This study examines the ways in which information consumers evaluate the quality of content in a collaborative-writing environment, in this case Wikipedia. Sixty-four users were asked to assess the quality of five articles from the Hebrew Wikipedia, to indicate the highest-and lowest-quality article of the five and explain their choices. Participants viewed both the article page, and the article's history page, so that their decision was based both on the article's current content and on its development. The analysis shows that the attributes that most frequently assisted the users in deciding about the quality of the items were not unique to Wikipedia: attributes such as amount of information, satisfaction with content and external links were mentioned frequently, as with other information quality studies on the web. The findings also support the claim that quality is a subjective concept which depends on the user's unique point of view. Attributes such as number of edits and number of unique editors received two contradictory meanings -both few edits/editors and many edits/editors were mentioned as attributes of high-quality articles.

In this study, we investigate the similarities and differences between rankings of search results by users and search engines. Sixty-seven students took part in a 3-week-long experiment, during which they were asked to identify and rank the top 10 documents from the set of URLs that were retrieved by three major search engines (Google, MSN Search, and Yahoo!) for 12 selected queries. The URLs and accompanying snippets were displayed in random order, without disclosing which search engine(s) retrieved any specific URL for the query. We computed the similarity of the rankings of the users and search engines using four nonparametric correlation measures in [0,1] that complement each other. The findings show that the similarities between the users' choices and the rankings of the search engines are low. We examined the effects of the presentation order of the results, and of the thinking styles of the participants. Presentation order influences the rankings, but overall the results indicate that there is no "average user," and even if the users have the same basic knowledge of a topic, they evaluate information in their own context, which is influenced by cognitive, affective, and physical factors. This is the first large-scale experiment in which users were asked to rank the results of identical queries. The analysis of the experimental results demonstrates the potential for personalized search.

We describe the results of an experiment designed to study user preferences for different orderings of search results from three major search engines. In the experiment, 65 users were asked to choose the best ordering from two different orderings of the same set of search results: Each pair consisted of the search engine's original top-10 ordering and a synthetic ordering created from the same top-10 results retrieved by the search engine. This process was repeated for 12 queries and nine different synthetic orderings. The results show that there is a slight overall preference for the search engines' original orderings, but the preference is rarely significant. Users' choice of the "best" result from each of the different orderings indicates that placement on the page (i.e., whether the result appears near the top) is the most important factor used in determining the quality of the result, not the actual content displayed in the top-10 snippets. In addition to the placement bias, we detected a small bias due to the reputation of the sites appearing in the search results.

Purpose -The purpose of this paper is to describe a study that examined the perceived credibility of blogs on the internet and the medical information published in them as perceived by the readers of these blogs. Design/methodology/approach -A total of six blogs each with two posts were constructed, one on conventional treatment and the other on an alternative treatment of diabetes. In total, 361 participants viewed one blog each and filled in a questionnaire of the perceived credibility of the blog, the author of the blog and its message. Findings -The results of the study indicate an attitude of scepticism and/or criticism of many aspects of the information in the blogs, together with the growing use of blogs to find information on medical topics. It seems that users apply scepticism as a way to deal with the lack of certainty as to the credibility of the information in spite of their desire and readiness to use this information.Research limitations/implications -The users who took part in the experiment did not actually have a real need for the health information provided in the blog posts. They only saw two blog posts in an artificial blog, and in order to fully assess credibility there is need for a longer-term interaction. Practical implications -Findings from this study may help the health community to design messages that are perceived as credible by the public. Originality/value -The users in this study, unlike previous studies, were more critical of the information presented to them. One possible reason could be their older age.

No abstract