6 ;;Quote: the STAIRS database concerned San Francisco's BART system

6+;;Quote: the lawsuit between San Francisco and BART contractors was settled before the STAIRS evaluation

10 ;;Quote: recall studies of large document retrieval systems depended on the persistence of the evaluators and where they looked for unretrieved, relevant documents

10 ;;Quote: in data retrieval, queries and data descriptions are fairly precise; simple matching is sufficient

10+;;Quote: in document retrieval, queries and data descriptions are imprecise; especially for documents with certain intellectual content

10 ;;Quote: the fallacy of abundance: in a large information retrieval system, it is hard to write reasonable queries that do not retrieve at least some relevant documents

12 ;;Quote: a candidate set is formed by negating one or more query terms; the STAIRS study estimated recall by sampling the candidate sets; usually small enough and rich enough in unretrieved, relevant documents to sample confidently

12+;;Quote: in a large collection, the percentage of unretrieved, relevant documents is too low to sample with confidence

15 ;;Quote: the STAIRS study used interactive retrieval; searchers could revise their queries until they believed that they had retrieved all of the documents they wanted

17 ;;Quote: the STAIRS study used the lawyers and paralegals who selected the 40,000 documents in the collection; like a personal document collection

17 ;;Quote: the implicit assumption of simple full-text retrieval systems is that we recall words and phrases in a document exactly; but psychologists have shown that memory is inexact

18 ;;Quote: searches in the first half of the STAIRS study had the same mean level of success as searches in the second half; evidence that searchers were operating at the best of their ability

20 ;;Quote: if an organization keeps all of its documents, searchers must wade through irrelevant information to find important documents; this noise degrades search performance