People frequently use search engines in the lead-up to elections, and the results they encounter can influence their voting decisions. In this study, we analyzed the stances of search results from Google and Bing in Germany related to the 2024 European Parliament elections, as well as the types of sources presented to users. We collected 760 search results for 38 political queries and had jurors assess their stances, with each result being evaluated by five jurors. The findings reveal that public authority and journalistic pages dominate the search results, while political party pages are the least represented source category. Furthermore, we found that Google and Bing predominantly display neutral search results, with neutral stances being more common in Google than in Bing. Additionally, in both search engines, search results that indicate a political leaning tend to align more closely with left-leaning parties than with right-leaning ones. While acknowledging that the findings may be influenced by how the queries were formulated, the results highlight the importance of using multiple search engines to access diverse political viewpoints. They also raise questions about whether both agreeing and disagreeing results should be displayed for controversial topics.

The Result Assessment Tool (RAT) is an open-source software toolkit for conducting research with results from commercial search engines and other web-based information retrieval systems. Conducting such research is challenging due to the “black-box” nature of these systems and limited data access. RAT addresses this by providing an integrated software environment that unifies modules for study design, automated data collection, manual assessment in a dedicated interface, and automated analysis via an extensible classifier framework. The software is designed to assist with various research tasks, including comparative assessments of result quality, investigations of source variety, and content analysis. It emphasizes transparency in methodologies, reproducibility of outcomes, and responsible data collection.

Abstract Search engines, such as Google, have a considerable impact on society. Therefore, undesirable consequences, such as retrieving incorrect search results, pose a risk to users. Although previous research has reported the adverse outcomes of web search, little is known about how search engine users evaluate those outcomes. In this study, we show which aspects of web search are perceived as risky using a sample (N = 3884) representative of the German Internet population. We found that many participants are often concerned with adverse consequences immediately appearing on the search engine result page. For example, 45.2% of respondents are concerned about retrieving incorrect information. In contrast, consequences with a delayed impact are rarely perceived as a risk. Moreover, participants' experiences with adverse consequences are directly related to their risk perception. Our results demonstrate that people perceive risks related to web search. In addition to our study, there is a need for more independent research on the possible detrimental outcomes of web search to monitor and mitigate risks. Apart from risks for individuals, search engines with a massive number of users have an extraordinary impact on society; therefore, the acceptable risks of web search should be discussed.

People use search engines to find answers to questions related to their health, finances, or other socially relevant issues. However, most users are unaware that search results are considerably influenced by search engine marketing (SEM). SEM measures are driven by commercial, political, or other motives. Due to these motivations, two questions arise: What information quality is mediated through SEM? And how is collecting documents of different quality affecting user knowledge gain? Both questions are not considered by existing models of information behavior. Hence, the doctoral research project described in this paper aims to develop and empirically test an information search behavior model on the influences of SEM on user knowledge gain and thereby contribute to the search as learning body of research.

Searching for medical information is both a common and important activity since it influences decisions people make about their healthcare. Using search engine optimization (SEO), content producers seek to increase the visibility of their content. SEO is more likely to be practiced by commercially motivated content producers such as pharmaceutical companies than by non-commercial providers such as governmental bodies. In this study, we ask whether content quality correlates with the presence or absence of SEO measures on a web page. We conducted a user study in which N = 61 participants comprising laypeople as well as experts in health information assessment evaluated health-related web pages classified as either optimized or non-optimized. The subjects rated the expertise of non-optimized web pages as higher than the expertise of optimized pages, justifying their appraisal by the more competent and reputable appearance of non-optimized pages. In addition, comments about the website operators of the non-optimized pages were exclusively positive, while optimized pages tended to receive positive as well as negative assessments. We found no differences between the ratings of laypeople and experts. Since non-optimized, but high-quality content may be outranked by optimized content of lower quality, trusted sources should be prioritized in rankings.

Abstract According to recent studies, search engine users have little knowledge of Google's business model. In addition, users cannot sufficiently distinguish organic results from advertisements, resulting in result selections under false assumptions. Following on from that, this study examines how users' understanding of search‐based advertising influences their viewing and selection behavior on desktop computer and smartphone. To investigate this, we used a mixed methods approach (n = 100) consisting of a pre‐study interview, an eye‐tracking experiment, and a post‐study questionnaire. We show that participants with a low level of knowledge on search advertising are more likely to click on ads than subjects with a high level of knowledge. Moreover, subjects with little knowledge show less willingness to scroll down to organic results. Regarding the device, there are significant differences in viewing behavior. These can be attributed to the influence of the direct visibility of search results on both devices tested: Ads that were ranked on top received significantly more visual attention on the small screen than the top ranked ads on the large screen. The results call for a clearer labeling of advertisements and for the promotion of users' information literacy. Future studies should investigate the motivations of searchers when clicking on ads.