In previous research it has been shown that link-based web page metrics can be used to predict experts' assessment of quality. We are interested in a related question: do expert rankings of real-world entities correlate with search engine rankings of corresponding web resources? For example, each year US News & World Report publishes a list of (among others) top 50 graduate business schools. Does their expert ranking correlate with the search engine ranking of the URLs of those business schools? To answer this question we conducted 9 experiments using 8 expert rankings on a range of academic, athletic, financial and popular culture topics. We compared the expert rankings with the rankings in Google, Live Search (formerly MSN) and Yahoo (with list lengths of 10, 25, and 50). In 57 search engine vs. expert comparisons, only 1 strong and 4 moderate correlations were statistically significant. In 42 inter-search engine comparisons, only 2 strong and 4 moderate correlations were statistically significant. The correlations appeared to decrease with the size of the lists: the 3 strong correlations were for lists of 10, the 8 moderate correlations were for lists of 25, and no correlations were found for lists of 50.
Does Authority' mean Quality?'' is the question @cite_7 asked when they evaluated the potential of link- and content-based algorithms to identify high quality web pages. Human experts rated web documents from the Yahoo directory related to five popular topics by their quality. found a high correlation between the rankings of the human experts leading to the conclusion that there is a common notion of quality. By computing link-based metrics as well as analyzing the link neighborhood of the web pages from their dataset they were able to evaluate the performance of machine ranking methods. Here too they found a high correlation between in-degree, Kleinberg's authority score @cite_5 and PageRank. They isolated the documents that the human experts rated with good quality and evaluated the performance of algorithms on that list in terms of precision at @math and at @math . In-degree e.g., has a precision at @math of @math which means on average almost @math of the first @math documents it returns would be rated good by the experts. In general they find that in-degree, authority score and PageRank are all highly correlated with rankings provided by experts. Thus, web document quality can be estimated with hyperlink based metrics.
@cite_5 @cite_7
2615207113 2166227910 2166763895 2134308336
In the field of objective image quality assessment (IQA), the Spearman's @math and Kendall's @math are two most popular rank correlation indicators, which straightforwardly assign uniform weight to all quality levels and assume each pair of images are sortable. They are successful for measuring the average accuracy of an IQA metric in ranking multiple processed images. However, two important perceptual properties are ignored by them as well. Firstly, the sorting accuracy (SA) of high quality images are usually more important than the poor quality ones in many real world applications, where only the top-ranked images would be pushed to the users. Secondly, due to the subjective uncertainty in making judgement, two perceptually similar images are usually hardly sortable, whose ranks do not contribute to the evaluation of an IQA metric. To more accurately compare different IQA algorithms, we explore a perceptually weighted rank correlation indicator in this paper, which rewards the capability of correctly ranking high quality images, and suppresses the attention towards insensitive rank mistakes. More specifically, we focus on activating valid' pairwise comparison towards image quality, whose difference exceeds a given sensory threshold (ST). Meanwhile, each image pair is assigned an unique weight, which is determined by both the quality level and rank deviation. By modifying the perception threshold, we can illustrate the sorting accuracy with a more sophisticated SA-ST curve, rather than a single rank correlation coefficient. The proposed indicator offers a new insight for interpreting visual perception behaviors. Furthermore, the applicability of our indicator is validated in recommending robust IQA metrics for both the degraded and enhanced image data. For many topics, the World Wide Web contains hundreds or thousands of relevant documents of widely varying quality. Users face a daunting challenge in identifying a small subset of documents worthy of their attention. Link analysis algorithms have received much interest recently, in large part for their potential to identify high quality items. We report here on an experimental evaluation of this potential. We evaluated a number of link and content-based algorithms using a dataset of web documents rated for quality by human topic experts. Link-based metrics did a good job of picking out high-quality items. Precision at 5 is about 0.75, and precision at 10 is about 0.55; this is in a dataset where 0.32 of all documents were of high quality. Surprisingly, a simple content-based metric performed nearly as well; ranking documents by the total number of pages on their containing site. One immediate challenge in searching the deep web databases is source selection - i.e. selecting the most relevant web databases for answering a given query. The existing database selection methods (both text and relational) assess the source quality based on the query-similarity-based relevance assessment. When applied to the deep web these methods have two deficiencies. First is that the methods are agnostic to the correctness (trustworthiness) of the sources. Secondly, the query based relevance does not consider the importance of the results. These two considerations are essential for the open collections like the deep web. Since a number of sources provide answers to any query, we conjuncture that the agreements between these answers are likely to be helpful in assessing the importance and the trustworthiness of the sources. We compute the agreement between the sources as the agreement of the answers returned. While computing the agreement, we also measure and compensate for possible collusion between the sources. This adjusted agreement is modeled as a graph with sources at the vertices. On this agreement graph, a quality score of a source that we call SourceRank, is calculated as the stationary visit probability of a random walk. We evaluate SourceRank in multiple domains, including sources in Google Base, with sizes up to 675 sources. We demonstrate that the SourceRank tracks source corruption. Further, our relevance evaluations show that SourceRank improves precision by 22-60 over the Google Base and the other baseline methods. SourceRank has been implemented in a system called Factal. In a number of recent studies [4, 8] researchers have found that because search engines repeatedly return currently popular pages at the top of search results, popular pages tend to get even more popular, while unpopular pages get ignored by an average user. This "rich-get-richer" phenomenon is particularly problematic for new and high-quality pages because they may never get a chance to get users' attention, decreasing the overall quality of search results in the long run. In this paper, we propose a new ranking function, called page quality that can alleviate the problem of popularity-based ranking. We first present a formal framework to study the search engine bias by discussing what is an "ideal" way to measure the intrinsic quality of a page. We then compare how PageRank, the current ranking metric used by major search engines, differs from this ideal quality metric. This framework will help us investigate the search engine bias in more concrete terms and provide clear understanding why PageRank is effective in many cases and exactly when it is problematic. We then propose a practical way to estimate the intrinsic page quality to avoid the inherent bias of PageRank. We derive our proposed quality estimator through a careful analysis of a reasonable web user model, and we present experimental results that show the potential of our proposed estimator. We believe that our quality estimator has the potential to alleviate the rich-get-richer phenomenon and help new and high-quality pages get the attention that they deserve.