Futility point criterion, FPC

Concept in information retrieval related to large retrieval sets. It is also termed "stopping behavior" or "scanning persistence".

FPC is a designation for the maximal number of document representations that the user is willing to browse in. This number varies of course from person to person, from situation to situation and from domain to domain. It may also be expressed: When enough is enough (Zach, 2005).

Simon (1956) found that users are "satisfiers" when it comes to seeking information. Satisfiers are people who are willing to pursue a "good enough" option rather than the best  possible option (maximizes).

Literature:

Berryman, J. M. (2006). What defines 'enough' information? How policy workers make judgements and decisions during information seeking: preliminary results from an exploratory study Information Research, 11(4) paper 266. Available at http://www.InformationR.net/ir/11-4/paper266.html

Blair, D. C.(1990). Language and Representation in Information Retrieval. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Broberg, K. (1973). Scientists stopping behavior as indicator of writers skill. Journalism Quarterly, 50(4), 763-767.
 

Cooper, W. S. (1968). Expected search length: a single measure of retrieval effectiveness based on the weak ordering action of retrieval systems. American Documentation, 19, 30-41.
 

Hickey, T. & Prabha, C: Online public catalogs and large retrievals: Methods for organizing, reducing, and displaying. ASIS'90, 110-116.

 
Kantor, P. B. (1987).  A model for the stopping behavior of users of online systems.  Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 38(3), 211-214.

Kinnucan, M. T. (1992). The Size of Retrieval Sets. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 43, 72-79.

Pitts, M. G. & Browne, G. J. (2004). Stopping behavior of systems analysts during information requirement elicitation. Journal of Management Information Systems, 21(1), 203-226.

Simon, H. A. (1956). Rational choice and the structure of the environment. Psychological Review, 63, 129-138.
 

Wiberly, S. & Daugherty, R. A. (1988). Users' persistence in scanning lists of references. College and Research Libraries, 49, 149-156. 

Zach, L. (2005). When is “enough” enough? Modeling the information-seeking and stopping behavior of senior arts administrators. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 56(1), 23-35.

See also: Overload; Satisfice.

Birger Hjørland

Last edited: 29-01-2007

Home

to be edited:
Da informationsgenfinding er en er en sandsynlighedsmæssig størrelse, hvor sikkerhed for højt genfindingsforhold ("recall") står i direkte forhold til til den samlede mængde genfundne dokumenter, står informationssøgeren i overfor et dilemma: høj toleren­cetærskel og høj recall eller lav toleren­cetærskel og lav recall. Da kun erfarne, pro­fessionelle søgere kender denne sammen­hæng på det mere konkrete niveau, er infor­mationssøgeres forhåndsforventning, at man kan finde en rimelig andel af de relevante dokumenter i et forholdsvis beskedent søgesæt. Derfor er de fleste brugeres toleren­cetærskel for lav, og der påhviler BDI-personale en pædagogisk opgave i at forklare konsekven­serne af et for lavt tolerencepunkt. Blair (1990, side 13) nævner, at futility point meget ofte ligger under 50 referencer). Min erfaring (BH) er, at i mange situatio­ner kan tærsklen ved dokumentalistens autoritet bringes op omkring et par hundrede referencer. Søgesæt på 1.000 referencer eller mere vil næsten med garanti ligge over enhvert "futility point".

Eet er imidlertid det maksimale antal dokumenter, man er villig til at browse i med henblik på at tilfredsstille sit *informationsbehov, noget helt andet er hvilke dokuments­æt, man i informationssøgning på forhånd er villig til at undersøge karakteren af, med henblik på en videreudvikling af søgestrategien. Dette sidste kalder Blair (1990, side 9) for "anticipated futility point". Sådanne søgesæt kan være på adskillige tusinder referencer.