skip to main content
10.1145/3209978.3210149acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesirConference Proceedingsconference-collections
short-paper

A User Study on Snippet Generation: Text Reuse vs. Paraphrases

Published:27 June 2018Publication History

ABSTRACT

The snippets in the result list of a web search engine are built with sentences from the retrieved web pages that match the query. Reusing a web page's text for snippets has been considered fair use under the copyright laws of most jurisdictions. As of recent, notable exceptions from this arrangement include Germany and Spain, where news publishers are entitled to raise claims under a so-called ancillary copyright. A similar legislation is currently discussed at the European Commission. If this development gains momentum, the reuse of text for snippets will soon incur costs, which in turn will give rise to new solutions for generating truly original snippets. A key question in this regard is whether the users will accept any new approach for snippet generation, or whether they will prefer the current model of "reuse snippets." The paper in hand gives a first answer. A crowdsourcing experiment along with a statistical analysis reveals that our test users exert no significant preference for either kind of snippet. Notwithstanding the technological difficulty, this result opens the door to a new snippet synthesis paradigm.

References

  1. L. L. Bando, F. Scholer, and A. Turpin . 2010. Constructing Query-biased Summaries: A Comparison of Human and System Generated Snippets Proc. of IIiX. 195--204. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. P. B. Baxendale . 1958. Machine-Made Index for Technical Literature - An Experiment. IBM Journal of Research and Development Vol. 2, 4 (1958), 354--361. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. S. Brin and L. Page . 1998. The Anatomy of a Large-Scale Hypertextual Web Search Engine. Computer Networks, Vol. 30, 1--7 (1998), 107--117. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. S. Chopra, M. Auli, and A. M. Rush . 2016. Abstractive Sentence Summarization with Attentive Recurrent Neural Networks Proc. of NAACL/HLT.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. E. Cutrell and Z. Guan . 2007. What are you Looking for?: An Eye-tracking Study of Information Usage in Web Search Proc. of CHI. 407--416. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. M. Gambhir and V. Gupta . 2017. Recent Automatic Text Summarization Techniques: A Survey. Artificial Intelligence Review Vol. 47, 1 (2017), 1--66. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. L. A. Granka, T. Joachims, and G. Gay . 2004. Eye-tracking Analysis of User Behavior in WWW Search Proc. of SIGIR. 478--479. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Y. Huang, Z. Liu, and Y. Chen . 2008. Query biased Snippet Generation in XML Search. In Proc. of SIGMOD. 315--326. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. M. Kaisser, M. A. Hearst, and J. B. Lowe . 2008. Improving Search Results Quality by Customizing Summary Lengths Proc. of ACL. 701--709.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. J. Kim, P. Thomas, R. Sankaranarayana, T. Gedeon, and H. Yoon . 2017. What Snippet Size is Needed in Mobile Web Search? Proc. of CHIIR 2017. 97--106. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. H. P. Luhn . 1958. The Automatic Creation of Literature Abstracts. IBM Journal of Research and Development Vol. 2, 2 (1958), 159--165. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. D. Maxwell, L. Azzopardi, and Y. Moshfeghi . 2017. A Study of Snippet Length and Informativeness: Behaviour, Performance and User Experience Proc. of SIGIR. 135--144. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. C. McMahon, I. Johnson, and B. Hecht . 2017. The Substantial Interdependence of Wikipedia and Google: A Case Study on the Relationship Between Peer Production Communities and Information Technologies Proc. of ICWSM.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. R. Nallapati, B. Zhou, C. Nogueira dos Santos, cC. Gülccehre, and B. Xiang . 2016. Abstractive Text Summarization using Sequence-to-Sequence RNNs and Beyond Proc. of CoNLL.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. J. Pedersen, D. Cutting, and J. Tukey . 1991. Snippet Search: A single phrase approach to text access. In Proc. of the 1991 Joint Statistical Meetings.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. T. Penin, H. Wang, T. Tran, and Y. Yu . 2008. Snippet Generation for Semantic Web Search Engines Proc. of ASWC. 493--507. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. M. Potthast, W. Chen, M. Hagen, and B. Stein . 2018. A Plan for Ancillary Copyright: Original Snippets Proc. of NewsIR, Vol. Vol. 2079. CEUR-WS.org, 3--5.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. A. M. Rush, S. Chopra, and J. Weston . 2015. A Neural Attention Model for Abstractive Sentence Summarization Proc. of EMNLP.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. D. Savenkov, P. Braslavski, and M. Lebedev . 2011. Search Snippet Evaluation at Yandex: Lessons Learned and Future Directions Proc. of CLEF 2011. 14--25. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. A. See, P. J. Liu, and C. D. Manning . 2017. Get To The Point: Summarization with Pointer-Generator Networks Proc. of ACL.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. B. Suh, G. Convertino, E. H. Chi, and P. Pirolli . 2009. The singularity is not near: slowing growth of Wikipedia Proc. of WikiSym. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. S. Thomaidou, I. Lourentzou, P. Katsivelis-Perakis, and M. Vazirgiannis . 2013. Automated Snippet Generation for Online Advertising Proc. of CIKM. 1841--1844. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. A. Tombros and M. Sanderson . 1998. Advantages of Query Biased Summaries in Information Retrieval Proc. of SIGIR. 2--10. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. A. Turpin, Y. Tsegay, D. Hawking, and H. E. Williams . 2007. Fast Generation of Result Snippets in Web Search Proc. of SIGIR. 127--134. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. R. White, I. Ruthven, and J. M. Jose . 2002 a. Finding Relevant Documents Using Top Ranking Sentences: An Evaluation of Two Alternative Schemes. In Proc. of SIGIR. 57--64. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. R. White, I. Ruthven, and J. M. Jose . 2002 b. The Use of Implicit Evidence for Relevance Feedback in Web Retrieval Proc. of ECIR. 93--109. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. A User Study on Snippet Generation: Text Reuse vs. Paraphrases

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Login options

        Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

        Sign in
        • Published in

          cover image ACM Conferences
          SIGIR '18: The 41st International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research & Development in Information Retrieval
          June 2018
          1509 pages
          ISBN:9781450356572
          DOI:10.1145/3209978

          Copyright © 2018 ACM

          Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

          Publisher

          Association for Computing Machinery

          New York, NY, United States

          Publication History

          • Published: 27 June 2018

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • short-paper

          Acceptance Rates

          SIGIR '18 Paper Acceptance Rate86of409submissions,21%Overall Acceptance Rate792of3,983submissions,20%

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader