Web search engines have evolved drastically over the past two decades, transitioning from simple link providers to direct answer providers. AI technologies, particularly generative large language models, have accelerated this shift by embedding conversational and personalized features directly into search systems. As a result, user expectations and approaches to search have fundamentally changed.

Web search engines have long been the primary gateway to online information, but generative AI chatbots are emerging as alternative tools. Yet we lack empirical understanding of how users choose between these tools and how their information-seeking behaviors differ across these contexts. Understanding how users select, use, and assess information retrieval (IR) systems is essential for evaluating them in ways that reflect user expectations across contexts. To shed light on user perceptions and usage of IR systems, we surveyed 84 participants about their recent search engine and GenAI chatbot use, analyzing task types, contextual triggers, outcomes, and tool preferences. Our findings reveal that users approach search engines and GenAI chatbots with distinct philosophies. With search engines, they follow a 'Browse and Verify' approach, prioritizing reliability and source verifiability. With GenAI chatbots, they adopt a 'Delegate and Consume' approach, valuing quick summarization and personalized content. Despite these stated preferences, actual usage shows that users frequently turn to GenAI chatbots for actionable guidance in high-stakes domains such as health and relationship matters, hinting at a divergence between stated philosophies and real-world behavior. These findings underscore the need for IR systems that support reliable information assessment, transparent sources, and user-guided evaluation.

Internet users highly rely on and trust web search engines, such as Google, to find relevant information online. However, scholars have documented numerous biases and inaccuracies in search outputs. To improve the quality of search results, search engines employ various content moderation practices such as interface elements informing users about potentially dangerous websites and algorithmic mechanisms for downgrading or removing low-quality search results. While the reliance of the public on web search engines and their use of moderation practices is well-established, user attitudes towards these practices have not yet been explored in detail. To address this gap, we first conducted an overview of content moderation practices used by search engines, and then surveyed a representative sample of the US adult population (N=398) to examine the levels of support for different moderation practices applied to potentially misleading and/or potentially offensive content in web search. We also analyzed the relationship between user characteristics and their support for specific moderation practices. We find that the most supported practice is informing users about potentially misleading or offensive content, and the least supported one is the complete removal of search results. More conservative users and users with lower levels of trust in web search results are more likely to be against content moderation in web search.

The Creator Economy faces concerning levels of unfairness. Content creators (CCs) publicly accuse platforms of purposefully reducing the visibility of their content based on protected attributes, while platforms place the blame on viewer biases. Meanwhile, prior work warns about the “rich-get-richer” effect perpetuated by existing popularity biases in recommender systems: Any initial advantage in visibility will likely be exacerbated over time. What remains unclear is how the biases based on protected attributes from platforms and viewers interact and contribute to the observed inequality in the context of popularity-biased recommender systems. The difficulty of the question lies in the complexity and opacity of the system. To overcome this challenge, we design a simple agent-based model (ABM) that unifies the platform systems which allocate the visibility of CCs (e.g., recommender systems, moderation) into a single popularity-based function, which we call the visibility allocation system (VAS). Through simulations, we find that although viewer homophilic biases do alone create inequalities, small levels of additional biases in VAS are more harmful. From the perspective of interventions, our results suggest that (a) attempts to reduce attribute-biases in moderation and recommendations should precede those reducing viewers’ homophilic tendencies, (b) decreasing the popularity-biases in VAS decreases but not eliminates inequalities, (c) boosting the visibility of protected CCs to overcome viewers’ homophily with respect to one fairness metric is unlikely to produce fair outcomes with respect to all metrics, and (d) the process is also unfair for viewers and this unfairness could be overcome through the same interventions. More generally, this work demonstrates the potential of using ABMs to better understand the causes and effects of biases and interventions within complex sociotechnical systems.

Programming is a valuable skill in the labor market, making the underrepresentation of women in computing an increasingly important issue. Online question and answer platforms serve a dual purpose in this field: they form a body of knowledge useful as a reference and learning tool, and they provide opportunities for individuals to demonstrate credible, verifiable expertise. Issues, such as male-oriented site design or overrepresentation of men among the site’s elite may therefore compound the issue of women’s underrepresentation in IT. In this paper we audit the differences in behavior and outcomes between men and women on Stack Overflow, the most popular of these Q&A sites. We observe significant differences in how men and women participate in the platform and how successful they are. For example, the average woman has roughly half of the reputation points, the primary measure of success on the site, of the average man. Using an Oaxaca-Blinder decomposition, an econometric technique commonly applied to analyze differences in wages between groups, we find that most of the gap in success between men and women can be explained by differences in their activity on the site and differences in how these activities are rewarded. Specifically, 1) men give more answers than women and 2) are rewarded more for their answers on average, even when controlling for possible confounders such as tenure or buy-in to the site. Women ask more questions and gain more reward per question. We conclude with a hypothetical redesign of the site’s scoring system based on these behavioral differences, cutting the reputation gap in half.

In this work we investigate gender-based inequalities in the context of resume search engines, which are tools that allow recruiters to proactively search for candidates based on keywords and filters. If these ranking algorithms take demographic features into account (directly or indirectly), they may produce rankings that disadvantage some candidates. We collect search results from Indeed, Monster, and CareerBuilder based on 35 job titles in 20 U. S. cities, resulting in data on 855K job candidates. Using statistical tests, we examine whether these search engines produce rankings that exhibit two types of indirect discrimination: individual and group unfairness. Furthermore, we use controlled experiments to show that these websites do not use inferred gender of candidates as explicit features in their ranking algorithms.

In recent years crowdfunding has diversified and grown beyond most experts' projections. Originally aiming to serve venture ideas and entrepreneurs outside the focus of traditional capital markets, the crowdfunding marketplace has developed a complicated relationship with novel ideas. Yet, there is little to no research on the relationship between project novelty and success in crowdfunding. This paper measures the novelty of crowdfunding campaigns using the content and language of their pitches, capturing their tendency to combine different venture sectors and topics in distinctive ways. Using a unique data set that covers four years of activity on a leading equity crowdfunding platform, we investigate the link between novelty and success, as well as how novelty appeals to different kinds of investors. We find that novelty derived from campaign pitches is negatively related with fundraising success even when controlling for quality and style of writing. We also find that novel campaigns are more likely to attract less-frequent, large-sum investors. Our findings contribute to the long-standing debate related to the trade-offs between innovativeness and conventionality in maximizing chances of startup survival. Our results also have important implications for entrepreneurs writing fundraising pitches and for platform providers who wish to facilitate successful innovation.

Online freelancing marketplaces have grown quickly in recent years. In theory, these sites offer workers the ability to earn money without the obligations and potential social biases associated with traditional employment frameworks. In this paper, we study whether two prominent online freelance marketplaces - TaskRabbit and Fiverr - are impacted by racial and gender bias. From these two platforms, we collect 13,500 worker profiles and gather information about workers' gender, race, customer reviews, ratings, and positions in search rankings. In both marketplaces, we find evidence of bias: we find that gender and race are significantly correlated with worker evaluations, which could harm the employment opportunities afforded to the workers. We hope that our study fuels more research on the presence and implications of discrimination in online environments.

To cope with the immense amount of content on the web, search engines often use complex algorithms to personalize search results for individual users. However, personalization of search results has led to worries about the Filter Bubble Effect, where the personalization algorithm decides that some useful information is irrelevant to the user, and thus prevents them from locating it. In this paper, we propose a novel methodology to explore the impact of location-based personalization on Google Search results. Assessing the relationship between location and personalization is crucial, since users' geolocation can be used as a proxy for other demographic traits, like race, income, educational attainment, and political affiliation. In other words, does location-based personalization trap users in geolocal Filter Bubbles?

Today, many e-commerce websites personalize their content, including Netflix (movie recommendations), Amazon (product suggestions), and Yelp (business reviews). In many cases, personalization provides advantages for users: for example, when a user searches for an ambiguous query such as ``router,'' Amazon may be able to suggest the woodworking tool instead of the networking device. However, personalization on e-commerce sites may also be used to the user's disadvantage by manipulating the products shown (price steering) or by customizing the prices of products (price discrimination). Unfortunately, today, we lack the tools and techniques necessary to be able to detect such behavior.

Web search is an integral part of our daily lives. Recently, there has been a trend of personalization in Web search, where different users receive different results for the same search query. The increasing personalization is leading to concerns about Filter Bubble effects, where certain users are simply unable to access information that the search engines' algorithm decides is irrelevant. Despite these concerns, there has been little quantification of the extent of personalization in Web search today, or the user attributes that cause it.