who used Google opened
more pages on the browser and submitted more
queries in order to achieve the information gathering
task. The results showed that users were less
confident about the sources located by Google
because they were only able to see the text
summaries.
2.2.4 Finding Related Information
Finding related information to the already identified
information in the sources provided by a search
engine is a subtask that is common in information
gathering. The user finds a source of information
and continues looking for task-related information in
one of two ways. First, when clustering is involved
in the presentation of Web documents, the user may
look for similar documents to the one of interest by
relying on clusters of related documents (Carpineto,
et al., 2009). The second approach is by following
anchors on the page of interest for the purpose of
finding similar information (Karim, et al., 2009;
Alhenshiri, et al., 2010 (1)). For example, Google
provides clustering in the “see similar” feature
underneath some of the result hits. The search
engine Clusty (www.clusty.com) performs
unsupervised clustering and presents categories of
topics on a sidebar. Yahoo directories are an
example of human-clustered hierarchy of Web
documents intended for finding related information
to categories of interest. Clustering on the Web is a
concept intended for better topical coverage which
may assist the user in information gathering tasks.
On the Web browser, following anchors on a page
and which link to other pages may indicate similar
content (Bederson, et al., 1996; Karim, et al., 2009;
Alhenshiri, et al., 2010 (1)).
Finding related information is a subtask that is
usually intended for gathering further information
KDIR 2010 - International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Information Retrieval
134

and comparing already gathered information for
reasoning and decision making. Consequently, it can
be considered a separate subtask from collecting
sources and information on the Web. The study
conducted by Alhenshiri, et al. (2010, 2) showed that
users followed the link hierarchy on the located Web
information sources in order to make confident
decisions about the task results. Similarly, Karim, et
al. (2009) developed a technique that gathers
hyperlinks on a page and provides those links
accompanied with viewing popularity statistics at
the bottom of the page. Those anchors helped users
to decide whether or not to follow a certain
navigation path for finding related information. In
information gathering tasks, locating information is
usually followed by looking for more relevant
information to the task topic for comparisons and
decision making. Research has shown that different
search and navigation interfaces achieved different
effectiveness results (Alhenshiri, et al., 2010, 2).
Consequently, locating information related to Web
sources and already gathered information is an
important subtask that should be further investigated
in Web information gathering tasks.
2.2.5 Comparing Information
Comparing information located for the purpose of
the task happens on the browser side of the retrieval
process. The user performs such comparisons in
different ways―yet mostly by reading text on the
presented Web pages (Roberts, et al., 2002). The
comparison process is meant for making decisions
about the types of information required in the task
(Zilberstein and Lesser, 1996). In current Web
search techniques, comparing information requires
reading a lot of text and scrolling over multiple
sources of information (Spink, et al., 2001).
Visualization is suggested to help with this process
by providing multiple features of the presented Web
documents to assist the user in making faster and
more effective decisions (Nguyen and Zhang, 2006;
Wiza, et al.,2004). Clustering Web information by
providing meaningful labels may also assist users
comparing sources of information. This subtask is
involved in all of the subtasks comprising the overall
information gathering task.
Comparing information is an important subtask
in information gathering that has been investigated
in isolation. Suvanaphen and Roberts (2004)
designed a search interface that allows users to
compare sets of results rendered to multiple queries.
The objective was to permit users to observe
similarities and differences among the result sets,
reduce the cognitive effort that would result from
switching from one result set to another, and enable
them to browse more effectively. Similarly, Havre,
et al. (2001) introduced Sparkler, a technique that
visualizes the results of multiple queries generated
as alternatives to a user query. The interface also
shows the contribution of each query
alternative/component to the overall relevance of
documents in the result set. The usability test
showed that users preferred Sparkler to the row
presentation due to the ability to observe the
differences between the initial query and its
alternatives in the result set using the visual
presentation of Sparkler. Comparing information is a
common subtask in Web information gathering.
Enhancing the effectiveness of how users perceive
and compare information requires further
investigations in the context of a complete
information gathering task with a defined task goal.
2.2.6 Preserving and Re-finding Information
Information gathering tasks usually happen over the
course of multiple sessions (Spink, 1996; Mackay
and Watters, 2008). According to Sellen, et al.
(2002), 40% of information gathering tasks took
more than one session. Therefore, some subtasks
such as finding related information and comparing
information located for the task may require
preserving some or all of the information that were
retrieved in previous sessions. Research regarding
re-finding information on the Web has investigated
several techniques in the Web browser including the
back button, the browser history, and the list of
favourites and bookmarks. In addition, alternative
methods with similar behaviour to the
aforementioned techniques were investigated
including the mouse flick gesture for the back and
front buttons (Moyle and Cockburn, 2003), the use
of Bookmaps for visualizing the browser history and
bookmarked pages (Mountaz, 2000), and the use of
Landmarks for visual presentation of the browser
history (Mackay, et al., 2005).
Preserving search results of previous sessions to
be involved in later activities has also been studied
in the work of Teevan (2008). However, it remains
unknown which technique is the most effective with
regard to information gathering tasks. This is so
because visualization studies, such as in the work of
Yamaguchi, et al. (2004) and Mackay, et al. (2005),
measured how effective the presentation was in
permitting the user to only find previously preserved
documents. The effectiveness of involving re-
finding in comparing information within an
WEB INFORMATION GATHERING TASKS - A Framework and Research Agenda
135

information gathering task has not yet been
investigated. In addition, re-finding Web documents
for re-visitation requires more investigations
regarding not only ranking the mix of fresh Web
results and the previously preserved ones, but also
with consideration to the results presentation.
2.2.7 Organizing and Managing
Information
Organizing and managing information during Web
information gathering tasks is an important subtask.
Research has focused on investigating how users
manage their information for re-finding (Jones, et
al., 2003; Mackay, et al., 2005) and how they view
and manage desktop information in general (Knoll,
et al., 2009). Important reasons behind giving up on
certain personal information management tools were
discussed in the work of Jones, et al., (2008).
Strategies users follow to manage Web information
in order to be able to relocate and reuse previously
found information are discussed in the work of Jones
et al. (2003).
The work of Jones, et al. (2003) showed that
users—while gathering Web information—follow
different preserving strategies to re-find and
compare information later. Most users gather
information over multiple sessions (Spink, 1996;
Mackay and Watters, 2008), which indicates the
need for management strategies for preserving and
re-finding such information for reuse. The variety of
finding, re-finding, organizing, and management
strategies and approaches users follow while seeking
and gathering Web information can be related to the
fact that current Web tools lack important
reminding, integration, and organization schemes.
Jones, et al. (2008) found that users abandon the
use of an information management tool for one or
more of five closely related reasons which are:
visibility, integration, co-adoption, scalability, and
return to investment. These reasons need to be
further investigated in the case of Web information
gathering. The Web may reveal further reasons why
users use certain tools over others, why they do not
use the same tools, what tools do most users actually
use to keep track of their gathered information, and
how they maintain the consistency of their located
information. Other questions may include what tools
are actually supportive to information organization
and management during information gathering, if
any? Research has little consideration to factors that
would improve how Web users collect, manage,
compare, and organize their information for
information gathering tasks.
2.2.8 Reviewing the Task
During information gathering, reasoning, and
decision making may occur at any time depending
on the task, the user expertise, and the tools used in
the task (Adar, et al., 2008). The process of
accomplishing the overall Web information
gathering task is affected by the user’s short term
memory, the number of sequences required in the
task, and the type of information being searched.
These factors necessitate that the user revisits and
reviews the task to make sure that the requirements
are accomplished and to make a decision about the
completion of the task. This subtask is an important
factor that has to be further investigated in the
presence of other subtasks in Web information
gathering in a controlled environment. Information
gathering tools and how information is provided to
the user to collect, compare, and make decisions
about the task should be further investigated.
3 DISCUSSION
Research has, so far, identified information
gathering as a very common activity on the Web and
which has its own characteristics. Information
gathering is a task concerned with collecting
information of various types from different sources
to satisfy a higher-level goal (Kellar and Watters,
2006). Information gathering usually takes more
time than other tasks (Mackay and Watters, 2008),
happens over the course of multiple sessions, and
has no specific tools that take the whole task into
consideration. Research has investigated several
aspects in Web information gathering. However,
there has been no consideration of the context of the
overall task in the investigation studies.
Visualization and clustering are two important
factors that have been investigated with regard to
improving the effectiveness of Web search tools.
Nonetheless, investigation has only been applied to
certain aspects of the subtasks in the information
gathering task as discussed above. In Web
information gathering, the concept of a complete
task should be further considered. The tools used in
the task and the challenges the user encounters while
trying to locate sources of information, compare
information and sources, re-locate information, and
find more related information should be
investigated.
KDIR 2010 - International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Information Retrieval
136

4 RESEARCH
RECOMMENDATIONS
Regarding research intended for investigating
improvements to each of the subtasks discussed
above, and hence to the overall task of Web
information gathering, several important practical
recommendations are summarized in the following
points.
4.1 Gathering Web Information
Sources
Gathering sources of information should be
investigated by using visualization and clustering
while emphasizing issues of trust and familiarity
with the sources being gathered and the tools used in
the gathering process. Using visualized features of
Web documents can help users make effective
decisions about the source of information being
presented. However, cluttered presentations through
the use of certain visualization layouts may degrade
the effectiveness of the interface since users are
practically used to raw text-based presentations
(Alonso and Baeza-Yates, 2003).
4.2 Gathering Web Information
Gathering Web information should be investigated
with regard to the presentation of Web information.
How many features the user can perceive at once on
the display is a crucial factor in satisfying the user
information need. Moreover, efficiency is a very
important factor since most users tend to look at
very few items in the search results list (Spink, et al.,
2001). Consequently, the type of presentation that
would assist users to find interesting information and
locate such information efficiently and effectively
should be investigated. The presentation should
involve aspects of visualization and textual
presentation allowing the user to choose the view
that suites the user information need and the topic of
the task.
4.3 Finding Related Information
Finding related information to the already gathered
sources and information can be improved by
utilizing clustering and visualization. Clustering can
assist users trying to locate Web information related
to sources gathered using search engines. In
addition, providing overviews of the hierarchy of
Web domains can assist users with gathering
information by navigation. Moreover, a Web
information gathering task may be concerned with
collecting information that belongs to different
sources and topics. Clustering may play a significant
role in improving this process. However,
investigation is needed with regard to the most
effective clustering criteria, i.e. genre-based and/or
topic-based clustering. In addition, the type of
presentation of the clustered results that would
benefit collecting related information should be
further studied, i.e. visual clustering and/or tabular
text-based clustering.
4.4 Comparing Web Information
With regard to comparing different types and pieces
of information located for a task, visualization can
play an important role by providing multiple features
of the presented Web documents to assist the user in
making faster and more effective decisions.
Clustering Web information by providing
meaningful labels may also assist users comparing
sources of information. Previous research
investigated the issue of comparing information in
Web search (Havre, et al., 2001; Suvanaphen and
Roberts, 2004). However, investigations usually
excluded the context of a complete task. Web
information is compared for making decisions about
the relevancy of results provided for individual
search queries. The need is to investigate tools that
can be used in reasoning and decision making within
the context of Web information gathering tasks.
4.5 Re-finding Web Information
Re-finding information for comparison and decision
making has not, so far, been investigated in Web
information gathering. In the information gathering
task, this issue should be further studied in the
context of a complete task. Research has studied re-
finding for the purpose of identifying efficient and
effective techniques in presenting preserved Web
information. Nonetheless, the need is to further
reinvestigate such techniques in the context of
information gathering and identify features that
would help users find, compare, and manage task
information.
4.6 Organizing Web Information
On the Web, research has only considered the case
of managing and organizing information for re-
finding (Jones, et al., 2003). How users organize and
manage information during Web information
gathering has had minimum consideration. Since
WEB INFORMATION GATHERING TASKS - A Framework and Research Agenda
137

information gathering on the Web may take several
sessions, involve looking at information from
different sources, and involve comparing
information that may belong to varied topics,
investigating organizational and management
strategies users follow on the Web is necessary.
Such investigations would reveal design
characteristics regarding tools needed for improving
the process of Web information organization and
unleash challenges users encounter with current
Web tools.
4.7 Interpreting and Reviewing
the Task
Interpreting and reviewing the task are important
subtasks in information gathering. Research should
further investigate these factors within the context of
a complete task by investigating how effective the
tools used in the task are in limiting the task
progress overhead. This can be done by
investigating visualization, clustering, and re-finding
as discussed above. Moreover, annotation is a
concept that can be investigated. Annotation may
assist users with managing and comparing the task
information especially in the case of a multi-session
information gathering task. Research shows that
users sometimes find it difficult to look back at
preserved bookmarks and documents in the
browsing history to re-find information (Mountaz,
2000). Annotation may improve the process of re-
finding by searching annotations applied to
preserved documents.
5 CONCLUSIONS
This paper presented some of the research that has been
conducted regarding gathering Web information. A
framework of the subtasks that comprise the overall task
of information gathering was developed and illustrated.
Some of the research that has investigated different
aspects in each of the identified subtasks was also
discussed. The paper provided practical recommendations
in the area of research concerning how users gather
information on the Web. Future work will investigate
some aspects of results presentation through the use of
visualization and clustering for seeking improvements
regarding Web information gathering tasks. In addition,
the concept of re-finding will be studied in the light of
visualization and clustering in addition to aspects of
annotation for improving Web information gathering tasks
of the multi-session nature.
REFERENCES
Adar, E., Teevan, J., and Dumais, S. 2008. Large Scale
Analysis of Web Revistation Patterns. In Proceedings
of the 2008 ACM Conference on Human Factors in
Computing Systems, Florence, Italy, 1197-1206.
Alhenshiri, A., Shepherd, M., Brooks, S., and Watters, C.
2010 (1). Augmenting the Visual Presentation of Web
Search Results. In Proceedings of the 5th International
Conference on Digital Information Management,
Thunder Bay, ON, Canada, to appear.
Alhenshiri, A., Shepherd, M., Watters, C., and Bliemel,
M. 2010 (2). Information Gathering within Websites:
Visualized Links for Navigation (VLN). The 3
rd
International Workshop on Patent Information
Retrieval, Toronto, Canada, to appear.
Alhenshiri, A., Blustein, J. 2010. Utilizing Visualization
for Improving Web Search Effectiveness. In
Proceedings of the i-Society2010 Conference, London,
UK, to appear.
Alonso, O., and Baeza-Yates, R. 2003. Alternative
Implementation Techniques for Web Text
Visualization. In Proceedings of the 1st Latin
American Web Congress, California, USA, 202-204.
Bagchi, A., and Lahoti, G. 2009. Relating Web Pages to
Enable Information-Gathering Tasks. In Proceedings
of the 20th ACM Conference on Hypertext and
Hypermedia, Torino, Italy, 100-118.
Bederson, B. B., Hollan, J. D., Stewart, J., Rogers, D.,
Druin, A., and Vick, D. 1996. A Zooming Web
Browser. In SPIE Multimedia Computing and
Networking'9, vol. 2667, 260-271.
Bell, D. J., and Ruthven, I. 2004. Searchers' Assessments
of Task Complexity for Web Searching. In
Proceedings of the 26th European Conference on
Information Retrieval, Sunderland, UK, 57-71.
Bonnel, N., Cotarmanac’h A., and Morin, A. 2005.
Meaning Metaphor for Visualizing Search Results. In
Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on
Information Visualization, London, England, 467-472.
Bonnel, N., Lemaire, V., Cotarmanac’h, A., and Morin, A.
2006. Effective Organization and Visualization of
Web Search Results. In Proceedings of the 24th
IASTED International Multi-Conference on Internet
and Multimedia Systems and Applications, Innsbruck,
Austria.209-216.
Broder, A. 2002. A Taxonomy of Web Search. ACM
SIGIR Forum, vol. 36, issue 2, 2-10.
Brown, L. D., Hua, H., and Gao, C. 2003. A Widget
Framework for Augmented Interaction in SCAPE. In
Proceedings of the 16th Annual ACM Symposium on
User interface Software and Technology (Vancouver,
Canada, November 02 - 05, 2003). UIST '03. ACM
Press, New York, NY, 1-10. DOI=
http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/964696.964697.
Byström, K., and Hansen, P. 2005. Conceptual Framework
for Tasks in Information Studies. Journal of the
American Society of Information Science and
Technology, vol. 56, issue 10, 1050-1061.
KDIR 2010 - International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Information Retrieval
138

Carpineto, C., Osiński, S., Romano, G., and Weiss, D.
2009. A Survey of Web Clustering Engines. ACM
Computing Surveys, vol. 41, issue 3, Article No. 17.
Dearman, D., Kellar, M., and Truong, K. N. 2008. An
Examination of Daily Information Needs and Sharing
Opportunities. In Proceedings of the 2008 ACM
Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative
Work. San Diego, CA, USA, 679-688.
Havre, S., Hetzler, E., Perrine, K., Jurrus, E., and Miller,
N. 2001. Interactive Visualization of Multiple Query
Results. In Proceedings of the 2001 IEEE Symposium
on Information Visualization, San Diego, California,
USA, 105-112.
He, D., and Goker, A. 2000. Detecting Session Boundaries
from Web User Logs. Paper Presented at 22nd
Annual Colloquium of IR Research, Cambridge UK.
Hsieh-Yee, I. 2001. Research on Web Search Behavior. In
Library and Information Science Research, vol. 23,
167-185.
Jansen, B. J., Spink, A., Blakely, C., and Koshman, K.
2007. Defining a Session on Web Search
Engines. Journal of the American Society for
Information Science and Technology, vol. 58, issue 6,
862–871.
Jones, E., Bruce, H., Klasnja, P., & Jones, W. (2008). I
Give Up! Five Factors that Contribute to the
Abandonment of Information Management Strategies.
68th Annual Meeting of the American Society for
Information Science and Technology (ASIST 2008).
Columbus, OH, USA.
Jones, W., Bruce, H., & Dumais, S. (2003). How do
People Get Back to Information on the Web? How
Can They Do It Better? 9th IFIP TC13 International
Conference on Human-Computer Interaction. Zurich,
Switzerland.
Karim, J., Antonellis, I., Ganapathi, V., and Garcia-
Molina, H. 2009. A Dynamic Navigation Guide for
Web Pages. In CHI 2009.
Kawano, H. 2000. Overview of Mondou Web Search
Engine Using Text Mining and Information
Visualizing Technologies. In Proceedings of the
International Conference on Digital Libraries, Kyoto,
Japan. 234-244.
Kellar, M., Watters, C., and Shepherd, M. 2006. The
Impact of Task on the Usage of Web Browser
Navigation Mechanisms. In Proceedings of the
Graphics Interface Conference, Quebec City, QC,
Canada, 235-242.
Kellar, M., and Watters, C. 2006. Using Web Browser
Interactions to Predict Task. In Proceedings of the
15th International Conference on World Wide Web,
Edinburgh, Scotland, 843-844.
Kellar, M., Watters, K., and Shepherd, M. 2007. A Field
Study Characterizing Web-based Information-Seeking
Tasks. Journal of the American Society for
Information Science and Technology, vol. 58, issue 7,
999-1018.
Knoll, S., Hoff, A., Fisher, D., Dumais, S., & Cutrell, E.
(2009). Viewing Personal Data Over Time. CHI 2009
Workshop on Interacting with Temporal Data. Boston,
USA.
Kules, W., Wilson, M. L., Schraefel, M. C., and
Shneiderman, B. 2008. From Keyword Search to
Exploration: How Result Visualization Aids
Discovery on the Web. Technical Report, School of
Electronics and Computer Science, University of
Southampton.
Kunz, C., Botsch, V. 2002. Visual Representation and
Contextualization of Search Results: List and Matrix
Browser. In Proceedings of the International
Conference on Dublin Core Metadata Applications,
Florence, Italy, 229-234.
Mackay, B., Kellar, M., and Watters, C. 2005. An
Evaluation of Landmarks for Re-finding Information
on the Web. In Proceedings of the 2005 ACM
Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems,
Portland, Oregon, USA, 1609 - 1612.
Mackey, B., and Watters, C. 2008. Exploring Multi-
session Web Tasks. In Proceedings of the 2008 ACM
Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems,
Florence, Italy, 4273-4278.
Manning, C. D., Raghavan, P., and Schütze, H. 2008.
Introduction to Information Retrieval. Cambridge
University Press.
Mountaz, H. 2000. A User Interface Combining
Navigation Aids. In Proceedings of the 11th ACM
Conference on Hypertext and Hypermedia, San
Antonio, Texas, United States, 224 – 225.
Moyle, M., and Cockburn, A. 2003. The Design and
Evaluation of a Flick Gesture for 'back' and 'forward'
in Web Browsers. In Proceedings of the 4th
Australasian User Interface Conference (AUIC2003),
Adelaide, Australia, 39-46.
Mukherjea, S., Hara, Y.1999. Visualizing World-Wide
Web Search Engine Results. In IEEE International
Conference on Information Visualization, London,
UK, 400-405.
Murphy, J. 2003. Information-Seeking Habits of
Environmental Scientists. A Study of Interdisciplinary
Scientists at the Environmental Protection Agency in
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, Issues in
Science and Technology Librarianship, Retrieved
February 28, 2010, from http://www.istl.org/03-
summer/refereed.html
Nguyen, T. and Zhang, J. 2006. A Novel Visualization
Model for Web Search Results. IEEE Transactions on
Visualization and Computer Graphics, vol. 12,
Number 5, 981-988.
Rivadeneira, W., and Bederson, B. B. 2003. A Study of
Search Result Clustering Interfaces: Comparing
Textual and Zoomable User Interfaces, University of
Maryland, HCIL.
Roberts, J. C., Boukhelifa, N., and Rodgers, P. 2002.
Multiform Glyph Based Web Search Result
Visualization. In Proceedings of the 6thInternational
Conference on Information Visualisation, London,
England, 549-554.
Rose, D., and Levinson, D. 2004. Understanding User
Goals in Web Search. In Proceedings of the 13th
WEB INFORMATION GATHERING TASKS - A Framework and Research Agenda
139

International Conference on World Wide Web, New
York, NY, USA, 13-19.
Sellen, A., Murphy, R., and Shaw, K. 2002. How
Knowledge Workers Use the Web. In Proceedings of
the 2002 SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in
Computing Systems, Minneapolis, MN, 227-234.
Spink, A. 1996. Multiple Search Sessions Model for End
User Behaviour: An Exploratory Study. Journal of the
American Society for Information Science, vol. 47,
issue 8, 603-609.
Spink A., Wolfram D., Jansen M., Saracevic T. 2001.
Searching the Web: The Public and Their Queries.
Journal of the American Society for Information
Science and Technology, vol. 52, issue 3, 226-234.
Srihari, R. K., Zhang, Z., and Rao, A. 2000. Intelligent
Indexing and Semantic Retrieval of Multimodal
Documents. ACM Information Retrieval, vol. 2, issue
2-3, 245-275.
Suvanaphen, E., and Roberts, J.C. 2004. Textual
Difference Visualization of Multiple Search Results
Utilizing Detail in Context. In Proceedings of the
Theory and Practice of Computer Graphics
Conference, Bournemouth, UK, 2-8.
Tao, X., and Li, Y. 2009. Concept-Based, Personalized
Web Information Gathering: A Survey. In Proceedings
of the 3rd International Conference on Knowledge
Science, Engineering, and Management, Vienna,
Austria, 215-228.
Tauscher, L., and Greenberg, S. 1997. How People Revisit
Web Pages: Empirical Findings and Implications for
the Design of History Systems. International Journal
of Human Computer Studies – IJHCS, vol. 47, issue 1,
97-138. Academic Press. Special Issue on World Wide
Web Usability.
Teevan, J. 2008. How People Recall, Recognize, and
Reuse Search Results. ACM Transactions on
Information Systems, vol. 26, issue 4. Article No. 19.
Teevan, J., Alvarado, C., Ackerman, M. S., and Karger, D.
R. 2004. The Perfect Search Engine is not enough: A
Study of Orienteering Behavior in Directed Search. In
Proceedings of the 2004 Conference on Human
Factors in Computing Systems, Vienna, Austria, 415-
422.
Teevan, J., Cutrell, E., Fisher, D., Drucker, S. M., Ramos,
G., Andre, P., and Hu, C. 2009. Visual
Snippets: Summarizing Web Pages for Search and
Revisitation. In Proceedings of the 27th International
Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems,
Boston, MA, USA, 2023-2032.
Terai, H., Saito, H., Egusa, Y., Takaku, M., Maiwa, M.,
and Kando, N. 2008. Differences between
Informational and Transactional Tasks in Information
Seeking on the Web. In Proceedings of the 2nd
International Symposium on Information Interaction
in Context, London, UK, 152-159.
Wang, A. G., Jiao, J., and Fan, W. 2009. Searching for
Authoritative Documents in Knowledge-Based
Communities. In Proceedings of the 13th International
Conference on Information Systems (ICIS 09),
Phoenix, AZ, USA.
Wiza, W., Walczak, K. and Cellary, W. 2004. Periscope:
a System for Adaptive 3D Visualization of Search
Results. In Proceedings of the 9thInternational
Conference on 3D Web Technology, 29–40.
Yamada, S., and Kawano, H. 2009. Information Gathering
and Searching Approaches on the Web. Journal of
New Generation Computing, 195-208.
Yamaguchi, T., Hattori, H., Ito, T., and Shintani, T. 2004.
On a Web Browsing Support System with 3D
Visualization. In Proceedings of the 13th International
World Wide Web Conference on Alternate Track
Papers and Posters, New York, NY, USA.316-317.
Yu, Y. T., Lau, M. F. 2005. A Comparison of MC/DC,
MUMCUT and Several other Coverage Criteria for
Logical Decisions, Journal of Systems and Software.
Zhuang, Z., and Cuserzan, S. 2006. Re-ranking Search
Results Using Query Logs. In Proceedings of the
15thACM International Conference on Information
and Knowledge Management, Arlington, Virginia,
USA, 860-861.
Zilberstein, S., and Lesser, V. 1996. Intelligent
Information Gathering Using Decision Models,
Technical Report, 96-35, Computer Science
Department, University of Massachusetts, Retrieved
February 22, 2010, from
http://www.agent.ai/doc/upload/200407/zilb96_2.pdf
Zitouni, H., Sevil, S., Ozkan, D., and Duygulu, P. 2008.
Re-ranking of Web Image Search Results Using a
Graph Algorithm. In Proceedings of the
19thInternational Conference on Pattern Recognition,
Tampa, FL, USA, 1-4.
KDIR 2010 - International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Information Retrieval
140