arXivDaily arXiv每日学术速递 周一至周五更新
看起来今天可以划水了
arXiv 2011.00650cs.IRcs.LG
收藏

搜索引擎相似度分析:一种结合内容和排名的方法

Search Engine Similarity Analysis: A Combined Content and Rankings Approach

Athens University of Economics and Business(雅典经济与商业大学)

Konstantina Dritsa, Thodoris Sotiropoulos, Haris Skarpetis, Panos Louridas

摘要:

搜索引擎有什么不同?搜索引擎大战是网络分析师最喜欢的话题,因为世界上最大的两家公司,谷歌和微软,正在为争夺网络搜索空间的主导地位而战。搜索引擎受欢迎程度的差异可以通过其有效性或其他因素来解释,例如对最受欢迎的第一个引擎的熟悉程度,同行模仿或习惯力量。在这项工作中,我们提出了两个主要的搜索引擎,谷歌和必应,以及DuckDuckGo的亲和力的透彻分析,其中去了很大的篇幅,以强调其隐私友好的凭据。为此,我们使用2016年和2019年两个时间段的300个唯一查询的综合集合收集了搜索结果,并开发了一个新的相似性度量,该度量利用了搜索响应的内容和排名。我们评估了该度量的特征,并将其用于(1)调查搜索引擎结果的相似性,(2)它们的亲和力随时间的演变,(3)结果的哪些方面影响相似性,以及(4)该度量在不同类型的搜索服务中有何不同。我们发现,谷歌是与众不同的,但Bing和DuckDuckGo在很大程度上是无法区分的。

英文摘要:

How different are search engines? The search engine wars are a favorite topic of on-line analysts, as two of the biggest companies in the world, Google and Microsoft, battle for prevalence of the web search space. Differences in search engine popularity can be explained by their effectiveness or other factors, such as familiarity with the most popular first engine, peer imitation, or force of habit. In this work we present a thorough analysis of the affinity of the two major search engines, Google and Bing, along with DuckDuckGo, which goes to great lengths to emphasize its privacy-friendly credentials. To do so, we collected search results using a comprehensive set of 300 unique queries for two time periods in 2016 and 2019, and developed a new similarity metric that leverages both the content and the ranking of search responses. We evaluated the characteristics of the metric against other metrics and approaches that have been proposed in the literature, and used it to (1) investigate the similarities of search engine results, (2) the evolution of their affinity over time, (3) what aspects of the results influence similarity, and (4) how the metric differs over different kinds of search services. We found that Google stands apart, but Bing and DuckDuckGo are largely indistinguishable from each other.

机构、总结、中文摘要均由AI分析而来,可能存在错误,请以论文正文为准。

↑