<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?> 
<rss version="2.0">
 <channel>
  <title>SHRIPHANI PALAKODETY: Posts tagged 'information-retrieval'</title>
  <description>SHRIPHANI PALAKODETY: Posts tagged 'information-retrieval'</description>
  <link>http://blog.shriphani.com/tags/information-retrieval.html</link>
  <lastBuildDate>Thu, 08 May 2014 02:29:01 UT</lastBuildDate>
  <pubDate>Thu, 08 May 2014 02:29:01 UT</pubDate>
  <ttl>1800</ttl>
  <item>
   <title>Diagnosis by Google Doesn't Work</title>
   <link>http://blog.shriphani.com/2014/05/07/diagnosis-by-google-doesn-t-work/?utm_source=information-retrieval&amp;utm_medium=RSS</link>
   <guid>urn:http-blog-shriphani-com:-2014-05-07-diagnosis-by-google-doesn-t-work</guid>
   <pubDate>Thu, 08 May 2014 02:29:01 UT</pubDate>
   <description>&lt;html&gt;
&lt;p&gt;I have often Googled for symptoms, visited WebMD (and concluded that I have a deadly disease). At SIGIR 2013, Ryen White&amp;rsquo;s paper, &lt;a href="http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/people/ryenw/papers/WhiteSIGIR2013.pdf"&gt;Beliefs and Biases in IR&lt;/a&gt;, provided empirical evidence for the poor success-rate of diagnosis-by-google.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;The authors mined medical yes/no questions (For example: Can salmonella cause belly-ache), had physicians answer these questions, and then measured user bias post-search (i.e. the users after perusing the results answer their original questions with yes/no) (the paper contains a very detailed description of the experiments conducted).&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;The accuracy of the final answer was the most interesting part of this paper - &lt;strong&gt;only about half of the questions were accurately answered. That is as good as flipping a (fair) coin for each question&lt;/strong&gt;. The rest of the paper was a fairly interesting read (and it won the SIGIR 2013 best paper award).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/html&gt;</description></item></channel></rss>