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