When Are Search Completion Suggestions Problematic?
Alexandra Olteanu, Fernando Diaz, Gabriella Kazai
Abstract
Problematic web search query completion suggestions-perceived as biased, offensive, or in some other way harmful-can reinforce existing stereotypes and misbeliefs, and even nudge users towards undesirable patterns of behavior. Locating such suggestions is difficult, not only due to the long-tailed nature of web search, but also due to differences in how people assess potential harms. Grounding our study in web search query logs, we explore when system-provided suggestions might be perceived as problematic through a series of crowd-experiments where we systematically manipulate: the search query fragments provided by users, possible user search intents, and the list of query completion suggestions. To examine why query suggestions might be perceived as problematic, we contrast them to an inventory of known types of problematic suggestions. We report our observations around differences in the prevalence of a) suggestions that are problematic on their own versus b) suggestions that are problematic for the query fragment provided by a user, for both common informational needs and in the presence of web search voids-topics searched by few to no users. Our experiments surface a rich array of scenarios where suggestions are considered problematic, including due to the context in which they were surfaced. Compounded by the elusive nature of many such scenarios, the prevalence of suggestions perceived as problematic only for certain user inputs, raises concerns about blind spots due to data annotation practices that may lead to some types of problematic suggestions being overlooked.
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Your agent calls
Luneget_paper_fulltext
Free to start. No credit card required.
Terminal
Install the CLIlune papers fulltext d7c08f4a-db0e-4c31-8ca6-e5fd039f1a0eCited by top-tier papers5
- "I Can't Reply with That": Characterizing Problematic Email Reply SuggestionsRonald E. Robertson, Alexandra Olteanu, Fernando Diaz, Milad Shokouhi et al.CHI 2021 · 42 citations
- Snowy: Recommending Utterances for Conversational Visual AnalysisArjun Srinivasan, Vidya SetlurUIST 2021 · 38 citations
- Reinforcement Guided Multi-Task Learning Framework for Low-Resource Stereotype DetectionRajkumar Pujari, Erik Oveson, Priyanka Kulkarni, Elnaz NouriACL 2022 · 11 citations
- FairPrism: Evaluating Fairness-Related Harms in Text GenerationEve Fleisig, Aubrie Amstutz, Chad Atalla, Su Lin Blodgett et al.ACL 2023 · 9 citations
- Stereotyping Norwegian Salmon: An Inventory of Pitfalls in Fairness Benchmark DatasetsSu Lin Blodgett, Gilsinia Lopez, Alexandra Olteanu, Robert Sim et al.ACL 2021
Builds on1
Related papers
- Towards a Better Understanding of Query Reformulation Behavior in Web SearchJia Chen, Jiaxin Mao, Yiqun Liu, Fan Zhang et al.WWW 2021 · 67 citations
- User Attitudes to Content Moderation in Web SearchAleksandra Urman, Aniko Hannak, Mykola MakhortykhCSCW 2024 · 7 citations
- Show me a "Male Nurse"! How Gender Bias is Reflected in the Query Formulation of Search Engine UsersSimone Kopeinik, Martina Mara, Linda Ratz, Klara Krieg et al.CHI 2023 · 14 citations
- Causal Perception in Question-Answering SystemsPo-Ming Law, Leo Yu-Ho Lo, Alex Endert, John T. Stasko et al.CHI 2021 · 9 citations
- Automatically Exposing Problems with Neural Dialog ModelsDian Yu, Kenji SagaeEMNLP 2021 · 5 citations
