Reasons for Information Problem Search Ordering

The study participants were asked to provide the reasons for their information problem search ordering on the post-Web search questionnaire. Further explanations were solicited during the post Web-search interview. Results show that the perceived factors mainly decided the searching order.

Table 4-14 lists the perceived factors that affected information problem searching order by each study participant.

Table 4-14. Factors affecting information problem search ordering

Table 4-14. (Continued)

116

Table 4-15 summarises the factors that affected study participants' information problem searching order.

Table 4-15. Summary of the factors affecting multiple information problems search ordering

Factors Number %

Level of problem importance—high to low 12 29

Randomness/ no specific reasons 11 26

Ease of finding information—high to low 10 24

Task Logic 7 17

Level of problem urgency—high to low 6 14

Task interest—high to low 6 14

Ease of finding information—low to high 4 10

Level of problem familiarity—high to low 3 7

Level of problem importance—low to high 2 5

Future usefulness 2 5

It shows that multiple information problem search ordering was affected by the following factors: problem importance level, random order, ease of finding information on the Web, task logic, problem urgency level, task interest, problem familiarity level, and future usefulness.

• Problem importance level—high to low (N=12, 29%), randomness (N=11, 26%), and ease of finding information—high to low (N=10, 24%) were the major factors in determining information problem search ordering.

• Followed by task logic (N=7, 17%), problem urgency level—high to low (N=6, 14%), task interest (N=6, 14%), ease of finding information—low to high (N=4, 10%), and problem familiarity level—high to low (N=3, 7%).

• The last two factors, problem importance level—low to high (N=2, 5%) and future usefulness (N=2, 5%), were little considered when ordering the searching tasks.

The findings are different from Spink, Park and Koshman’s (2006) conclusions, in which task interest and problem familiarity level were the two major ordering factors.

117

For each factor identified in this study, detailed interpretations were presented in the following paragraphs.

1). Level of Problem Importance—High to Low

Almost 29% of the study participants ordered their information problems from the most important to less important ones. It was the largest percentage compared to other factors.

Examples:

• They were in order of the importance. Problem 1 was the most important. I was interested in problem 2, but it was not really important. I’ve already found some information on problem 3, it was less important. (Study Participant 9)

• The first searched problem was the most important one. It was a necessary topic in my PhD thesis. The second problem mattered to job hunting, but was less important. And the third one was not important at all. (Study Participant 22)

2). Randomness/ No Specific Reasons

Interestingly, the second most considered factor was randomness. 26% of the study participants stated that they ordered the multiple information problems without any specific reasons.

Examples:

• Randomness was listed as the only factor. (Study Participant 1)

118

• They were just popped up in my mind, no specific reasons. (Study Participant 8)

• Three problems were not related, there was no need to order them intentionally. (Study Participant 18)

• I did not mean to order them, I just wrote them down in that order. They were ordered pretty much randomly. (Study Participant 25)

3). Ease of Finding Information—High to Low

Some 24% of the study participants listed high ease of finding information on the Web as a major factor. They tended to leave the most involved problem to the last.

Examples:

• Problem 1 was easier. I thought I would take less time. Problem 2 was more difficult which I may take longer time. Problem 3 was a very broad problem.

I knew it would take the longest time. (Study Participant 12)

• I was very confident to find the information easily on the first problem. For Problem 2, a bit more difficult, also it was my main interest really today. And problem 3 was a complex question in many ways. (Study Participant 17)

4). Task Logic

Another 17% of the study participants ordered their multiple information problems in a logical way.

Examples:

• The three information problems were ordered depending on the development of the theory. (Study Participant 2)

119

• The searching sequence was the order that I would do my analysis. (Study Participant 7)

• All three problems were related in a sequence manner. Problem 3 was dependent on the first two problems. So I started with problem 1, followed by problem 2 and ended up with problem 3. (Study Participant 20)

5). Level of Problem Urgency —High to Low

Some 14% of the study participants listed high urgency as a major factor.

Examples:

• I was trying to find problem 1 out as I would have a party on this Friday. It’s the most urgent one. I had to do problem 2. It was important but not urgent.

Problem 3 was neither urgent nor important. We would have a meeting next week. (Study Participant 35)

• Problem 1 was about my assignment which was due to 23rd May, this Friday, just two days after. It really mattered. I really needed some results.

(Study Participant 41)

6). Task Interest—High to Low

Another 14% of the study participants put the most interesting problem as the first search.

Examples:

• I liked playing games online which was my interest. I preferred to search for information on it firstly. I did not like Problem 2, but I had to do it at workplace. I always tried to avoid it and did it in the last minute. (Study Participant 5)

120

• Problem 1 and problem 2 were the tasks I really wanted to do, they were more interesting. Problem 3 was the task I had to do. (Study Participant 11)

7). Ease of Finding Information—Low to High

Interestingly, four study participants preferred to work firstly on the problems which they felt harder to find information on the Web.

Example:

• I did problem 1 first as I knew it must take most of time to find the information that I wanted. For the other two problems, I did not think they would take more than five minutes each. (Study Participant 4)

8). Level of Problem Familiarity—High to Low

Three study participants ordered their Web searches according to the high familiarity level.

Example:

• I started from the area which I knew better so that I knew where to start.

(Study Participant 13)

9). Level of Problem Importance—Low to High

Two study participants firstly searched for information on the problems which were viewed less important.

Example:

• I wanted to put the most important one at last and spent more time on it.

(Study Participant 31)

121

10). Usefulness in Future

Two study participants considered future usefulness as a factor affecting searching order.

Examples:

• The resolution of problem 1 would help me in my future workplace. (Study Participant 5)

• Tax refund problem was listed as the third one because it would be helpful in future. (Study Participant 41)

11). Multiple Factors Applied

Multiple factors were applicable for the explanations of search ordering. In real-life Web searching, information problems search ordering was normally determined by more than one factor, which was more complex than our expectation. Listed here are some examples:

• The first information problem of getting a cheap bicycle was a real problem in my life and I needed it now. I knew it would be easier for me to find information on the other two problems. The third problem was regarded to my task interest. I searched it just for fun. (Study Participant 3)

Three factors—high problem urgency, task interest, and lease of finding information on the Web (low-to-high)—were all considered when ordering his three information problems.

122

• Problem 1 was the most important one. I was interested in Problem 2, but it was not really important. Problem 3 was not interesting. (Study Participant 9)

Both problem importance level (high-to-low) and task interest were considered in this case.

• I had different levels of confidence in finding the required information on the three problems. I searched for the topics which I thought I would find first and the less likely searches followed. Also I had to finish the first problem of my assignment by this weekend. It was the most urgent one. After this weekend, I could have a holiday like surfing. (Study Participant 16)

In this case, ease of finding information (high-to-low) and problem urgency level (high-to-low) were viewed as two factors.

• Problem 1 was a background of my PhD research. I spent the longest time on it as it was the most important information problem. Another reason I ordered it as the first one was that I thought it could be solved, it was a solvable question. I could get satisfied results. Problem 2 was also related to my PhD research. But I was not that sure whether it could be solved through the searching. (Study Participant 19)

Here, problem importance level (high-to-low) and ease of finding relevant information (high-to-low) were two determined factors.