When Are Search Completion Suggestions Problematic?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Problematic web search query completion suggestions-perceived as biased, offensive, or in some other way harmful-can reinforce existing stereotypes and misbeliefs, and even nudge users towards undesirable patterns of behavior. Locating such suggestions is difficult, not only due to the long-tailed nature of web search, but also due to differences in how people assess potential harms. Grounding our study in web search query logs, we explore when system-provided suggestions might be perceived as problematic through a series of crowd-experiments where we systematically manipulate: the search query fragments provided by users, possible user search intents, and the list of query completion suggestions. To examine why query suggestions might be perceived as problematic, we contrast them to an inventory of known types of problematic suggestions. We report our observations around differences in the prevalence of a) suggestions that are problematic on their own versus b) suggestions that are problematic for the query fragment provided by a user, for both common informational needs and in the presence of web search voids-topics searched by few to no users. Our experiments surface a rich array of scenarios where suggestions are considered problematic, including due to the context in which they were surfaced. Compounded by the elusive nature of many such scenarios, the prevalence of suggestions perceived as problematic only for certain user inputs, raises concerns about blind spots due to data annotation practices that may lead to some types of problematic suggestions being overlooked.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.149 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".