september 2016 - university of...
TRANSCRIPT
1
A comparison of Google and Baidu: How do Chinese users assess the
quality of the information retrieved for them by the two search engines?
A study submitted in partial fulfilment
of the requirements for the degree of
Postgraduate
at
THE UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD
by
SEN WANG
September 2016
2
ABSTRACT
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to determine do Chinese users assess the
quality of the information retrieved from Baidu and Google and make a comparison
for performance of Baidu and Google during the process of users searching.
Design/methodology/approach – The authors interviewed Chinese users to observe
record, and analyse the criteria used by Chinese users when seeking and evaluating
information for a topic, comparing the performance of Baidu and Google.
Findings –Three main steps are adopted when Chinese assess the quality of
information: pre-judgement, look at the display of website and look at the content of
website. Each step has many detailed criteria. In the study, Google had a better
performance than Baidu.
Keywords – Search engine, criteria of evaluating information, Chinese users
3
1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 5
2. LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................................ 6
2.1PERSPECTIVES OF INFORMATION CREDIBILITY ....................................................... 6
2.2 PRECEIVED WEBSITE QUALITY ............................................................................. 10
2.3 PRECEIVED CONTENT OR MESSAGE CREDIBILITY ................................................. 14
2.4 PRECEIVED CREDIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR OR CONTENT CREATOR ........................ 20
2.5 BAIDU VERSUS GOOGLE AND HOW USERS ASSESS THE TWO SEARCH ENGINES ..... 20
3. METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................ 23
4. RESULT .................................................................................................................. 27
4.1EVALUATION CRITERIA ......................................................................................... 27
4.1.1Pre-judgment ................................................................................................ 27
4.1.2 Display of websites ..................................................................................... 32
4.1.3 Content ........................................................................................................ 37
4.2 PROCESS OF EVALUATING ONLINE INFORMATION SOURCES .................................. 46
4.3 COMPARISON OF BAIDU AND GOOGLE ................................................................. 48
5.DISCUSSION .......................................................................................................... 50
5.1 SUITABILITY OF THE ADOPTED RESEARCH APPROACH .......................................... 50
5.2 EVALUATION CRITERIA ....................................................................................... 51
5.2.1Pre-judgment of hyperlinks .......................................................................... 51
5.2.2 Website assessment ..................................................................................... 54
4
5.2.3 Content evaluation ...................................................................................... 56
5.3 BAIDU VERSUS GOOGLE ...................................................................................... 60
6.CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................... 61
7. APPENDICES ........................................................................................................ 65
7.1 ETHICAL FORM ..................................................................................................... 65
7.2 PARTICIPANT CONSENT FORM .............................................................................. 66
7.3APPROVAL LETTER ........................................................................................ 67
8. REFERENCES ................................................................................................... 68
5
1. Introduction
This paper aims to explore two aspects which is relevant to behaviors of information searching:
1. How Chinese users assess the quality of information retrieved from Baidu and Google?
2. Which one has a better performance in searching high quality information between Baidu and Google?
As online information has proliferated during past decade, the website has become the
primary source of information for many people (Jansen & Spink, 2006). Lots of
scholars started to explore the criteria of credible information, many papers
concentrated on specific field, for instance, health-information (Rains & Karmikel,
2009), information in twitter (Castillo, Mendoza, & Poblete, 2011), advice
site(McKnight & Kacmar, 2006).
However, at the beginning, only a few of scholars did useful studies on how to
evaluate general information of website (Fritch & Cromwell, 2001). Some studies
focus more on function of search engines, for example, result lists of search engine
(Davis et al., 2001), and general knowledge for search engine (Ryan, Ryan, Ryan,
Munro, & Robinson, 2002). Metzger (2007) indicated scholars could do more study
about how users evaluate the non-specific information.
6
In recent years, many scholars tended to focus on exploring the criteria of assessing
credibility of information. For example, Madden et al, 2012, Pickard et al,2010,
Walraven, 2009. Their studies are brilliant and gave a gudiance to this paper.
The main differences between previous studies and this paper is that the research
selected specific subjects, which are Chinese users and two search engines (Baidu and
Google). CNNIC reported that there are about 536 million search engine users in
China by June 2015 (2015). That is a very large user group. So, Chinese users can be
very representative. Search engines as the necessary tools for information searching
behavior, are very important for users. Baidu is the most widely-used search engine in
China and Google is most popular search engine in Europe. Therefore, the two search
engines are typical for research.
2. Literature review
2.1Perspectives of Information Credibility
Credibility is quite complex and multifaceted. Source, receiver, message, medium and
context, all of them are important factors (Wathen, 2002). The researcher gave more
details about these factors (as showed in Table 1).
Factor Issues Source • Expertise/Knowledge
• Likeability/Goodwill/Dynamism • Similarity to receiver beliefs • Attractiveness • Trustworthiness • Credentials
Receiver • Issue relevance
7
• Motivation (i.e., need for the information) • “Social location” • Prior knowledge of the issue • Stereotypes about source or topic • Issue involvement • Values/beliefs/situation
Message or Content • Topic/content • Internal validity/consistency • Plausibility of arguments • Supported by data • Framing (loss or gain)
Medium • Organization • Usability • Presentation • Vividness
Context • Distraction/“noise” • Time since message encountered
Table 1 Examples of factors influencing credibility (taken from Wathen & Burkell,
2002, p. 136).
Wathen (2002) also posed a model (Figure 1) for how users evaluate the reliability of
internet information.
8
Figure 1: Proposed model for how users judge the credibility of online information
(taken from Wathen, 2002).
In his 2004 study, Liu designed a questionaire that included 20 simple questions about
how users assess the credibility of scholarly information on the web. The
questionnaire has two questions which are close relevant to the topic of this
dissertation: ‘What are the three most important criteria you use in evaluating the
credibility of scholarly information on the web’ and ‘When you assess the credibility
of scholarly information on the web, what features make the information less
9
credible?’. The researcher sent questionnaires to participants who are undergraduate
students and graduate students from diverse disciplines. In total,135 questionnaires
were collected including 128 completed questionnaires and seven incomplete
questionnaires. The results indicated features can be used to evaluate the quality of
information are content, authorship, layout and structure. The result showed users are
more likely to think the content of information is good when the information and the
site in general are well-organized, and has a good logic, spelling and grammar.
Besides, not trying to sell something is very important for good content.
Drawing insights from Liu (2004) and Wathen (2002), the main content of this
literature review focused on the following three major credibility criteria: medium or
site quality, content credibility, and source credibility. A medium refers to a platform
where Web-based information or content is created and/or shared, for example, blogs,
corporate websites, portals, personal sites, brand-building sites, click-to-donate sites,
community sites, e-commerce sites, and wikis. Basically, people judge the credibility
of various types of media differently, for example, the overall structure and visual
design. The content perspective considers information credibility based on the actual
message communicated via a medium. For example, how focused, authentic, current,
relevant, or insightful is the content or message presented on a corporate website.
From the source dimension, information credibility judgments are based on the users’
perceptions regarding the creator of content. Content creators can be an individual,
community, or an organization. For example, users may consider the reputation or
background experience of the content creator to make credibility judgments.
10
2.2 Preceived website quality
According to Wathen (2002), the following are the key website credibility measures:
appearance or presentation (colours, graphics, font size, no obvious errors, and
attention to detail); usability or interface design (navigability and menus, interactivity,
and download speed); and how information is organized). In his study, Liu (2004)
discovered that students evaluate layout and structure are good according to whether
the websites have a clear layout and fewer advertisements and pictures, well
documented, and usability and visual design. In addition, there are some other
features that play an important role in evaluating credibility of websites and
information, for example, URL domain such as .edu and .gov, the price of
information, the publisher of information, and the verification of information.
In their study, Burton and Chadwick (2000) did a survey that involved 543 students
from Western University to investigate how they assess resources and websites of
interest from the Internet. The results showed that students thought resources and
websites that are easy to find, access, and understand are trustworthy. While Burton
and Chadwick (2000) found the ease of finding, accessing, and understanding
websites as critical to perceived trustworthiness; Castillo, Mendoza, and Poblete,
(2011) indicated that users tend to treat resources they find applicable to their
immediate needs as credible because they seem be published out of goodwill or care.
Similar findings were documented by Rubin and Liddy (2006) who indicated that the
relevance of blogs promotes engagement, confidence, and positive beliefs and
attitudes, and credibility as a consequent. However, they add competence as another
11
evaluation criterion of medium credibility.
McKnight and Kacmar (2006) did a study to research the criteria of information
quality for an internet advice site. They organized 571 students from U.S. University
as participants, producing 504 usable responses. Then they used quantitative method
to test a model designed by themselves (as shown in Figure 2), and the result showed
perceived information credibility includes general dispositions (Faith in Humanity,
Suspicion of Humanity, and risk propensity), technology dispositions (internet anxiety
and trust in technology), and initial impressions. In the disposition of first
impressions, they found the following factors as critical to site quality – ‘trusting
beliefs, perceived reputation, and willingness to explore the site – were important to
build website credibility’.
Figure 2 (Taken from McKnight & Kacmar, 2006)
Mcknight & Kacmar (2007) did an another study which is related to the research they
did in 2006. They used quantitative method to test a model (Figure 3) which was
12
designed for evaluating medium credibility. The results showed this model was
credible. Besides, the study of Mcknight & Kacmar (2007, p. 430) gave a support that
three first impressions of the website are – ‘trusting, perceived reputation, and
willingness to explore the website – establish initial information credibility’. The
conclusion is similar to the previous research that Mcknight & Kacmar did in 2006,
the subsequent study found belief was constructed by three general dispositions:
suspicion of humanity, trust in general technology, and risk propensity.
Figure 3(Taken from McKnight & Kacmar, 2007)
Metzger (2007) analyzed many existing criteria and methods which are studied on
how to assess credibility of information and websites. He proposed a model (Figure 4)
13
to evaluate information based on previous studies.
Figure 4 (Taken from Metzger, 2007)
Madden, Ford, Gorrell, Eaglestone, and Holdridge (2012) explored how people assess
the credibility of a site, and used purely qualitative methods in their study. They
discovered that the first impressions is a major assessment criteria (the interviewee
said there are four factors are related to perceive first impressions: name - users will
judge whether websites have authority by observing names of websites; user prejudice
- the positive prejudice for websites influences users assessment of the website; and
website description and URL - users thought URL ended by .edu and .gov are more
trustworthy). Website appearance and accountability, including elements such as
advertisement placement, visual design, layout, presence of references, constitute a
critical credibility evaluation factor. At the end, they draw a basic model to indicate
stages of search at which stage evaluative factors begin to come into effect (Figure 5).
14
Figure 5 (Taken from Madden et al., 2012)
Abdulla et al (2002) analyzed criteria of evaluating credibility of online newspapers.
They identified three main criteria: trustworthiness, currency, and bias.
2.3 Preceived content or message credibility
Head and Eisenberg (2009, p. 3) explored how students assess quality and reliability
of resources retrieved from the search engines through ‘everyday life research’. They
asked students to make a report of their search activities. Reports included the
difficulties when students want to seek useful information or resources. Students
reported that searching for academic is more difficult and complex than searching for
some general information. Because academic resources need more knowledge to
assess the credibility and authority. Reports also referred to how students evaluated
the resources and information they got from search engines or other approaches. The
core criteria for students are authority and content of resources. Currie, Devlin, Emde,
and Graves (2010) interviewed 10 undergraduate students at the University of Kansas.
They observed the students to find out more about how users searched for credible
sources. Users thought publisher of information and sources is a key factor to assess
credibility of information.
15
Hung (2004, pp. 5–11) researched how students assess web resources for class papers.
This case found the following five major constructs: coverage, accuracy, authority,
objectivity, and currency. On the other hand, Metzger, Flanagin, and Zwarun (2003)
did a study about credibility and verification of academic and non-academic Web-
based information. This study involved 436 student volunteers from Universities and
307 non-student respondents recruited using ‘snowball sampling’ technique. They
posed a series of research questions guided by the TAM (Technology Acceptance
Model) and diffusion theory to construe what are criteria of volunteers used to assess
the credibility of information. The research questions most relevant to this project are:
‘Do students and non-students vary in their perceptions of the credibility of various
types of information (i.e., news, reference, entertainment, and commercial) across
different media?’; and ‘To what extent do student and non-student users verify online
information and what specific verification strategies do students, in particular, use?’
(Metzger et al., 2003, p. 281). Findings from this study indicated that the Web is a
major source of informational (academic and general) resources for college students.
However, college students were found to be less concerned about the credibility of
Web-based information, thus they rarely verify the accuracy and timeliness of online
resources. Nevertheless, the study indicated that students assess credibility based on
the type and source of information of interest – either academic or general. Like
previous studies (Abdulla et al., 2002; Burton & Chadwick, 2000; Fritch & Cromwell
2001; Hung, 2004), Metzger et al (2003) found that currency, completeness, and
authority, and competence of content as critical credibility assessment factors.
16
Content such as customer relations, brand reputation, and legal protection represent
key pillars of accountability, and eventually credibility. Moreover, users assess
whether the content is genuine or phony - authorship, quality of writing, quality of
references, corroboration, bias, evidence of maintenance, and evidence of research
(Madden et al., 2012).
In a research involving 21 participants, Eysenbach and Kohler (2002) explored how
users evaluate the credibility of health information from Internet. The study has three
stages, starting with concentrating on groups to determine the principles; users
described whether health information retrieved from Internet is credible. The next
step is researchers observe participants to seek information, when they found
participants look confident about the information or websites, making a record. The
third stage is interviewing participants for how they evaluate online health
information and what criteria they use to decide whether information is trustworthy.
Participants said criteria of credible information are whether the source was published
by a reputable individual/organization, whether the websites cited scientific
references, whether the page has technical design and layout, whether the website is
easy to access, whether the language of the content is easy to understand.
Pickard, Gannon-leary, and Coventry (2010) did a project named ‘Users’ trust in
information resources in the Web’. They divided this project into two phases. First
phase is to analyse existing studies and researches. In the second phase, they made a
questionnaire according to the factors they got from the first phase. Then they sent out
17
e-mails about their project to the users (students, academic tutors and researchers) and
providers (commercial service providers and HE information service providers) from
the North East of England. After that, they will send another attached the questionaire
to people who responded positively to the first e-mail.When they got responses to the
questionnaire, they started to analyse the responses and draw a Model of User trust in
information resources in the Web environment (Figure 6).
Figure 6: Model of User User trust in information resources in the web environment
(taken from Pickard et al., 2010)
They divided the factors to external factors and internal factors as shown in Table 2.
External Internal
1. Whether users have to pay for the
information e.g. Students are not
willing to pay for internet
information.
2. Seals of approval
3. Credibility rating systems and
1. Need for closure
2. Need for cognition
3. Purpose
4. Prior knowledge
5. Time available
6. Ability
18
recommendations by others
4. PIC labels
5. Rankings
7. Cognitive limits
8. Propensity to trust
9. Risk propensity
10. Internet anxiety
11. Information searching vs
information assessment and some
caveats
12. How students use the web for
research
Table 2: External factors and internal factors (taken from Pickard et al., 2010)
Tombros et al (2005) asked 24 participants to describe what constituted useful
information on the Web pages they chose to view. In this research, participants needed
to give a valuation for the features (such as text, structure and etc.) of the website by
answering a questionnaire. Participants also were asked to state features which they
used to evaluate whether the websites are useful or not. The descriptions by
participants can help the researcher to construe the criteria how volunteers evaluate
the content. Metzger, Flanagin, and Zwarun (2003) did a study about credibility and
verification of Web-based information. This study involved 436 student volunteers
from Universities and 307 nonstudent volunteers recruited using a ‘snowball
sampling’ technique. They posed a series of research questions guided by the TAM
(Technology Acceptance Model) and diffusion theory to construe what are criteria of
19
volunteers used to assess the credibility of information. The research questions most
relevant to this project are: ‘Do students and nonstudents vary in their perceptions of
the credibility of various types of information (i.e., news, reference, entertainment,
and commercial) across different media?’; and ‘To what extent do student and
nonstudent users verify online information and what specific verification strategies do
students, in particular, use?’ (Metzger et al., 2003, p. 281). The results indicated the
factors included: whether the information is current, whether the information is
complete, whether the views represented are facts or opinions, seek out other sources
to validate the information online and consider the author’s goals/objectives for
posting information. In this case, about forty-four participants’ final comments are
related to content. All students have mentioned that quality of content is a factor at
least once during interviews. Familiarity was the most frequently mentioned criterion.
Fifteen percent of participants’ comments are related to their prior use or exposure to
a source.
Walraven, Brand-gruwel, and Boshuizen (2009) did a study about how students
evaluate information and sources retrieved from the internet. Twenty-three students
participated in this study. Students had to complete a series of searching tasks given
by researchers. The results showed usability, verifiability, and reliability are the key
assessment criteria. The core factors of usability are connection to task and language.
The core factors of verifiability are author, information agrees with more sites,
information agrees with prior knowledge and organization. The main factor of
reliability is the kind of information.
20
2.4 Preceived credibility of the author or content
creator
Generally, websites and information resources published by authoritative persons
and/or organizations are worthier to believe in (Burton & Chadwick, 2000). Fritch
and Cromwell (2001) adopted a different model and indicated that the key factors of
how users evaluate websites are the author and institutional affiliation. Therefore, the
authoritativeness of content creators (either individuals or organizations) has emerged
as a key measure of credibility (Burton & Chadwick, 2000; Fritch & Cromwell 2001).
Twait (2005) did a study which utilized a form of non-probability sampling called
‘purposeful sampling’ to explore what are undergraduate students’ source selection
criteria. Researchers sent e-mails about the study to students of Gustavus Adolphus
College. Then the researchers interviewed students who responded. A total of thirteen
students were involved in this study. During the interviews, participants were asked to
describe what are the criteria of evaluating sources. The result showed the key criteria
including content, familiarity and reputation. Some other factors which were not key
were studied include expertise or competence, trustworthiness, and credentials,
external influence, and background/experience regarding the author or content creator
(Wathen, 2002).
2.5 Baidu versus Google and how users assess the two
search engines
While Baidu is a Chinese-based search engine, Google Search (or simply Google) is
21
based in the U.S. However, the two tools serve a global user community. The two search
engine tools support searches for public online resources such as websites, video and
audio files, and images held in web servers as opposed to privately controlled databases
(Quelch & Jocz, 2010). In addition, common services between these tools include
support for a wide array of functionalities beyond mere searching, for example, maps,
stock trends, news, flight schedules, movie show times, and weather forecasts. The two
search engine tools dominate their domestic market – Baidu (more than 80% in China)
and Google (approximately 65% in the U.S.). However, Google remains the most
popular search engine on the Web in terms of usage. The global dominance of Google
can be attributed to the following major factors: support for approximately 120
languages, thus its penetration across nations apart from China where Baidu is the Web-
based search leader due to government censorship; and support for use of natural
language to search as opposed to mere text-based search, which translates to adoption
of a future outlook to searching experience. Therefore, many users tend to find Google
irresistible, and the search engine tool has managed to control close to 90% of the global
search activity compared to a mere 1% enjoyed by Baidu (Jiang, 2014; O'Rourke IV,
Harris, & Ogilvy, 2007).
There are a number of studies that have been conducted to investigate how Baidu
compare to Google from the point of view of Chinese users (Jiang, 2014; Long, Lv,
Zhao, & Liu, 2007; Liu, Zhang, & Chen, 2010). What factors do Chinese users consider
when assessing the quality of information resources derived from Baidu and Google?
A study by Jiang (2014) indicated that the ‘search’ performance is the major factor that
22
may be used to assess Baidu and Google among Chinese users. The study showed that
Baidu returns more search results than Google provided that the keyword constitutes a
hot issue, term, or concept related to China. On the other hand, users indicated that
Google is better suited for concepts and terms that are foreign to China. In their study
that involved an experimental approach using Chinese keywords, Long et al (2007)
discovered that Google delivered a significant number of search results than Baidu, but
their accuracy could not match that of the latter. This became evident after a detailed
analysis of the first 5 pages. Chinese users find Baidu to be more powerful than Google
because the former is easy-to-use and it meets the relevance constraint associated with
domestic (Chinese) context and content. The perceived ease of use associated with
Baidu among Chinese users can be attributed to the fact that it returns a precise list of
results because of its relatively better mastery of the complex Chinese dialect and
culture compared to the more complicated and relatively vague Google when it comes
such matters (Liu et al., 2010; Long et al., 2007). Google’s vagueness can be attributed
to overdependence on the traditional and simplified Chinese language that does not
accommodate different contexts of usage. Therefore, Baidu’s dominance in China can
be attributed to the following factors that have also been indicated by other studies
(Head & Eisenberg, 2009; Hung, 2004; Metzger et al., 2004; Pickard et al., 2010;
Walraven et al., 2009): reliability or perceived usefulness, accuracy, completeness, bias
against the more foreign-oriented Google, whether the language of the content is easy
to understand, and relevance.
23
3. Methodology
This paper concentrates on identifying and describing the behaviors of Chinese
students using two different search engines. It focuses on particular on the criteria
they use for evaluating the websites they find in the course of their searches. The
qualitative was adopted in this study. This paper would take interviews as a main
way, mixed the observation method as a secondary way. During the interviews,
researcher would to observe the participants searching behavior and asked further
questions to identify the motivation of their behavior.
Participants:
In order to recruit participants for this study, researcher sent e-mails about this study
to the Chinese students at The University of Sheffield that he knows. Besides,
researcher also sent the message about his study in Chinese chat group of Sheffield
via social medias (such as WeChat and weibo). Students who are willing to be
involved in this study contacted the researcher. When researcher received the
response of volunteers, the exact place, date and time for the interview were
scheduled. Totally, ten volunteers participated in this study.
Interview:
Interview was applied in this study because it is a basic way to collect data and
sources for qualitative method. It has some elementary steps(Gubrium & Holstein,
2002):
24
1. Interviewer visits to interviewees to have a talk (face-to-face, phone e-mail)
2. Ask interviewees questions, making records
3. Do systemic analysis based on records to draw a conclusion of the interview.
The three questions form the core pillars of interviews.
This study chose the face-to-face interviews as the main approach with a video or
radio record. Interview also have lots of types. This paper is going to the general
interview guide approach as the core type. The general interview guide approach will
prepare an outline in advance, but it does need to follow the outline strictly (Gubrium
& Holstein, 2002).The reason that research took interviews as the main may is
interview is flexible, in-depth, direct, and effective (Gubrium & Holstein, 2002):
The interviews for this paper involved followed steps (adapted from Madden et al,
2012):
The first step is to request volunteers to select a topic in which they feel they are
knowledgeable or interested and search for resources that would help to educate a
non-expert in the subject. If the researcher allows volunteers to look for anything,
they may choose a subject that interests them but about which they know nothing. If
that is the case, their evaluation is likely to be based on learned heuristics and bias. If,
by contrast, they know something about the subject, there is the possibility that they
can use their own knowledge to help them evaluate. And then ask the volunteers to do
the following:
a) Search for three useful resources using Baidu which is the most widely used search
engine in China
25
b) Search for three useful resources using Google which is the most widely used
search engine in Europe.
c) Rank the resources according to which they think are the best.
d) Get them to describe the criteria they use in their ranking.
Researcher needs to limit volunteers so that they only look at the first page of
results. Researcher may also need to offer some prompts to help people think of a
search topic (for example, your home city, the football team you support, your
favorite singer and so on). Besides, researcher also asked the volunteer to use the
same keyword during interview. Researcher also adapted the search protocol after
initial sessions. Because volunteers focused on familiar sites, thus researcher asked
volunteers to select sites that were new to them.
After the volunteers finished searching behavior, some questions were proposed：
1. Why you consider these websites are credible?
2. What are the key criteria to assess information?
3. Why you do not believe these websites?
4. Could you describe the basic order or model to evaluate the information from
retrieved from a search engine?
In the process of interview, observation method should be involved.
In the process, interviewer needed to observe the interviewee to ask some further
questions. There are some basic steps for observation method (Taylor, Bogdan, &
DeVault, 2015):
1. Determine the observation plan and targets.
26
2. Enter the place of the observation.
3. Start observing and recording.
4. Finish the observing.
In the process of interview, when interviewee chooses three useful resources,
researcher would observe how they choose useful resources, asking why they choose
these resources, recording their answers, and their behaviors and thoughts. Some
questions were proposed according to observation:
1. Why you close this site?
2. Why you close the site directly?
3. Why you did not open this link?
After collecting the data and sources, research did systematic analysis according
to data and records, to identify and describe how Chinese users assess the quality of
information retrieved from two search engines.
Risk statement:
The risk degree of this dissertation is low risk.
The main type to collect source and data is interview.
It may include two issues:
1. It may refer to some personal privacy.
In the interview, researcher asked some questions about interviewee’s interests or
familiar field. The interview would be recorded.
Solution: Before the interview, before the interview, participants were given an ethical
27
information sheet and a participant consent form. Researcher would ask for the
participants’ agreement and signature. Then start the formal interview.
All data of interviews would be stored in a password-protected drive, and uploaded to
the iSchool's data drive.
2. Safety issues
Solution: All interviews were carried out the in the libraries of TuoS, or public cafe
(Starbuck or Costa).
4. Result
4.1Evaluation criteria
4.1.1Pre-judgment
Users are used to doing a pre-judgment for the hyperlinks of websites. When users got
the result list from the search engine, some factors play an important role in this process
included:
• Headline and description
• Word of mouth/popularity
• Familiarity
28
• Placement of sites
• User preconception
4.1.1.1Headline and description
The results list comprises of the hyperlinks with the headline and description. Users are
used to looking for keywords from the headline and description to judge whether the
sites would provide the information that they want. This influenced whether the site
would be open or not. Many interviewees stated this factor like following:
“I will not open it because the headline and description of this link is not match to
what I am looking for” 1(REC_LWR)
“First of all, I read the headline and description of the site to filter links, I do not want
to open every one of them”2 (REC_TRQ)
“When I got the result list from a search engine, I can see the headline and description
of these sites, I just open the sites which I think they could provide useful
information.”3(REC_FL)
1 “我不会打开这个网站因为它的链接标题和描述看起来不是我要找的。” 2 “首先，我会看链接的名字和描述，因为我不想打开所有链接。” 3 “当我得到搜索结果列表的时候，我会看它的标题和描述，我只打开我认为能够提供有用信息的链
接。”
29
“I will open the Baidu Encyclopedia and zhihu because both of them are very popular
and famous in China”4 (REC_LWR)
In the study, six in 10 interviewees indicated that the headline and description are very
important when they selected the links to open.
4.1.1.2 Word of mouth/popularity
Participants stated that when they chose a hyperlinks, they preferred sites which are
very popular, or which have been recommended by friends. This is a key factor to select
links.
“I chose it because it is douban, it is very popular, when I decided to open a link or not
based on whether it is famous”5 (REC_ZYY)
“I never will open some sites which have a horrible word of mouth, for example, the
tencent.com”6 (REC_TRU)
4 “我会打开百度百科和知乎因为他们非常流行。” 5 “我选择打开这个链接是因为它的名字是豆瓣，一个非常流行的网站，当我决定要不要打开一个链接的
时候我会看它是不是非常有名。” 6 “我永远不会打开那些口碑很差的网站，比如说腾讯网。”
30
“When I searched a topic which I am strange, there is no doubt that I will choose some
famous sites to read”7 (REC_XY)
Besides, some websites were selected even these sites are not very famous, because
these sites
“I selected this site because my friends told me this site is good”8 (REC_PHA)
“I am going to open it because lots of my friends use it” 9(REC_CKK)
4.1.1.3 Familiarity
Familiarity is one of the criteria. The results showed that volunteers were willing to
open some sites which they used before. Especially for some Comprehensive websites,
these sites cover lots of field. So they have a number of users, which caused these sites
were likely to be selected. When the researcher asked interviewees why they open these
sites not others, interviewees answered like following:
“I know this sites before, and I am used it before”10 (REC_ZYW)
7 “当我搜索一个很陌生的话题时，我会选择一些名声比较大的网站。” 8 “我选择打开这个网站因为我朋友告诉我这个网站很好。” 9 “我打算打开这个网站是因为我朋友们都用它。” 10 “我之前就知道这个网站，我也常常用它。”
31
“I selected Baidu Encyclopedia because I always used it to collect information that I
want to know”11 (REC_ZKK)
“The reason that I chose to open the zhihu is I am the long-time user of zhihu.”12(REC-
XY)
“I will open the doban to have a look because I knew and used it before”13(REC-LLJH)
4.1.1.4 Placement of sites
In this study, volunteers were given 10 minutes to search for high quality sources for
each search engine. But most of them just used less than 5 minutes to do that. Volunteers
indicated they just would like to consider the websites which are in the top of result
lists, or the front pages of the result list.
“I did not open these sites because I am used to choosing links from the sites located
top of the result list, I do not want to browse others”14 (REC_AHD)
“First of all, when I chose links, I will prefer the top 3 of result list.”15(REC-LLJH)
11 “我选择百度百科因为我总是用它去获得我想要的信息。”
12 “我选择知乎的原因是我本阿里就是知乎的长期用户。”
13 “我打开豆瓣去看的原因是我我之前用过它。”
14 “我不打开这些网站是因为我习惯于只打开排在列表比较靠上的网站。”
15 “首先，当我选择链接的时候，我会选择排在列表前三的链接。”
32
“The placement of links in the result list would influence whether I would open it,
because in general, I only want to open the links located in the first two pages.”16
(REC-FL)
4.1.1.5 User preconception
Sometimes, users will filter the links according their personal preference:
“It does not have any reasons; I just do not like Wikipedia.”17 (REC_CKK)
“I close this sites because I do not like it, without any reasons…” 18(REC_JG)
“I close this site just because when I attampted to open it. The picture on the screen
scared me…”19(REC_LLJH)
4.1.2 Display of websites
16 “链接在列表的位置会影响我是否打开它，因为通常通常情况下我只看排在前两页的链接。”
17 “没有什么原因，只是我不喜欢维基百科。”
18 “我关闭这个网站是因为我不喜欢，没什么理由。”
19 “我刚打开网站就关了是因为页面里一张图片吓到了我。”
33
When users enter a link, they would like to concentrate on looking at the appearance of
this site. Participants proposed criteria included:
• Layout
• Advertisement
• Loading speed
4.1.2.1 Layout
Some volunteers said when they open a website, if the layout of the site looks not good,
they will close this site immediately.
“This site looked very messy, so I close it immediately”20 (REC_ZYY)
“I closed some sites because their layouts are not neat”21 (REC_JG)
Besides, volunteers indicated the layout is a key factor to evaluate a website:
“I think this site is good, because it looks very neat and comfortable.” 22(REC_LWR)
20 “这个网站看起来太乱了，所以我直接关闭了它。” 21 “我关闭这个网站因为他的布局太不整洁了了。” 22 “我喜欢这个网站因为它很整洁而且令人舒服。”
34
The same volunteer then added that:
“For personality, t think the layout of site is very important, I just willing to read this
site when the layout is not bad.” 23(REC_LWR)
Other volunteers also have the similar views:
“When I open a site, first of all I will focus on the layout, whether the layout is clean. I
will doubt it is not a normal site if the layout is in a mess.”24 (REC_FL)
“The first step to assess a site is to look at its layout and UI.”25 (REC_XY)
“Look at the layout of this site, it is so good, so I like it.”26 (REC_AHD)
“I think this site is good because it layout is very clean.”27 (REC_LJHL)
Almost all volunteers involved in this study mentioned that the layout is an essential
criterion to evaluate the quality of a site.
23 “对我个人而言，我觉得布局非常重要，我只愿意看那些布局不算太糟糕的网站。” 24 “当我打开一个网页，首先我会关注它的布局，看它的布局是否整洁，如果布局很乱的话我会怀疑它是否是一个正规网站。” 25 “评测一个网页第一步就是去看它的布局和 UI。” 26 “看这个网站的布局，非常好，所以我喜欢它。” 27 “我觉得这个网站布局很好是因为它看起来很整洁。”
35
4.1.2.2 Advertisement
Advertisement as an aspect of quality, brought up by some volunteers. Some comments
prove that likes following:
“I will close the website which is full of advertisements.”28(REC_ZYW)
The same interviewee also mentioned:
“I like this one because it looks very clean…. without advertisements. I feel
comfortable29.” (REC_ZYW)
“I closed this site directly as it has too many advertisements.”30 (REC_JG)
“when I evaluate a site, I will observe the number of advertisements. I will doubt the
safety of site in case that it has lots of advertisements.”31 (REC_TRQ)
“Some sites are full of advertisements… I will consider if they are normal and
professional sites, why they will have so many advertisements…then I think I could not
believe them.”32 (REC_FL)
28 “我会直接关闭那些充满广告的网页。” 29 “我喜欢这个是因为它非常整洁，没广告，我觉得觉得舒服。”
30 “我直接关闭了这个网站是因为它有太多的广告。”
31 “当我评测一个网站的时候，我会先看它的广告数量，如果广告很多的话我会怀疑它是否安全。”
32 “一些网站充满了广告。我会想如果是比较专业的网站怎么会有这么多广告呢，所以我不能相信它
们。”
36
“Douban read makes me comfortable as it does not have so many advertisements. I like
it.”33 (REC_XY)
“I like wangyi.com because it does not like xinlang.com which have many
advertisements.”34 (REC_AHD)
“I closed this site as it has too many advertisements.”35 (REC_LLJH)
“I like this site considering it is does not have advertisements.”36(REC_PHA)
Advertisement caused participants were not willing to read the content of sites. Besides,
it is the main reason that people close a site immediately. It is a condition precedent to
keep reading a site.
4.1.2.3 Loading speed
The speed of loading a site is an important factor to evaluate a site. Participants
described a lot about this factor:
33 “豆瓣读书基本上没有什么广告，让我觉得很舒服，我喜欢。”
34 “我更喜欢网易是因为它不像想一样有那么多的广告。”
35 “我关闭这个网站是因为它有太多广告了。”
36 “我喜欢这个网站是因为它广告不多。”
37
“When I open a site, I will close it if the speed is quite slow.” 37(REC_ZYW)
“Some sites have a good loading speed. I think that is quite good…I like them. But the
loading speed of some sites is quite horrible. I do not believe they are high quality
websites.”38(REC_AHD)
“It cost too much time to open this website, so I closed it directly.”39 (REC_LLJH)
“I do not believe this site as its loading speed is too slow than others. It should have a
good server for a good site.”40 (REC_PHA)
4.1.3 Content
The following list proposed the key evaluation criteria applied by volunteers in this study:
• Quality of content
Richness of information
Professional
Update frequency of information
37 “如果一个网站打开的很慢，我会直接关了它。”
38 “一些网站的加载速度很快，我喜欢它们。但是一些网站的加载速度很糟糕，我不能相信它们是很高质
量的网站。” 39 “打开这个网站耗费我太多时间了，所以我直接关闭了它们。”
40 “我不想相信网站是它的加速速度比其他网站慢了太多了。一个好的网站应该会有一个好的服务器
的。”
38
Authorship
• Credibility of information
Agreement to other sites
Agreement to personal knowledge/experience
Authority
• Degree of relevance with target
• Difficulty level to get information
4.1.3.1 Quality of content
When users assess the content, they would like to pay attention on the quality of content.
“I like zhihu because the information of zhihu is high quality.”41(REC_XY)
The volunteers indicated many factors influenced quality of content:
4.1.3.1.1 Richness of information
Some volunteer proposed richness of content is major factor for the quality of content
41 “我喜欢知乎是因为知乎上的信息质量很高。”
39
“I think content of this site is very rich, detailed wide coverage, so I like it.” 42
(REC_ZYW)
“I like Baidu Encyclopedia because it gave so detailed and systemic information about
EXO. So, I think it is a good site.”43 (REC_CKK)
“I think this site is best because it has most various information of masks.” 44
(REC_LWR)
“I like zhihu because the information of this site is from different points of view, so I
gave me lots of different information. So, it is a good site to collect
information.”45(REC_FL)
“It is a key factor that whether the information is various and rich.”46 (REC_AHD)
“this site has a very strong logical structure with rich information, I love it.” 47
(REC_LLJH)
42 “我认为这个网站的内容很丰富，覆盖面广，所以我喜欢它。”
43 “我喜欢百度百科因为它很系统的详细的描述了关于 EXO 的信息，所以我认为它很好。”
44 “我认为这个网站是最好的因为它提供了各式各样的面膜信息。”
45 “我喜欢知乎是因为它的信息是来自不同的观点，我能得到各种不同的信息，所以知乎是一个很好的获
取信息的网站。“ 46 “内容的丰富性和多样性是一个关键因素。”
47 “这个网站的逻辑性很强，所以我喜欢它。”
40
4.1.3.1.2 Professional of information
Some volunteers pointed out that the professional of content is an element to evaluate
content:
“I like douban read because its content looks professional. I believe it.”48 (REC_LLJH)
“For my personality, I prefer the sites which looked pretty professional…”49 (REC_FL)
“The professional of information is a key criterion to evaluate the information and
website.”50 (REC_AHD)
4.1.3.1.3 Update frequency of information
Interviewee bring up that update frequency is a criterion for the quality of information,
especially for information which has timeliness. When an interviewee was searching
something about EPL (English Premier League), he said:
“The speed of updating information is very important, for example, this site gave me
the information about last year, but I am looking for recent information. So I am not
48 “我喜欢豆瓣读书是因为它上面的内容看着很专业。”
49 “就我个人而言，我更喜欢那些看起来专业性很强的网站。”
50 “信息的专业性是评价网站和信息的关键条件。”
41
going to use it again.”51 (REC_AHD)
Besides, even when users searched for information which does not has strong timeliness,
they also indicated this factor:
“Another criterion is… I will judge the update time of information, if the time is long
ago, or the information is not updating for long time, I will give it up.”52 (REC_FL)
4.1.3.1.4 Authorship
Some participants indicated they pay attention to who is the provider of the information.
For example, some participants did not believe information provided by internet users:
“I will assess the information when I got it. I will look at who provided it. If it is
provided by internet users, not some famous writer. So…it maybe not trustworthy.”53
(REC_TRQ)
In addition, participants also will consider the motivation that the provider of
51 “信息的更新速度非常是非常重要的。比如说，这个网站给了我去年的信息，但是我要找的是最近的信
息，所以我不会再使用它了。” 52 “另一个就是，我会看这个信息的时间，如果是很久以前的信息，或是很久没有更新的信息，我会放弃
它。” 53 “当我看到信息的时候我会先评判它，看它是由谁提供的。如果是一些网友提供的而不是一些著名的写
手，这个信息就不一定是真实的。
42
information:
“The information is not really reliable. It is provided by the editor of this site. You know,
in general, they will have the business relation with some hotels. So I could believe the
hotel comments in hundred percent.” 54(REC_PHA)
4.1.3.2 Credibility of information
Users reported that credibility of information impact on assessing quality of
information.
They indicated they judge the credibility of information according two main points:
4.1.3.2.1 Agreement to personal knowledge/experience
An interviewee said
“I prefer the sites which provide the trustworthy information, for example, this
website…”55 (REC_LWR)
Then the researcher asked her why she thought the information is trustworthy, she
added:
54 “这上面的信息不一定是完全可靠的，因为这些信息是由这个网站的编辑提供的。你知道的，这个网站
和很多酒店是有利益关系的。所以我不能百分百的相信这个网站上对酒店的评价。” 55 “我更喜欢那些提供了真实可靠信息的网站。比如说这个。“
43
“
“Because I knew something about mask before, when judge the reliability of
information, I will refer to my personal knowledge or experience...” 56(REC_LWR)
Other interviewees hold the same views:
“I did not believe this site because the information (provided by this site) is totally
different what I knew before…”57(REC_ZYW)
“I think the content is reliable because it matches to something I has known before”58
(REC_JG)
“I am a senior frequent flyer. I know much about hotels. So, I am sure the content (of
this site) is not true...”59 (REC_PHA)
4.1.3.2.2 Agreement to other sites
“I will concern the credibility of information… by referring to what other sites said, to
find whether the information was agreed by other sites.”60(REC_AHD)
56 “因为我知道一些关于面膜的只是，当我看到这些信息的时候，我会根据我知道的去判断它。”
57 “我不相信这个网站的信息因为它和我知道的完全不一样。”
58 “我认为这个网站上的东西是可靠的，因为它符合那些我已经知道的。”
59 “我是一个资深的常旅客，我知道很多关于酒店的东西。所以我知道这个网站上的内容是不真实的。”
60 “我会侧重在内容的真实性上，通过看这些内容是不是和其他网站所说的都一致。”
44
“I think the information provided by this site is trustworthy, because it is confirmed by
other sites.”61 (REC_JG)
4.1.3.2.3 Authority
The authority is also a factor to evaluate the credibility of information:
“I think the information of site is trustworthy because the site was built up by Chinese
government.”62 (REC_JG)
“I prefer the itunes’s site… because…you know, it is an official site of Apple. Everything
in this site is legitimate edition.”63 (REC_TRQ)
“I think the information on this site is most reliable. Because it is from the official site
(of this book).”64 (REC_XY)
4.1.3.3 Degree of relevance with target
Although users are used to doing a pre-judgment for links, it is inevitable that they will
61 “我认为这些信息是真实的，因为它和其他网站上的都一致。”
62 “我认为这个网站上的信息肯定真实是因为这个网站是由政府机构提供的。”
63 “我更喜欢 iTunes。你知道的，它是苹果的官方网站。所有东西都是正版的。”
64 “我觉得这个网站的的信息最真实可高，因为这个网站是官方网站。”
45
open sites which could not provide the content that they were looking for. So, whether
information site can cater to users’ requirement is a key factor.
“The content of this site is detailed…but it is not what I am looking for.”65 (REC_LWR)
“When I evaluate the content, I will consider whether the content is I am looking for.”66
(REC_TRQ)
“Content is a very important factor. I will consider whether the site can provide the
information that I want.”67 (REC_PHA)
In this study, almost all participants reported whether site could provide target
information is a key factor to evaluate content.
4.1.3.4 Difficulty level to get information
Sometimes, websites will set up some thresholds for users. For example, users have to
register a member for sites, or users have to pay for the information. This is a factor
65 “这个网站的内容和详细，但是不是我想要的。”
66 “当我评测一个网站内容的时候，我会先看看的内容是不是我想要的。”
67 “内容是一个非常关键的因素，我会看这个内容能不能提供我想要的的东西。”
46
when users evaluate the sites.
“Whether I need to pay for the information is a very important factor.”68（REC_XY）
“The difficulty level to get information is an important factor which influenced me, for
example, it is really trouble me if I have to do lots of steps (to get the
information).”69(REC_AND)
“Whether I can get the information easily is an key factor, I do not want to do lots of
steps to register.”70 (REC_LLJH)
The same volunteers also added during interview:
“I will close the site directly if have to pay for that.”71 (REC_LLJH)
4.2 Process of evaluating online information sources
Participants described that when they evaluated information sources. Three processes
were involved: Pre-judgment for the links, look at the appearance of sites, and evaluate
68 “是否需要为这个信息付费是一个很关键的因素。”
69 “获取信息的难易程度是影响我的一个重要因素，如果需要做很多步骤才能看到这个信息会让我觉得很
麻烦。” 70 “我是否能够很容易的获取信息也很重要，我不想做很多步骤去注册。”
71 “我直接关闭那些我需要付费的网站。”
47
the content of sites. Then, they would make a decision whether they will believe this
site.
“When I looked for useful information or site from Internet, first of all, I will do a filter
for the links in the result list. Because I do not want to spend much time on opening
each link one by one. Then, I will look at the appearance of sites, for example, the layout
and other thing. After that, I will focus on the quality of content. Finally, I will do the
decision.”72 (REC_LLJH)
“First of all, I will choose the links. Then look at the design of the site and content of
sites.”73 (REC_FL)
Research proposed a model about how users evaluate information retrieved from
searching engines according to description of interviewees:
72 “当我从互联网上搜索信息的时候，首先我会对搜索引擎提供的列表做一个简单的筛选，因为我不想耗费很多的时间去一个一个的打开链接。然后，我会看网站给我的感觉，比如说布局之类的。在此之后，我会看网站内容的质量。最后做出决定。” 73 “首先，我会从搜索引擎列表中有选择性的打开一些链接，然后看它的页面和内容。
48
4.3 Comparison of Baidu and Google
In this study, the researcher asked volunteers to rank the sources from Baidu and Google.
The researcher drew a table (table 3) to show the result. The first means the best one,
and so on, the sixth means the worst one. ‘G’ means the site was retrieved from
Google and ‘B’ means that it was retrieved from Baidu. “*” means the site was
retrieved from both Baidu and Google. Then the researcher gave a score to the two
search engines. A site ranked in first position was given 6; a site in second position
was given 5; third position was given 4, etc.
49
Name
Order
ZYW CKK JG FL LWR TQR XY AHD LLJH PHA
First G *G/B B B G G *G/B *G/B *G/B G
Second B *G/B B G G G *G/B *G/B *G/B G
Third *G/B *G/B G B/G B B G *G/B *G/B G
Fourth G G G B G B B
Fifth B B B G B B
Sixth G B B B
Table 3: The result of rank
Table 4: result of score
The table 4 shows that 8 of the 10 sites ranked first and second were retrieved from
Google while six of the number 1 and 2 sites were retrieved from Baidu. By contrast,
almost all the sites ranked in sixth and fifth were from Baidu. Google has a higher score
ZY
W
CK
K
J
G
F
L
LW
R
TR
Q
X
Y
AH
D
LLJ
H
PH
A
TOTA
L
Googl
e
13 15 8 12 13 15 15 15 15 15 136
Baidu 11 15 13 12 8 7 14 15 15 6 116
50
than Baidu which supported Google worked better than Baidu in getting the high
quality information.
Despite the fact that the ranking exercise rates Google more highly than Baidu, only
two volunteers expressed a preference for one of the search engines.
“I prefer Google because its result has a better order.” (REC_ZYW)74
“I prefer Baidu because I am used to using it. ” (REC_CKK)75
5.Discussion
5.1 Suitability of the adopted research approach
Silverman (2016) argues that qualitative research is best suited for research projects
that seek to explore a specific topic of interest or a research problem from a certain
local population perspective. Therefore, qualitative research methods (interviews and
participant observation) were appropriate for this work because it focused on
understanding the factors that guide users (Chinese users) towards determining the
credibility of information retrieved from Baidu and Google.
The proposed model (Figure 1) formed the basis for evaluating how users perceive the
74 “我更喜欢 Google 因为它的搜索引擎排序更好一些。”
75 “我更喜欢百度因为习惯于用它。”
51
credibility of Web-based information. The model that was used in this study
encompasses the following three major sequential credibility evaluation factors: pre-
judgment of links, site design quality, and content quality. This forms the structure for
presenting the discussion about this research project’s credibility assessment.
5.2 Evaluation Criteria
5.2.1Pre-judgment of hyperlinks
There is no doubt that participants tended to apply learned heuristics and bias when
faced with totally new medium, context, content, or source. The first impression is
closely related to pre-judgment and prejudice. When users retrieve information from
either Baidu or Google, they are likely to focus on the following factors in relation to
the search results: headline and description, popularity, place of sites, prejudice, or
familiarity.
Basically, a search results list comprises of a set of headlines and descriptions as well
as associated hyperlinks. Headlines, descriptions, and places of sites can be used to
assess credibility. Users compare their keywords with headlines and descriptions to
determine the relevance of the underlying information. Users are unwilling to pursue
sites that would not provide relevant information, so they first consider the following
question prior to opening or ignoring a link: can this link provide the information I am
looking for? A ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer to this question would definitely influence users to
open or ignore a link respectively. This study has indicated that 60% (6 out of ten)
respondents greatly rely on the content of headlines and descriptions to make relevance
52
and credibility decisions. For example, some users would not have any reason for
ignoring a site out of pre-conception or bias. Pre-judgment may be guided by a positive
or negative impression for a link. What entity (government agency, company, institution,
or individual) is a site or link representing? For example, descriptions and URLs of
governmental agencies and reputable organizations appear to be more trustworthy to
users searching for official information. A perfect example is students looking for
prerequisites for pursuing specific degree programs, whereby they would perceive .edu
domains as links or sites as the most credible. The reputation of the entity owning a site
based on real user experiences also applies to its actual site.
Users tend to prefer recommended pages and links as they appear more popular, useful,
and trustworthy. Users also tend to trust the sites used by most of their friends. This is
especially true for searches involving topics that are strange to users. Therefore,
recommendations play an important role in influencing credibility, and thus selection
of hyperlinks to open with the hope of landing at a web page that fits the purpose. Pre-
judgment based on the popularity may lead to subjective assessment of an online
resource with regard to its credibility (Lewandowski, 2012; Mohammadi, Abrizah, &
Nazari, 2015). For example, this study has shown that Baidu is very popular in China,
so Chinese users trust it as a source of useful information. The popularity of Baidu in
China is echoed by Jiang (2014) and O'Rourke IV et al (2007) – Baidu enjoys a
popularity of more than 80% as a search engine compared to Google’s less than 2%.
Nevertheless, Lazar, Meiselwitz, and Feng (2007) notes that some users do not blindly
follow recommendations, instead they adopt a skeptical approach to assess the
53
credibility of claims made to avoid being cheated into believing in something that is
not necessarily factual.
Familiarity constitutes another trustworthiness assessment criterion in that users tend
to visit sites they have accessed before. This is particularly true for sites that provide
field-specific information, translating to long-time previous usage and high chances of
being opened in the future (Pattanaphanchai, O'Hara, & Hall, 2013). Users with a
previous experience (familiarity) with a specific site or search engine have high chances
of trusting it. On the same issue, Lucassen, Muilwijk, Noordzij, and Schraagen (2013)
claims that familiarity tends to increase the perceived ease-of-use, confidence, and the
degree of comfort across users with respect to a site or search engine. Unexpected
content or source may turn away users, which builds up the influence of familiarity.
Metzger et al (2003) argues that familiarity is one of the most widely adopted criteria
for assessing credibility. Familiairty facilitates the ease of use and verifiability – clear
link between language and purpose, and information agreement across diverse sources
and with prior knowledge (Walraven et al., 2009).
The placement of sites on the search results list also influences their perceived
credibility. Users tend to focus on the sites or links presented at the top of the first page
of search results because they appear to be more relevant to their topic or subject.
Lewandowski (2012) stated that users are interested in finding the answer as opposed
to web pages in excess of millions, thus most search engine algorithms return query
specific results from the most relevant to the least relevant based on factors such as the
currency of information and user context – the region where the search originates from.
54
Therefore, users expect the most helpful webpages to be placed at the top of the search
engine’s first query results page. Nevertheless, personal preference may make users to
peruse through results or links regardless of where they are placed. For example, users
searching for academic resources may ignore a Wikipedia page or link because it is
discouraged in the educational arena.
5.2.2 Website assessment
Content and source quality elements become clearer after one visits the actual site or
webpage. The basic appearance of a site influences the perception of users. According
to this study, the following are the proposed criteria for the display of a site: layout,
advertisement, and loading speed. However, there are other quality evaluation criteria,
including site structure, visual design, page rank, traffic rank, implemented
technologies, and branding (Levene, 2011; Westerwick, 2013).
Users consider layout to be a measure of competence – a badly structured site has a
poor user perception. Competence or professionalism remains a key evaluation
criterion of medium credibility because it is a character that shows greatness (Rubin
& Liddy, 2006; Westerwick, 2013). If a site looks messy, then there are high chances
of being closed without necessarily reading the content. Lex et al (2012) asserts that
the user perception of a site is influenced by its consistency and neatness across links
and visual design. A neat as opposed to a crumbled layout also makes it easier to
locate what users are looking for. Users also trust sites which have a clear and logical
structure, and with well-designed user interfaces. Liu (2004) claims that end users
55
expect sites to uphold high levels of agreement between their constituent web pages.
This is a key enabler of consistency, ease of learning, and user-friendliness and
usability.
The advertisement strategy adopted by a site is also critical to credibility criteria – users
like and trust sites with fewer ads. Sites with massive advertisements are likely to lose
potential users because finding information presented on them would be relatively more
difficult. Very many ads on a site tend to make users ignore the content presented on it.
In fact, some users immediately close a webpage when they discover that there are too
many advertisements for it to be truly helpful. In addition, too many ads would make
users to concern for security and privacy – issues that have been increasingly gaining
realization globally because of growing attack threats. Therefore, minimal
advertisements may make users more comfortable when browsing a site. Users tend to
trust Web-based resources that are ‘easy to find, access, and understand’ (Burton &
Chadwick, 2000).
The page load of a site is a measure of its loading speed, and it constitutes a critical
quality evaluation factor. Users focus on page load performance because it directly
impacts on their everyday experiences regarding a site. No matter how good a brand is
created in terms of visual components, content, white spacing, creativity, legibility of
fonts, and layout design, users want fast page loads. Sites that take too long to load are
often closed by users before even accessing the information resources that come with
them. Therefore, page load has a direct impact on the quality perception of a site.
There are other dimensions that determine the perception of users with respect to the
56
credibility of a site. Based on the model (see Figure 2) adopted by McKnight and
Kacmar (2006) to assess information quality for an internet advice site, the following
dispositions were documented: general (‘Faith in Humanity’, ‘Suspicion of Humanity’,
and ‘Risk Propensity’), technology (‘Internet Anxiety’, and ‘Trust in Technology’), and
initial impressions (‘Trusting Beliefs’, ‘Perceived Reputation’, and ‘Willingness to
Visit the Site’). In a different research, McKnight and Kacmar (2007, p. 430) discovered
the following factors to be critical to establish site and information credibility: ‘trusting,
perceived reputation, and willingness to explore a site and its content’.
5.2.3 Content evaluation
The following are the major elements of content: quality of information, richness of
information, professionalism, whether information is current or up-to-date, authorship,
and credibility of information (perceived ease-of-accessing information, agreement to
personal experience or knowledge, and relevance) (Twait, 2005). Liu (2004) assumed
that the credibility of Web-based scholarly resources may be assessed based on how
good they are in the organization, quality and logic, spelling and grammar, and
impartiality dimensions.
If a site presents a comprehensive and systematic coverage of information specific to a
subject or topic, then it is perceived to be of high quality. Site content that shows
opinions of different points of view is perceived to be credible – users trust such
information. Users trust information that shows high levels of professionalism. For
example, the credibility of healthcare tips is influenced by the accreditation and
57
expertise of the individual or organization associated with such content as well as the
professionalism regarding its presentation (Mun, Yoon, Davis, & Lee, 2013). Therefore,
the level of professionalism is a key quality assessment criterion with respect to a site
and its content. What experts, competitors, and real users of a site think about its
professionalism influences its overall reputation. References, reviews, and
recommendations posted by experts and real users of a website guides one in making
credibility decisions. Positive reviews show some level of positive reputation. Other
than reviews, some sites are winners of awards from time to time, proving positive
reputation in areas such as the perceived value addition (Grove, Burns, & Gray, 2014).
The Pulitzer Prize is a perfect example of such an award.
When users are evaluating the credibility of a site, they tend to investigate whether its
content is up-to-date or not. How frequently is information updated? Frequently
updated information appears to be more reliable to users. Upholding timeliness is
especially true for dynamically changing information such as news, weather forecasts,
flight schedules, and geo-location tracking. Currency also translates to credibility for
information such as high-quality financial, professional, and medical advice. Therefore,
users perceive professionally presented information to be of high quality if there is
evidence of regular reviews and updates. Simply put, users want to be assured that the
information they retrieve from search engines and web pages is up-to-date.
Users consider authorship to be of crucial importance to information quality; therefore,
content provider (individuals and organizations) ought to be sufficiently reputable.
Understanding the entity responsible for a specific site forms the basis for assessing the
58
credibility of its content. Highly credible web pages provide clear and sufficient
information about the overall site, and users tend to trust the content. For example,
information originating from more internet users may be deemed untrustworthy, while
corporate-origination information would be perceived to be highly credible. Users also
assess content based on the perceived motivation of the creator or provider. For example,
information created by a site editor faces the risk of bias or subjectivity in the course of
attempts to create a compelling brand. In addition, financial advice is deemed credible
if it is posted by appropriately accreditated and experienced persons and/or
organizations. Finally, the credibility of such information is negatively affected. On the
other hand, failure to include clear and adequate information about authorship would
obviously damage the credibility of a site and its content (Mai, 2013). Authority entails
the influence or the power (‘the last world’) with respect to the person or organization
involved in the creation of content (Cabrerizo, Martinez, Lopez-Gijon, Chiclana, &
Herrera-Viedma, 2015). Official government, corporate, and individuals’ professional
websites are deemed to have more authority, and thus reliability or relevance and
trustworthiness. Liu (2004) claimed that the following features play an important role
in evaluating credibility of information: URL or domain such as .edu and .gov, the
publisher of information, and the verification of information. The authoritativeness of
content is also regarded as a major credibility measure when users are searching for
academic materials. In fact, it is more difficult to search for relevant academic resources
compared to general information because the former demands high levels of authority
- type and source of information, coverage, accuracy, quality of references , objectivity,
59
and currency (Head & Eisenberg, 2009; Madden et al., 2012).
Users assess the credibility of information based on how well it agrees to their
experience and/or knowledge. Indeed, users prefer trustworthy content; therefore,
they treat information that is in line with their expectations as reliable. In other words,
users trust information that is similar to what they knew before, otherwise they do not
believe in its credibility. While comprehensiveness of information is a notable
credibility evaluation factor, users would still consider relevance – is this the piece of
information I was looking for? Does this information meet my specific needs and
expectations? Castillo et al (2011) claims that users value resources they find
applicable to their immediate needs and expectations because they seem to be
published out of goodwill and/or care. Consequently, the perceived credibility of such
information resources is high. The relevance of information promotes user
engagement, confidence, satisfaction, and positive beliefs and attitudes, and thus
credibility (Rubin & Liddy, 2006).
Users come across sites with varying ease-of-accessing information based on factors
such as the price of information and the need for a subscription as a member. Whether
one is supposed to pay for a certain piece of information or to register as a member
prior to accessing specific online resources determines the eventual response of users.
The study found that some users would immediately close a site that demands payment.
Similar indications were found for sites characterized by time-intensive registration
processes. More than often, user subscription and registration processes prompt
personally identifiable information (PII) such as credit card number, which may put the
60
security and/or privacy of confidential information at risk of infringement (Quelch &
Jocz, 2010). Therefore, while information security and privacy dimension were not
explored in this study, it significantly influences how users perceive the ease-of-
accessing Web-based information.
5.3 Baidu versus Google
In order to compare Baidu with Google, researcher carried out a set of searches across
the two search engines. Then gave score to the two search engines based on the result
(as shown in table 3 and 4). Results indicated that Google had the best quality search
results, with 40% (4 out of 10) of the retrieved sites being ranked in the ‘First’ category.
This was in comparison to Baidu, which had 20% (2 out of 10) of the retrieved sites
being ranked in the ‘First’ category. The other 40% of the ‘First’ ranking went to *G/B,
implying that respondents found Google and Baidu to have an equal performance in
terms of the quality of retrieved results. Cumulatively, Google had a higher score
compared to Baidu – 136 against 116 (as shown in Table 4). Therefore, the study found
that Google performed better in terms of retrieving high-quality information.
While this study reveals that Google is better than Baidu in relation to retrieval of
credible or high-quality information, there are mixed findings regarding the strengths
and weaknesses of the two search engines. This is especially true when the performance
of Baidu and Google are compared and contrasted from the perspective of Chinese
users. Basically, the credibility of query results from a search may be used to determine
the performance of a search engine. Baidu was found to perform relatively better than
61
Google in terms of the number and relevance of retrieved results if the keyword
constitutes a hot issue, terminology, or concept related to China or written in Chinese
language. However, Google appears to return better (many and relevant) results than
Baidu provided the subject is not related to China (Jiang, 2014). When Chinese
keywords are used across the Baidu and Google search engines, the latter returns a later
returns a larger number of results than the former. Nevertheless, the large number of
results retrieved from Google cannot be considered as the absolute measure of
credibility because Baidu delivered better accuracy and relevance (Long et al., 2007).
Therefore, Baidu is better placed to meet the credibility needs and expectations of
Chinese users compared to Google. This can be attributed to the fact that the former
meets the source, content, and context constraints related to the Chinese user
community. Therefore, Google may be the global search engine leader, but Baidu is
deemed to be the most credible source of online information for the Chinese user
community. In addition, the prevalence of Baidu in China can be attributed to the
following general credibility/quality determinants: reliability and/or perceived
usefulness, accuracy, completeness, bias against the more foreign-oriented Google,
familiarity, and relevance.
6.Conclusion
This research has focused on identification and description of the behaviors and user
experiences when using Baidu and Google search engine tools to access the credibility
or quality of websites and other online information resources. The study employed a
62
qualitative research approach to investigate how Chinese users assess the quality of the
information retrieved from Baidu and Google. More precisely, the methods helped
obtain the values, emotions, beliefs, behaviors, social contexts, motivations, and
perceptions or opinions of Chinese users in relation to Baidu and Google – how this
group of users experiences the two research engines. This study was based on the
following major credibility dimensions: source, receiver, message, medium, and
context. However, the dimensions were condensed into three (medium, source, and
content or message) for easier identification, analysis, description of the behaviors and
user experiences related to the credibility of information retrieved from Baidu and
Google.
There are disparate dispositions associated with the credibility of quality of website,
content, and creator or author of information. Results from this study and past scholarly
works have indicated users have diverse feelings about the determinants of credibility
of Web-based information. Evidently, users trust online resources that are relatively
easy to find, access, and understand. Relevance is also a key credibility determinant
because users tend to treat resources they find applicable to their immediate needs and
expectations to be of high quality. This can be attributed to the fact that such
information appears to be published out of goodwill, care, or concern. Relevance
appears to be a great enabler of engagement, confidence, and positive beliefs and
attitudes. Consequently, credibility is enhanced. Competence or professionalism
dictates the degree of perceived credibility. Web-based information is also presented on
a wide range of platforms, ranging from blogs to corporate websites and news sites.
63
Nevertheless the fundamental components of these platforms and their content include
the visual design, layout or structure, familiarity, advertisement strategy, reputation,
owner (as specified by the domain name), consistency, ease of learning, page load or
responsiveness, user-friendliness and usability, agreement to personal experience or
knowledge, willingness to explore, quality of information, richness of information,
currency of information, authorship, and the overall degree of professionalism shown.
For example, a messy layout or structure would damage the credibility of a site.
Nevertheless, Web-based resources can be assessed for credibility based on mere
prejudice, for example, popularity, familiarity, pre-conception, recommendations, or
bias.
Results from this study have indicated that respondents ranked Google as the search
engine with high-quality retrieved 'retrieving' information compared to Baidu. However,
insights from past studies and researcher experiences from this work has shown that
elements of pre-judgment such as bias, recommendations, and familiarity play a role in
influencing user behaviors. A perfect example is the huge popularity of Baidu in China
and Google in the U.S., which contributes to their outright prevalence in their respective
countries. In addition, familiarity of Baidu among Chinese users makes it the most
trusted search engine in China. Nevertheless, in the Chinese users’ perspective, Baidu
delivered better accuracy, ease-of-understanding, perceived usefulness, context
matching, and relevance performance compared to Google. Basically, Baidu has an
edge over Google in the Chinese users’ perspective because of better mastery of the
complex Chinese dialect and culture, which is replicated in the preciseness of retrieved
64
results.
As part of future research, it is important to investigate how Google can improve its
search algorithms to meet the credibility requirements of Chinese language. This is
because the language is highly context-specific, thus a small grammar mistake is likely
to lead to ignite unwanted confusion, and ultimately credibility inefficiencies.
Word count:13028
65
7. Appendices
7.1 ethical form
TheUniversityofSheffield.InformationSchool
A comparison of Google and Baidu: How do Chinese users assess the quality of the information retrieved for them by the two search engines?
Researchers
Name: Sen Wang Tel:07469 011417 E-mail: [email protected] Purposeoftheresearch
The purpose of this research is to learn more about the views of Chinese users of two major search engines (Baidu and Google) and of the quality of information the search engines retrieve.
Whowillbeparticipating?
Chinese students at the University of Sheffield Whatwillyoubeaskedtodo?
Firstly, you will be asked to select a topic in which you are knowledgeable and to search for resources that you feel would help a non-expert in the subject. Then you will be asked to explain your choices and to rank them. Whatarethepotentialrisksofparticipating?
The risks of participating are the same as those experienced in everyday life. Whatdatawillwecollect?
Interviews will be video recorded for further analysis. Whatwillwedowiththedata?
Interview data will be stored on the Information School's research data drive which can be accessed only by me, my supervisor, the School's Examinations Officer and ICT staff operating the facility. The data will be deleted 6 months after my dissertation has been completed. I will also store a password protected back up copy on my personal laptop, and will delete this data once my dissertation has been completed and marked. Willmyparticipationbeconfidential?
All data will be anonymized. Recordings will be filed using coded identifiers.Whatwillhappentotheresultsoftheresearchproject?
The results of this study will be included in my master’s dissertation which will be publicly available. Some findings may also be reported in academic publications. Please contact the School in six months. Note:Ifyouhaveanydifficultieswith,orwishtovoiceconcernabout,anyaspectofyourparticipationinthisstudy,pleasecontactDr.JoBates,EthicsCoordinator,InformationSchool,TheUniversityofSheffield([email protected]),ortotheUniversityRegistrarandSecretary.
66
7.2 Participant Consent form
University of Sheffield
Participant Consent FormParticipant Consent Form
A comparison of Google and Baidu: How do Chinese users assess the quality of the information retrieved for them by the two search engines?
Name of Researcher: Sen Wang Contact details: Tel:07469 011417; E-mail: [email protected] Participant Identification Number for this project: Please initial box 1. I confirm that I have read and understand the information sheet dated
18 March 2016 that explains the above research project, and that I have had the opportunity to ask questions about the project.
2. I understand that my participation is voluntary and that I am free to withdraw at any time without giving any reason and without there being any negative consequences. In addition, should I choose not to answer any particular
question or questions, I am free to decline.
3. I understand that my responses will be kept strictly confidential.
I give permission for members of the research team to have access to my anonymised responses. I understand that my name will not be linked with
the research materials, and I will not be identified or identifiable in the report or reports that result from the research.
4. I agree for the data collected from me to be used in future research 5. I agree to take part in the above research project.
________________________ ________________ ____________________ Name of Participant Date Signature (or legal representative) _Sen Wang_______________ ________________ ____________________ Lead Researcher Date Signature To be signed and dated in presence of the participant Copies: Once this has been signed by all parties the participant should receive a copy of the signed and dated participant consent form, the letter/pre-written script/information sheet and any other written information provided to the participants. A copy of the signed and dated consent form should be placed in the project’s main record (e.g. a site file), which must be kept in a secure location.
67
7.3APPROVAL LETTER
Downloaded: 17/08/2016
Approved: 25/05/2016
Sen Wang
Registration number: 150227885
Information School
Programme: dissertation
Dear Sen
PROJECT TITLE: A comparison of Google and Baidu: How do Chinese users assess the quality of the
information retrieved for them by the two search engines
APPLICATION: Reference Number 008833
On behalf of the University ethics reviewers who reviewed your project, I am pleased to inform you that on
25/05/2016 the above-named project was approved on ethics grounds, on the basis that you will adhere to
the following documentation that you submitted for ethics review:
University research ethics application form 008833 (dated 17/05/2016).
Participant information sheet 1018425 version 1 (17/05/2016).
Participant consent form 1018041 version 2 (17/05/2016).
If during the course of the project you need to deviate significantly from the above-approved documentation
please inform me since written approval will be required.
Yours sincerely
Matt Jones
Ethics Administrator
Information School
68
8. References
Abdulla, R. A., Garrison, B., Salwen, M., Driscoll, P., & Casey, D. (2002). The
credibility of newspapers, television news, and online news. In Education in
Journalism Annual Convention, Florida USA.
Burton, V. T., & Chadwick, S. A. (2000). Investigating the practices of student
researchers: Patterns of use and criteria for use of Internet and library sources.
Computers and Composition, 17(3), 309–328.
Cabrerizo, F. J., Martinez, M. A., Lopez-Gijon, J., Chiclana, F., & Herrera-Viedma, E.
(2015). A Web Information System to Improve the Digital Library Service
Quality. New Trends on System Science and Engineering: Proceedings of ICSSE
2015, 276, 3.
Castillo, C., Mendoza, M., & Poblete, B. (2011, March). Information credibility on
twitter. In Proceedings of the 20th international conference on World wide web
(pp. 675-684). ACM.
Currie, L., Devlin, F., Emde, J., & Graves, K. (2010). Undergraduate search strategies
and evaluation criteria: Searching for credible sources. New Library World,
111(3/4), 113–124.
69
Eysenbach, G., Powell, J., Kuss, O., & Sa, E.-R. (2002). Empirical studies assessing
the quality of health information for consumers on the world wide web: a
systematic review. Jama, 287(20), 2691–2700.
Fritch, J. W., & Cromwell, R. L. (2001). Evaluating Internet resources: Identity,
affiliation, and cognitive authority in a networked world. Journal of the
American Society for Information Science and Technology, 52(6), 499–507.
Grove, S. K., Burns, N., & Gray, J. R. (2014). Understanding nursing research:
Building an evidence-based practice. Elsevier Health Sciences.
Gubrium, J. F., & Holstein, J. A. (2002). Handbook of interview research: Context
and method. Sage.
Head, A. J., & Eisenberg, M. B. (2009). Finding Context: What Today’s College
Students Say about Conducting Research in the Digital Age. Project Information
Literacy Progress Report. Project Information Literacy.
Jansen, B. J., & Spink, A. (2006). How are we searching the World Wide Web ? A
comparison of nine search engine transaction logs, 42, 248–263.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipm.2004.10.007
70
Jiang, M. (2014). The business and politics of search engines: A comparative study of
Baidu and Google’s search results of Internet events in China. New Media &
Society, 16(2), 212-233.
Lazar, J., Meiselwitz, G., & Feng, J. (2007). Understanding Web Credibility: A
Synthesis of the Research Literature. Now Publishers.
Levene, M. (2011). An Introduction to Search Engines and Web Navigation. John Wiley
& Sons.
Lewandowski, D. (2012). Web Search Engine Research. Emerald Group.
Lex, E., Voelske, M., Errecalde, M., Ferretti, E., Cagnina, L., Horn, C., ... & Granitzer,
M. (2012, April). Measuring the quality of web content using factual
information. In Proceedings of the 2nd joint WICOW/AIRWeb workshop on web
quality (pp. 7-10). ACM.
Liu, Z. H., Zhang, F., & Chen, S. (2010). Comparative study on search effectiveness of
Google and Baidu based on user experience. Journal of Zhejiang University
(Science Edition), 37(5), 605-610.
71
Long, H., Lv, B., Zhao, T., & Liu, Y. (2007, September). Evaluate and compare Chinese
internet search engines based on users' experience. In 2007 International
Conference on Wireless Communications, Networking and Mobile
Computing (pp. 6134-6137). IEEE.
Lucassen, T., Muilwijk, R., Noordzij, M. L., & Schraagen, J. M. (2013). Topic
familiarity and information skills in online credibility evaluation. Journal of the
American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(2), 254-264.
Madden, A. D., Ford, N., Gorrell, G., Eaglestone, B., & Holdridge, P. (2012).
Metacognition and web credibility. The Electronic Library, 30(5), 671–689.
Mai, J. E. (2013). The quality and qualities of information. Journal of the American
society for information science and technology, 64(4), 675-688.
Mcknight, D. H., & Kacmar, C. J. (2007). Factors and Effects of Information
Credibility, 423–432.
McKnight, H., & Kacmar, C. (2006). Factors of information credibility for an internet
advice site. In System Sciences, 2006. HICSS’06. Proceedings of the 39th Annual
Hawaii International Conference on (Vol. 6, p. 113b–113b). IEEE.
72
Metzger, M. J. (2007). Making sense of credibility on the Web: Models for evaluating
online information and recommendations for future research. Journal of the
American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(13), 2078–2091.
Metzger, M. J., Flanagin, A. J., & Zwarun, L. (2003). College student Web use ,
perceptions of information credibility , and verification behavior, 41, 271–290.
http://doi.org/10.1016/S0360-1315(03)00049-6
Mohammadi, F., Abrizah, A., & Nazari, M. (2015). Is the information fit for use?
Exploring teachers perceived information quality indicators for Farsi web-based
learning resources. Malaysian Journal of Library & Information Science, 20(1),
99-122.
Mun, Y. Y., Yoon, J. J., Davis, J. M., & Lee, T. (2013). Untangling the antecedents of
initial trust in Web-based health information: The roles of argument quality,
source expertise, and user perceptions of information quality and risk. Decision
Support Systems, 55(1), 284-295.
O'Rourke IV, J. S., Harris, B., & Ogilvy, A. (2007). Google in China: government
censorship and corporate reputation. Journal of Business Strategy, 28(3), 12-22.
Pattanaphanchai, J., O'Hara, K., & Hall, W. (2013, May). Trustworthiness criteria for
73
supporting users to assess the credibility of web information. In Proceedings of
the 22nd International Conference on World Wide Web (pp. 1123-1130). ACM.
Pickard, A. J., Gannon-leary, P., & Coventry, L. (2010). Users ’ trust in information
resources in the Web environment : a status report. Retrieved from http://ie-
repository.jisc.ac.uk/470/2/JISC_User_Trust_final_report.pdf
Quelch, J. A., & Jocz, K. E. (2010). Google in China. Harvard Business School.
Rains, S. A., & Karmikel, C. D. (2009). Health information-seeking and perceptions
of website credibility: Examining Web-use orientation, message characteristics,
and structural features of websites. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(2), 544–
553.
Rubin, V. L., & Liddy, E. D. (2006, March). Assessing Credibility of Weblogs. In AAAI
Spring Symposium: Computational Approaches to Analyzing Weblogs (pp. 187-
190).
Ryan, G. J., Ryan, S. W., Ryan, C. M., Munro, W. A., & Robinson, D. (2002, July
16). Search engine. Google Patents.
Silverman, D. (2016). Qualitative research. Sage
74
Taylor, S. J., Bogdan, R., & DeVault, M. (2015). Introduction to qualitative research
methods: A guidebook and resource. John Wiley & Sons.
Tombros, Anastasios ; Ruthven, Ian ; Jose, J. M. (2005). How users assess Web pages
for information seeking. Journal of the American Society for Information Science
and Technology, 56(4)(12), 327–344. http://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20106
Tsai-Youn, H. (2004). Undergraduate students’ evaluation criteria when using web
resources for class papers. Journal of Educational Media and Library Sciences,
42(1), 1–12.
Twait, M. (2005). Undergraduate Students ’ Source Selection Criteria : A Qualitative
Study, 31(6), 567–573.
Walraven, A., Brand-gruwel, S., & Boshuizen, H. P. A. (2009). How students
evaluate information and sources when searching the World Wide Web for
information. Computers & Education, 52(1), 234–246.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2008.08.003
Wathen, C. N., & Burkell, J. (2002). Believe It or Not : Factors Influencing
Credibility on the Web, 53(2), 134–144. http://doi.org/10.1002/asi.10016
75
Westerwick, A. (2013). Effects of sponsorship, web site design, and Google ranking
on the credibility of online information. Journal of Computer-Mediated
Communication, 18(2), 80-97.
76
Information School.
Access to Dissertation A Dissertation submitted to the University may be held by the Department (or School) within which the Dissertation was
undertaken and made available for borrowing or consultation in accordance with University Regulations.
Requests for the loan of dissertations may be received from libraries in the UK and overseas. The Department may also
receive requests from other organisations, as well as individuals. The conservation of the original dissertation is better
assured if the Department and/or Library can fulfill such requests by sending a copy. The Department may also make your
dissertation available via its web pages.
In certain cases where confidentiality of information is concerned, if either the author or the supervisor so requests, the
Department will withhold the dissertation from loan or consultation for the period specified below. Where no such
restriction is in force, the Department may also deposit the Dissertation in the University of Sheffield Library.
To be completed by the Author – Select (a) or (b) by placing a tick in the appropriate box
If you are willing to give permission for the Information School to make your dissertation available in these ways, please
complete the following:
� (a) Subject to the General Regulation on Intellectual Property, I, the author, agree to this dissertation being made
immediately available through the Department and/or University Library for consultation, and for the Department
and/or Library to reproduce this dissertation in whole or part in order to supply single copies for the purpose of
research or private study
(b) Subject to the General Regulation on Intellectual Property, I, the author, request that this dissertation be withheld
from loan, consultation or reproduction for a period of [ ] years from the date of its submission. Subsequent to
this period, I agree to this dissertation being made available through the Department and/or University Library for
consultation, and for the Department and/or Library to reproduce this dissertation in whole or part in order to
supply single copies for the purpose of research or private study
Name Sen Wang
Department Information school
Signed Sen Wang Date 28.08.2016
To be completed by the Supervisor – Select (a) or (b) by placing a tick in the appropriate box
(a) I, the supervisor, agree to this dissertation being made immediately available through the Department and/or
University Library for loan or consultation, subject to any special restrictions (*) agreed with external organisations
as part of a collaborative project.
*Specialrestrictions
(b) I, the supervisor, request that this dissertation be withheld from loan, consultation or reproduction for a period of
[ ] years from the date of its submission. Subsequent to this period, I, agree to this dissertation being made
available through the Department and/or University Library for loan or consultation, subject to any special
restrictions (*) agreed with external organisations as part of a collaborative project
Name
Department
Signed Date
THIS SHEET MUST BE SUBMITTED WITH DISSERTATIONS BY DEPARTMENTAL REQUIREMENTS.