Database Reference
In-Depth Information
As a consequence, you ran an unmoderated usability study with recruiters search-
ing for candidates with the current Behemoth search engine. After recruiters used the
search for a while, each participant was asked to rank their perception of the useful-
ness of the different search engine ields. At the end, they were asked to rate their
likelihood to adopt the search engine. With the data in hand, you calculated the cor-
relation coeficient between the ability to perform a Boolean search and likelihood of
adoption of the search engine, and performed simple regression.
The results were dramatic. Your correlation coeficient of +0.449 between the
capability to perform a Boolean search and likelihood of adoption of the search
engine told you that a higher sense of utility of Boolean search capability is associ-
ated with an increased likelihood of adoption of the search engine. Furthermore, the
very low
p
-value showed that there is no doubt that there is a positive linear relation-
ship between the ability to do a Boolean search and the likelihood of adoption of the
search engine. Lastly, the
r
2
value of 0.2 meant that you estimate that the capability
of performing a Boolean search,
by itself,
explains more than 20% of the responder's
choice for the likelihood of adoption of the search engine query.
Bottom line: recruiters want Boolean, and they're more likely to use your search
engine if you have it. Despite what the Palo Alto hipsters told Joey, killing Boolean
in the new Turbo Search was a mistake—and a costly one.
All of which blew Hans' mind. As requested by Hans, you summarized the ind-
ings in a 5-page PowerPoint deck that he took to Behemoth CEO Joey Vellucci. But
that was Tuesday; now it's Friday afternoon and you haven't heard a thing about their
meeting. Suddenly, he pops his head into your cube as he's racing out of the ofice
for a long weekend.
“Hey there,” he says. “Sorry I never got back to you. It's been a crazy week.”
“No worries,” you say. “How did the meeting with Joey go?”
“I won't sugar-coat it; it was ugly,” he sighs, plopping down in your extra ofice chair.
“Sorry to hear that, Hans.”
“Well, he wasn't angry with UX, but he's
furious
with the Palo Alto dudes.”
“Yeah, I can understand,” you say, trying to maintain objectivity.
“But he did have a parting shot for UX.”
“Really?” you ask.
“At one point, he kind of got red in the face and said 'Why doesn't UX come
up with their own frickin' ideal search engine since they keep indings problems
all the time in the usability lab?' (He thinks you and all the other UX research-
ers are a bunch of doom and gloomers, sort of like Agnew's 'nattering nabobs of
negativism'.)”
This time you chuckle at the Watergate-era reference. “Well,” you respond, “We
ind problems. It's the nature of the beast. But…I've got an idea.”
“Shoot!”
“Well, in the test we just inished, we had people rank their perception of useful-
ness with the different search ields, along with their likelihood to adopt the search
engine. By analyzing the data, we can igure out which combination of search ields
will maximize likelihood of adoption.”
Search WWH ::
Custom Search