I like Amy's suggestion to see both recommended or "profiled" search results, and general or "open" results
 
Bill Cayley, Jr, MD MDiv

Work:
Augusta Family Medicine
207 W Lincoln, Augusta, WI 54722
Tel: 715.286.2270
Pager: 715.838.7940

Home:
3604 Sharon Drive, Eau Claire, WI 54701
Tel: 715.830.0932
Mobile: 715.828.4636
 
 
"I think some of the most celebrated moments in human achievement should be those times when everything is going against a person and they are down in the dumps but they simply choose to get up. That's real greatness."   -- Ryan Hall

From: Amy Price <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2012 7:50 AM
Subject: Re: Search intentions

Dear Jon,

This is what Google does, I prefer to not be profiled as it limits my choices and I end up finding what I already know. If there was a  way to have a choice and see both suggested and open that would be great plus you could log what people find from the profiled list to see how successful it would be. 

Amy

From: Rakesh Biswas <[log in to unmask]>
Reply-To: Rakesh Biswas <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thursday, July 19, 2012 7:58 AM
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Search intentions

Thanks Jon,

Yes and the other thing we may need to test is to find out the 'context' for each individual search such as the origin of each search requirement ( was it to help individual patients or just an academic query with remote chance of their being able to directly help a patient?) and what was the outcome of their search (did it directly help a patient?).

I believe a substantial number of your searchers are trying to help individual patients in which case it may be interesting to see what were the kind of results their searches generated that eventually made a difference to their patients.

What was the proportion of Systematic reviews or RCTs or Case-Controls or Case reports in those search results that actually helped to answer their patient related queries and helped to generate decisions that led to a change of the patient outcomes?

best, rakesh

On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 5:09 PM, Jon Brassey <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Hi Rakesh,
 
Nice to hear from you.
 
We have 37,000+ registered users (and lots more unregistered users).  It's a global mix with lots of professions (doctors, nurses etc). 
 
Given our numbers and traffic I'm thinking we could probably see trends in usage between professions/countries etc. 
 
I'm keen to develop a tool and then test it to show it helps.  I'm thinking it'll probably help...!
 
BW
 
jon

On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 12:32 PM, Rakesh Biswas <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
This sounds very interesting! Would be nice to know more about the different backgrounds of your searchers.

:-)


On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 3:42 PM, Jon Brassey <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Hi All,
 
I'm wondering if anyone can link me to any literature on this matter and/or offer an opinion.
 
Search is problematic at the best of times.  People frequently search 'poorly' using single terms.  At TRIP the most frequent search terms are single disease areas (e.g. diabetes, hypertension) that yield large numbers of results.  One thing I'm interested in exploring is can we infer the search intention from the background of the searcher.  My thinking is based on a scenario such as 'diabetes'.  If you're a UK psychiatrist you are likely to have different information needs than, say, an American diabetologist and different again from a Malian nurse.  However, the same search terms are used and the same results returned.  In the examples I've highlighted two variables - geography and speciality.  But, there could be others e.g. 'rank' (e.g. a newly qualified GP will likely have different information needs to a GP nearing retirement).
 
Does anyone know of any literature that might explore these issues? 
 
moving on, and using the above example we could see what paper most psychiatrists look at for the search 'diabetes' (it might normally appear in position 9 of the search results) and for future boost the placement for subsequent psychiatrists searching for diabetes.  That';s the high level idea (so no expansion on things such as filter bubbles, clicking=like) etc.
 
I'd never intend to subvert the TRIP algorithm, but allow users to boost their results - if they want to.  But does it sound reasonable?
 
BW
 
jon
 
--
Jon Brassey
TRIP Database
http://www.tripdatabase.com/
TILT
http://tilt.tripdatabase.com/
 





--
Jon Brassey
TRIP Database
TILT