Quality-biased Ranking for Queries with Commercial Intent Alexander - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

quality biased ranking for queries with commercial intent
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

Quality-biased Ranking for Queries with Commercial Intent Alexander - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Quality-biased Ranking for Queries with Commercial Intent Alexander Shishkin Polina Zhinalieva Kirill Nikolaev {sisoid, bondy, kvn}@yandex-team.ru Yandex LLC WebQuality Workshop 2013 1 Topical Relevance Scale Vital the most likely


slide-1
SLIDE 1

Quality-biased Ranking for Queries with Commercial Intent

Alexander Shishkin Polina Zhinalieva Kirill Nikolaev

{sisoid, bondy, kvn}@yandex-team.ru

Yandex LLC

WebQuality Workshop 2013 1

slide-2
SLIDE 2

Topical Relevance Scale Vital — the most likely search target Useful — authoritative source of information Highly relevant — provides substantial information Slightly relevant — provides minimal information Irrelevant — does not appear to be of any use Query: "WebQuality 2013" URL Rating www.dl.kuis.kyoto-u.ac.jp/webquality2013/ Vital www.quality2013.eu/ Irrelevant wcqi.asq.org/ Irrelevant quality.unze.ba/ Irrelevant 2

slide-3
SLIDE 3

The Main Problems of Commercial Ranking Query: "IPhone 5 wholesale" URL Rating wholesaleiphone5.net Highly relevant wholesaleiphone5sale.com Highly relevant iphone5wholesale.com Highly relevant wholesaleiphone5cool.com Highly relevant appleiphone5wholesale.com Highly relevant Any rearrangement of SE results makes no sense in terms of relevance metrics

Top positions are saturated with over-optimized sites

❅ ❅ ❅ ❅ ❅ ❅ ❘

3

slide-4
SLIDE 4

Are Commercial Sites Really Identical? best-tyres.ru tyreservice.ru 4

slide-5
SLIDE 5

Over-optimized Document Features Text features Link features 5

slide-6
SLIDE 6

SEO Ecosystem Over-optimized sites in the top-10 SE results Further optimization

  • f search factors

✛ ✣✢ ✤✜ t t ✻ PPPPPPPPPPPP P q

Webmaster 6

slide-7
SLIDE 7

Ecosystem of Commercial Ranking Improving the quality of search engine’s results

Introducing new features to capture the site quality

Quality-correlated factors optimization

✛ ✣✢ ✤✜ t t ✻

Webmaster 7

slide-8
SLIDE 8

The Main Steps in Our Approach

◮ Step 1: introduce new relevance labels ◮ Step 2: create new ranking features ◮ Step 3: modify ranking function ◮ ?????? ◮ PROFIT

8

slide-9
SLIDE 9

Components of the Document Quality Score

◮ Assortment for a given query ◮ Design quality ◮ Trustworthiness of the site ◮ Quality of service ◮ Usability features of the site

9

slide-10
SLIDE 10

Illustration of Assortment

◮ Assortment for a given query ◮ Design quality ◮ Trustworthiness of the site ◮ Quality of service ◮ Usability features of the site

10

slide-11
SLIDE 11

Illustration of Assortment

◮ Assortment for a given query ◮ Design quality ◮ Trustworthiness of the site ◮ Quality of service ◮ Usability features of the site

11

slide-12
SLIDE 12

Illustration of Usability Features

◮ Assortment for a given query ◮ Design quality ◮ Trustworthiness of the site ◮ Quality of service ◮ Usability features of the site

12

slide-13
SLIDE 13

Illustration of Usability Features

◮ Assortment for a given query ◮ Design quality ◮ Trustworthiness of the site ◮ Quality of service ◮ Usability features of the site

13

slide-14
SLIDE 14

Aggregation of Quality Components into the Single Score Commercial relevance: Rc(q, d, s) = V(q, d) · (D(s) + T(s) + S(s) + U(s)), q — search query, d — document, s — the whole site, V(q, d) — Assortment, D(s) — design quality, T(s) — trustworthiness, S(s) — quality of service, U(s) — usability. 14

slide-15
SLIDE 15

Features for Measuring Site Quality A few examples: Detailed contact information Absence of advertising Number of different product items Availability of shipping service Price discounts . . . 15

slide-16
SLIDE 16

Challenges of Commercial Ranking

◮ Assessment is 6 times more time-consuming ◮ Only highly relevant documents are evaluated ◮ New labels cover no more than 5% of the dataset ◮ All topical relevance labels should be used

Solution: extrapolate commercial relevance score to the entire dataset using machine learning. 16

slide-17
SLIDE 17

Learning to Rank with New Relevance Labels Unified relevance: Ru(q, d, s) = Rt(q, d) + α · Rc

est(q, d, s),

Rt(q, d) — topical relevance score, Rc

est(q, d, s) — estimate of the commercial relevance score,

α — weighting coefficient. And now we use standard machine learning algorithm . . . 17

slide-18
SLIDE 18

New Metrics for the Method Evaluation Offline DCG-like metrics: Goodness(q) =

10

  • i=1

Rc(q, di, si) log2(i + 1) , Badness(q) =

10

  • i=1

(Rc(q, di, si) ≤ th) log2(i + 1) , th — threshold for the minimal acceptable site quality. 18

slide-19
SLIDE 19

Changes in New Metrics

Goodness metric (30%-increase) Badness metric (70%-decrease)

19

slide-20
SLIDE 20

Changes in Online Metrics A/B experiment:

◮ 7%-increase in the Long Clicks per Session metric; ◮ 5%-decrease in the Abandonment Rate metric.

Interleaving experiment:

◮ users chose new ranking results 1% more often than

results from default ranking system. 20

slide-21
SLIDE 21

The End Questions? 21