Image retrieval effectiveness of Bing Images,Google Images and Yahoo Image Search in the scientific field of tourism and COVID-19

Abstract

The year 2020 brought a big concern for the global community because of COVID-19, which affected every sector of society, and tourism is no exception. Researchers across the globe are publishing their studies related to different dimensions of tourism in the context of COVID-19, and images have formed an essential component of their research. In tourism, images related to COVID-19 can open new dimensions for scholars. The main aim of the research is to measure the retrieval effectiveness of three image search engines (ISEs), that is, Bing Images, Google Images and Yahoo Image Search, concerning images related to COVID-19 and tourism. The study attempts to identify the capability of the ISEs to retrieve the desired and actual images related to COVID-19 and tourism. The PubMed Central (PMC) Database was consulted to retrieve the desired images and develop a testbed. The advanced search feature of PMC Database was explored by typing the search terms ‘COVID-19’ and ‘Tourism’ using ‘AND’ operator to make the search more comprehensive. Both the terms were searched against the ‘Figure/Table’ caption to retrieve papers carrying images related to COVID-19 and tourism. Queries were executed across the select ISEs, that is, Bing Images, Google Images and Yahoo Image Search. Retrieved images were individually analysed against the original image from the articles to determine the Precision, Relative Recall, F-Measure and Fallout Ratio. The format of the images in JPG/JPEG, besides checking the original image rank in the retrieved lot, was also ascertained. Bing Images scores more in terms of Mean Precision, followed by Google Images and Yahoo Image Search. For the Relative Recall measure, Google Images scores high, followed by Bing Images and Yahoo Image Search, respectively. Regarding F-Measure and Fallout Ratio, Bing Images outperforms Google Images and Yahoo Image Search. In retrieving the sought format of JPG/JPEG, Google Images performs best, followed by Yahoo Image Search and Bing Images. Google Images produces the original image at the first rank on more than one occasion. In contrast, Bing Images retrieves the original image at the first rank in two instances. Yahoo Images performs poorly over this metric as it does not retrieve any original image at the first rank on any other instance. The study cannot be generalised as the scope is only limited to the images indexed by PMC. Furthermore, the retrieval effectiveness of only three ISEs is measured. The study is the first to measure the retrieval effectiveness of ISEs in retrieving images related to the COVID-19 pandemic and tourism. The study can be extended across other image-indexing databases pertinent to tourism studies, and the retrieval effectiveness of other ISEs can also be considered.

Keywords

Bing Images Google Images image retrieval image search engine effectiveness image search engines search engines Yahoo Image Search

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Lyman

Varian

HR.

How much information?

2003, https://groups.ischool.berkeley.edu/archive/how-much-info-2003/

Norouzi

Homavandi

Image search and retrieval problems in web search engines: a case study of Persian language writing style challenges. Online Inf Rev 2018; 42(6): 752–767.

Isfandyari-Moghaddam

Web metasearch engines: a comparative study on search capabilities using an evaluation check-list. Online Inf Rev 2007; 31(3): 300–309.

Zeynali Tazehkandi

Nowkarizi

. Three approaches to measuring recall on the Web: a systematic review. Electron Libr 2020; 38(3): 477–492.

Theodosiou

Tsapatsoulis

Image annotation: the effects of content, lexicon and annotation method. Int J Multimed Inf Retr 2020; 9(3): 191–203.

Uyar

Karapinar

Investigating the precision of Web image search engines for popular and less popular entities. J Inf Sci 2017; 43(3): 378–392.

CheshmehSohrabi

Sadati

EA.

Performance evaluation of web search engines in image retrieval: an experimental study. Inf Dev 2022; 38(4): 522–534.

Nazir

Ashraf

Hamdani

et al. Content based image retrieval system by using HSV color histogram, discrete wavelet transform and edge histogram descriptor. In: Proceedings of the 2018 international conference on computing, mathematics and engineering technologies (iCoMET), Sukkur, Pakistan, 3–4 March 2018, pp. 1–6. New York: IEEE.

Sathiamoorthy

Natarajan

An efficient content based image retrieval using enhanced multi-trend structure descriptor. SN App Sci 2020; 2(2): 217.

10.

Tyagi

Content-based image retrieval techniques: a review. Singapore: Springer, 2017.

11.

Zhu

Shen

Xie

et al. Unsupervised visual hashing with semantic assistant for content-based image retrieval. IEEE Trans Knowl Data Eng 2017; 29(2): 472–486.

12.

Alomairi

AEAM

Sulong

. An overview of content-based image retrieval techniques. J Theor Appl Inf Technol 2016; 84(2): 215–223.

13.

Dutta

Verma

Jawahar

CV.

Automatic image annotation: the quirks and what works. Multimed Tools Appl 2018; 77(24): 31991–32011.

14.

Haji

Alkawaz

Rehman

et al. Content-based image retrieval: a deep look at features prospectus. Int J Comput Vis Robot 2019; 9(1): 14–38.

15.

Sun

et al. Generating holistic 3D scene abstractions for text-based image retrieval. In: Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition (CVPR), https://arxiv.org/pdf/1611.09392.pdf (2017, accessed 2 October 2020).

16.

Manjula

Monisha

Reshma

et al. Content based image retrieval systems: a review. Res J Pharm Biol Chem Sci 2016; 7(6): 1915–1921.

17.

Patel

Kapadia

Maisuria

A review on content based image retrieval. Int J Comput Appl 2015; 132(13): 22–25.

18.

Guo

Zhang

Zhou

et al. Combined retrieval: a convenient and precise approach for Internet image retrieval. Inf Sci 2016; 358–359(C): 151–163.

19.

Hassan

Zhang

Image search engine feature analysis. Online Inf Rev 2001; 25(2): 103–114.

20.

Assaf

Scuderi

COVID-19 and the recovery of the tourism industry. Tour Econ 2020; 26(5): 731–733.

21.

Fong

LHN

Law

. Outlook of tourism recovery amid an epidemic: importance of outbreak control by the government. Ann Tour Res 2021; 86: 102951.

22.

Gallego

Font

Changes in air passenger demand as a result of the COVID-19 crisis: using Big Data to inform tourism policy. J Sustain Tour 2021; 29(9): 1470–1489.

23.

Hong

Cai

et al. The impact of COVID-19 on tourist satisfaction with B & B in Zhejiang, China: an importance – performance analysis. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2020; 17(10): 3747.

24.

Ranasinghe

Damunupola

Wijesundara

et al. Tourism after corona: impacts of COVID 19 pandemic and way forward for tourism, hotel and mice industry in Sri Lanka. SSRN 2020; 2020: 1–19.

25.

Sheresheva

MY.

Coronavirus and tourism. Popul Econ 2020; 4(2): 72–76.

26.

Singh

Neog

Contagion effect of COVID-19 outbreak: another recipe for disaster on Indian economy. Public Aff 2020; 20(4): e2171.

27.

Balabantaray

Swain

Sahoo

Evaluation of web search engines based on ranking of results and features. Int J Hum Comput Interact 2013; 4(3): 117–127.

28.

Can

Nuray

Sevdik

AB.

Automatic performance evaluation of Web search engines. Inf Process Manag 2004; 40(3): 495–514.

29.

Chu

Rosenthal

Search engines for the World Wide Web: a comparative study and evaluation methodology. Proc Ann Meet Am Soc Inf Sci 1996; 33: 127–135.

30.

Deka

Lahkar

Performance evaluation and comparison of the five most used search engines in retrieving web resources. Online Inf Rev 2010; 34(5): 757–771.

31.

Ding

Marchionini

GJ.

A comparative study of web search service performance. Proc ASIST Ann Meet 1996; 33: 136–140.

32.

Eastman

Jansen

BJ.

Coverage, relevance, and ranking: the impact of query operators on Web search engine results. ACM Trans Inf Syst 2003; 21(4): 383–411.

33.

Gordon

Pathak

Finding information on the World Wide Web: the retrieval effectiveness of search engines. Inf Process Manag 1999; 35(2): 141–180.

34.

Goutam

Dwivedi

SK.

Performance evaluation of search engines via user efforts measures. Int J Comput Sci Iss 2012; 9(4): 437–442.

35.

Griesbaum

. Evaluation of three German search engines: Altavista.de, Google.de and Lycos.de. Inf Res 2004; 9(4): 1–35.

36.

Gul

Ali

Hussain

Retrieval performance of Google, Yahoo and Bing for navigational queries in the field of ‘life science and biomedicine’. Data Technol Appl 2020; 54(2): 133–150.

37.

Hawking

Craswell

Thistlewaite

et al. Results and challenges in web search evaluation. Comput Netw 1999; 31(11): 1321–1330.

38.

Hussain

Gul

Shah

et al. Retrieval effectiveness of image search engines. Electron Libr 2019; 37(1): 173–184.

39.

Jansen

Spink

Bateman

et al. Real life information retrieval: a study of user queries on the Web. ACM SIGIR Forum 1998; 32(1): 5–17.

40.

Jansen

Spink

Saracevic

Real life, real users, and real needs: a study and analysis of user queries on the Web. Inf Process Manag 2000; 36(2): 207–227.

41.

Kumar

Pavithra

SM.

Evaluating the searching capabilities of search engines and metasearch engines: a comparative study. Ann Libr Inf Stud 2010; 57(2): 87–97.

42.

Leighton

Srivastava

First 20 precision among World Wide Web search services (search engines). J Assoc Inf Sci Technol 1999; 50(10): 870–881.

43.

Lewandowski

Problems with the use of web search engines to find results in foreign languages. Online Inf Rev 2008; 32(5): 668–672.

44.

Lewandowski

Evaluating the retrieval effectiveness of web search engines using a representative query sample. J Assoc Inf Sci Technol 2015; 66(9): 1763–1775.

45.

Liu

User personal evaluation of search engines-Google, Bing and Blekko, University of Illinois at Chicago, https://www.cs.uic.edu/~liub/searchEval/Search-Engine-Evaluation-2011.pdf (2011, accessed 29 September 2020).

46.

Long

Zhao

et al. Evaluate and compare Chinese Internet search engines based on users’ experience. In: Proceedings of the 2007 international conference on wireless communications, networking and mobile computing, Shanghai, China, 21–25 September2007, pp. 6134–6137. New York: IEEE.

47.

Notess

GR.

Searching the Worldwide Web: Lycos, WebCrawler and more. Online 1995; 19(4): 48–53.

48.

Shafi

Rather

RA.

Precision and recall of five search engines for retrieval of scholarly information in the field of biotechnology. Webology 2005; 2(2): 165.

49.

Tawileh

Mandl

Griesbaum

et al. Evaluation of five web search engines in Arabic language. Proc LWA Worksh 2010; 2010: 221–228.

50.

Tian

Chun

Geller

A prediction model for web search hit counts using word frequencies. J Inf Sci 2011; 37(5): 462–475.

51.

Uyar

Investigation of the accuracy of search engine hit counts. J Inf Sci 2009; 35(4): 469–480.

52.

Vakkari

Comparing Google to a digital reference service for answering factual and topical requests by keyword and question queries. Online Inf Rev 2011; 35(6): 928–941.

53.

Véronis

A comparative study of six search engines, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265028347_A_comparative_study_of_six_search_engines (2006, accessed 12 September 2020).

54.

Wishard

Precision among Internet search engines: an earth sciences case study. Issue Sci Technol Librariansh 1998; 18(1): 5.

55.

. Effectiveness evaluation and comparison of Web search engines and meta-search engines. In: Proceedings of the international conference on web-age information management, Dalian, China, 15–17 July2004, pp. 303–314. Berlin: Springer.

56.

Zhang

Evaluating the effectiveness of web search engines on results diversification. Inf Res 2019; 24(1): 811, http://InformationR.net/ir/24-1/paper811.html (accessed 15 August 2020)

57.

Fendley

Kidambi

Benchmarking web-based image retrieval. In: Proceedings of the 16th Americas conference on information systems, Lima, Peru, 12–15 August2010, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/220892023_Benchmarking_Web-Based_Image_Retrieval (2010, accessed 5 February 2023).

58.

Adrakatti

Wodeyar

Mulla

KR.

Search by image: a novel approach to content based image retrieval system. Int J Libr Sci 2016; 14(3): 41–47.

59.

Aspura

Noah

SAM

. Semantic text-based image retrieval with multi-modality ontology and DBpedia. Electron Libr 2017; 35(6): 1191–1214.

60.

Zaidi

SAJ

Buriro

Riaz

et al. Implementation and comparison of text-based image retrieval schemes. Int J Adv Comput Sci Appl 2019; 10(1): 611–618.

61.

Norouzi

Homavandi

Khabbazan

Measuring the relevance of retrieved images in search engines based on Persian language writing styles. Iran J Inform Process Manage 2022; 38(2): 305–335.

62.

Clarke

Willett

Estimating the recall performance of search engines. ASLIB Proc 1997; 49(7): 184–189.

63.

Brownlee

How to calculate precision, recall, and F-measure for imbalanced classification, Machine Learning Mastery, https://machinelearningmastery.com/precision-recall-and-f-measure-for-imbalanced-classification/ (2020, accessed 16 July 2022).

64.

Imbalanced learning: foundations, algorithms, and applications. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 2013.

65.

Van Rijsbergen

. Information retrieval. 2nd ed. London: Butterworths, 1979.

66.

Hochstotter

Koch

Standard parameters for searching behaviour in search engines and their empirical evaluation. J Inf Sci 2009; 35(1): 45–65.

67.

Hochstotter

Lewandowski

What users see: structures in search engine results pages. Inf Sci 2009; 179(12): 1796–1812.

68.

Robinson

Wusteman

Putting Google Scholar to the test: a preliminary study. Program Electron Libr Inform Syst 2007; 41(1): 71–80.