Considering the tradeoff of clustering and ranked list, Allan, Leuski, Swan, and Byrd (2001) combined clustering with the traditional ranked list to overcome the problems of only providing ranked list or clustering and have the benefits of the two techniques. They first evaluated the effectiveness of two versions of the system in the TREC 6 Interactive Track: one with and another one without visualization that combines a ranked list with clustering. There was no significant advantage to using the visualization, although the researchers observed examples where the visualization offered valuable help. According to Allan et al. (2001), the reasons for the results cannot be detected in the Interactive Track environment because the value of visualization might be obscured by other variations in users and systems. A new system was built to incorporate interdocument similarity visualization to the ranked list. Using the TREC collection and relevance judgments, they conducted a noninteractive study evaluating the performance of the ranked list, relevance feed- back, and the combination of ranked list and clustering. The results showed that the combination outperformed the ranked list. This approach is as powerful as the relevance feedback approach, but much easier for searchers to understand. In TREC10, Craswell, Hawking, Wilkinson, and Wu (2002) further investigated the correlation between the three delivery mechanisms (a ranked list interface, a clustering interface, and an integrated interface with ranked list, clustering structure, and expert links) and two searching tasks (search for an individual document and a set of documents). They then conducted experiments with 24 subjects with three groups: Group 1 subjects were informed about the characteristics of each searching mechanism; Group 2 subjects were informed about the advantages of each search mechanism related to the type of tasks; and Group 3 subjects used two interfaces: the ranked list interface and the clustering interface. The researchers found no significant difference among the groups in terms of the number of documents read. Subjects from Group 3 used the least time when using ranked list interface, probably because they concentrated on one interface without distraction. Overall, search tasks did not affect the use of delivery mechanism, and searchers only used one delivery mechanism.
More...
Read more