Review Comment:
I find all my remarks in my previous review addressed and can heartily recommend the manuscript for publication.
I do have a couple of minor suggestions still, though:
When talking about the new Figure 6, the current explanation is not optimal, as it relates the feature names to SPARKLIS terms, which on the other hand are themselves not that familiar to an outside reader (for example, the term 'any' doesn't actually seem to be explained in the previous exposition). I suggest you see if you can replace the SPARKLIS term explanations with for example equivalent SPARQL terms or fragments.
Another minor detail is that when you mention, with regard to no-step users, that the cross-domain issues were solved in December 2014, it would be interesting to know if this affected the percentage of such users in any way.
Further, I would like your opinion on if (or how many of) the outliers at either end of the scale of use (0 steps and 1400 steps) are actual users, and not for example bots or random tests run amok.
Typo: "The short searches can be interpreted as directed
searches, where the user as a clear information need
in mind." as->has
When you say that you've improved the tool in response to user mishandling analysis, it would be really interesting to know exactly how.
|