skip to main content
10.1145/3573382.3616093acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication Pageschi-playConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

GMap: Supporting Free-Form Text Entry of Game Titles in Games User Research

Published:06 October 2023Publication History

ABSTRACT

The input of free-form text is frequently utilized in surveys for game-related research. While this provides flexibility, it also presents the challenge of dirty data, which includes spelling errors, missing series titles, and unofficial yet popular abbreviations inputted by the user. The manual resolution of these anomalies is impractical and resource-intensive. To address this issue, a fuzzing string machine-based game mapping system was designed and evaluated using 1,096 game titles input by users. GMap-R, a real-time autocomplete game title system to aid runtime user entry, was also created and evaluated using 150 game titles provided by 30 participants, each of whom listed their five favorite games twice. With GMap-R, the correct mapping percentage increased to 98.67%. These preliminary evaluations indicate that the proposed strategy can significantly enhance the cleansing and input of game titles’ free-form text. In turn, this helps to conserve resources when obtaining unsupervised data through online studies.

References

  1. [n. d.]. The biggest video game database on RAWG - video game Discovery Service. https://rawg.io/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. [n. d.]. IGDB.com - Credits, Top Critics, Reviews, Videos and Screenshots — igdb.com. https://www.igdb.com/. [Accessed 07-Jul-2022].Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Vero Vanden Abeele, Katta Spiel, Lennart Nacke, Daniel Johnson, and Kathrin Gerling. 2020. Development and validation of the player experience inventory: A scale to measure player experiences at the level of functional and psychosocial consequences. International Journal of Human Computer Studies 135, June 2019 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2019.102370Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Koloud Al-Khamaiseh and Shadi ALShagarin. 2014. A survey of string matching algorithms. Int. J. Eng. Res. Appl 4, 7 (2014), 144–156.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Nick Koudas Amit, Amit Marathe, and Divesh Srivastava. 2004. Flexible String Matching Against Large Databases in Practice. In In VLDB. Morgan Kaufmann, 1078–1086.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. David Anderson, Janet Delve, and Dan Pinchbeck. 2010. Toward A Workable Emulation-Based Preservation Strategy: Rationale and Technical Metadata. New Review of Information Networking 15, 2 (2010), 110–131. https://doi.org/10.1080/13614576.2010.530132 arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1080/13614576.2010.530132Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Gerd Berget and Frode Eika Sandnes. 2016. Do autocomplete functions reduce the impact of dyslexia on information-searching behavior? The case of Google. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 67, 10 (2016), 2320–2328. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23572 arXiv:https://asistdl.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/asi.23572Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Balu Bhasuran, Gurusamy Murugesan, Sabenabanu Abdulkadhar, and Jeyakumar Natarajan. 2016. Stacked ensemble combined with fuzzy matching for biomedical named entity recognition of diseases. Journal of Biomedical Informatics 64 (2016), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbi.2016.09.009Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Michael H. Birnbaum. 2004. Human Research and Data Collection via the Internet. Annual Review of Psychology 55, 1 (2004), 803–832. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.141601 arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.141601PMID: 14744235.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Paul E. Black. 2021. Ratcliff/Obershelp pattern recognition. In Dictionary of Algorithms and Data Structures, Paul E. Black (Ed.). https://www.nist.gov/dads/HTML/ratcliffObershelp.htmlGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Brad Boyle, Nicole Hopkins, Zhenyuan Lu, Juan Antonio Raygoza Garay, Dmitry Mozzherin, Tony Rees, Naim Matasci, Martha L. Narro, William H. Piel, Sheldon J. Mckay, Sonya Lowry, Chris Freeland, Robert K. Peet, and Brian J. Enquist. 2013. The taxonomic name resolution service: an online tool for automated standardization of plant names. BMC Bioinformatics 14, 1 (16 Jan 2013), 16. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2105-14-16Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Van-Kien Bui and Chaochun Wei. 2020. CDKAM: a taxonomic classification tool using discriminative k-mers and approximate matching strategies. BMC Bioinformatics 21, 1 (Oct. 2020), 468.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. Xu Chu, Ihab F. Ilyas, Sanjay Krishnan, and Jiannan Wang. 2016. Data Cleaning: Overview and Emerging Challenges. In Proceedings of the 2016 International Conference on Management of Data (San Francisco, California, USA) (SIGMOD ’16). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2201–2206. https://doi.org/10.1145/2882903.2912574Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Jess Cliffe. 2000. CS V1.0 Released!https://web.archive.org/web/20001201214200http://counter-strike.net/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Adam Cohen. 2020. fuzzywuzzy: Fuzzy String Matching in Python. https://github.com/seatgeek/fuzzywuzzy.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Mick P. Couper. 2005. Technology Trends in Survey Data Collection. Social Science Computer Review 23, 4 (2005), 486–501. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439305278972 arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439305278972Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Mick P. Couper. 2011. The Future of Modes of Data Collection. Public Opinion Quarterly 75, 5 (12 2011), 889–908. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfr046 arXiv:https://academic.oup.com/poq/article-pdf/75/5/889/5161125/nfr046.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. Sarah I. Endress, Elisa D. Mekler, and Klaus Opwis. 2016. "It’s Like I Would Die as Well": Gratifications of Fearful Game Experience. In Proceedings of the 2016 Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play Companion Extended Abstracts (Austin, Texas, USA) (CHI PLAY Companion ’16). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 149–155. https://doi.org/10.1145/2968120.2987716Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Andy Fitzgerald. 2020. Keyword Extraction with NLP: A Beginner’s Guide. https://www.andyfitzgeraldconsulting.com/writing/keyword-extraction-nlp/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Anna Fitzgerald. 2021. API Calls: What They Are & How to Make Them in 5 Easy Steps. https://blog.hubspot.com/website/api-calls.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Aqeel Haider, Kathrin Gerling, and Vero Vanden Abeele. 2020. The Player Experience Inventory Bench: Providing Games User Researchers Actionable Insight into Player Experiences. In Extended Abstracts of the 2020 Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play(CHI PLAY ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 248–252. https://doi.org/10.1145/3383668.3419898Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Carrie Heeter, Yu-Hao Lee, Ben Medler, and Brian Magerko. 2011. Beyond Player Types: Gaming Achievement Goal. In ACM SIGGRAPH 2011 Game Papers (Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada) (SIGGRAPH ’11). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 7, 5 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/2037692.2037701Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Mauricio A. Hernández and Salvatore J. Stolfo. 1998. Real-world Data is Dirty: Data Cleansing and The Merge/Purge Problem. Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery 2, 1 (01 Jan 1998), 9–37. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009761603038Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Ilya Ilyankou. 2014. Comparison of Jaro-Winkler and Ratcliff/Obershelp Algorithms in Spell Check. IB Extended Essay Computer Science 1, 2 (2014), 3.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Alpa Jain, Silviu Cucerzan, and Saliha Azzam. 2007. Acronym-Expansion Recognition and Ranking on the Web. In 2007 IEEE International Conference on Information Reuse and Integration. 209–214. https://doi.org/10.1109/IRI.2007.4296622Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. Matthew A. Jaro. 1989. Advances in Record-Linkage Methodology as Applied to Matching the 1985 Census of Tampa, Florida. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 84, 406 (1989), 414–420. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1989.10478785Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. Emil Thorstensen Jensen, Martin Hansen, Evelyn Eika, and Frode Eika Sandnes. 2020. Country Selection on Web Forms: A Comparison of Dropdown Menus, Radio Buttons and Text Field with Autocomplete. In 2020 14th International Conference on Ubiquitous Information Management and Communication (IMCOM). 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1109/IMCOM48794.2020.9001795Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. Mahesh Joshi, Serguei Pakhomov, Ted Pedersen, and Christopher G. Chute. 2006. A comparative study of supervised learning as applied to acronym expansion in clinical reports. AMIA... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium 2006 (2006), 399–403. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17238371 17238371[pmid].Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Won Kim, Byoung-Ju Choi, Eui-Kyeong Hong, Soo-Kyung Kim, and Doheon Lee. 2003. A Taxonomy of Dirty Data. Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery 7, 1 (01 Jan 2003), 81–99. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021564703268Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Armen Kostanyan. 2017. Fuzzy string matching with finite automat. In 2017 Computer Science and Information Technologies (CSIT). IEEE, 9–11.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. William S. Krasker, Edwin Kuh, and Roy E. Welsch. 1983. Chapter 11 Estimation for dirty data and flawed models. Handbook of Econometrics, Vol. 1. Elsevier, 651–698. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1573-4412(83)01015-6Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  32. Alok Kumar, Maninder Singh, and Alwyn Roshan Pais. 2019. Fuzzy string matching algorithm for spam detection in twitter. In International Conference on Security & Privacy. Springer, 289–301.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  33. Varghese P Kuruvilla. 2022. Fuzzy matching or fuzzy logic algorithms explained. https://nanonets.com/blog/fuzzy-matching-fuzzy-logic/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Latin is Simple Online Dictionary. 2018. brevis/breve, brevis M. https://www.latin-is-simple.com/en/vocabulary/adjective/8839/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Jung-Chieh Lee and Liangnan Xiong. 2018. Exploring Purchase and Repurchase Behavior in Online Mobile Games: A Preliminary Study. In Proceedings of the 2018 2nd International Conference on Software and E-Business (Zhuhai, China) (ICSEB ’18). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1145/3301761.3301762Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. Jin Ha Lee, Rachel Ivy Clarke, and Andrew Perti. 2015. Empirical evaluation of metadata for video games and interactive media. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 66, 12 (2015), 2609–2625. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23357 arXiv:https://asistdl.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/asi.23357Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. Jin Ha Lee, Joseph T. Tennis, Rachel Ivy Clarke, and Michael Carpenter. 2013. Developing a video game metadata schema for the Seattle Interactive Media Museum. International Journal on Digital Libraries 13, 2 (01 Mar 2013), 105–117. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00799-013-0103-xGoogle ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. Mina Lee, Tatsunori B Hashimoto, and Percy Liang. 2019. Learning autocomplete systems as a communication game. arXiv preprint arXiv:1911.06964 (2019).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. William Lemus Leiva, Meng-Lin Li, and Chieh-Yuan Tsai. 2021. A Two-Phase Deep Learning-Based Recommender System: Enhanced by a Data Quality Inspector. Applied Sciences 11, 20 (2021). https://doi.org/10.3390/app11209667Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  40. Pascal Lessel, Maximilian Altmeyer, and Antonio Krüger. 2018. Users As Game Designers: Analyzing Gamification Concepts in a "Bottom-Up" Setting. In Proceedings of the 22nd International Academic Mindtrek Conference (Tampere, Finland) (Mindtrek ’18). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1145/3275116.3275118Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  41. Vladimir I. Levenshtein. 1966. Binary codes capable of correcting deletions, insertions, and reversals. In Soviet Physics Doklady, Vol. 10. 707–710.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. Susan Li. 2018. Natural Language Processing for Fuzzy String Matching with Python. https://towardsdatascience.com/natural-language-processing-for-fuzzy-string-matching-with-python-6632b7824c49.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. Richard Marsh. 2005. Drowning in dirty data? It’s time to sink or swim: A four-stage methodology for total data quality management. Journal of Database Marketing & Customer Strategy Management 12, 2 (01 Jan 2005), 105–112. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.dbm.3240247Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  44. Wes McKinney 2011. pandas: a foundational Python library for data analysis and statistics. Python for high performance and scientific computing 14, 9 (2011), 1–9.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. Mordor Intelligence. 2020. Gaming Market - Growth, Trends, Covid-19 Impact, and Forecasts (2022-2027). https://www.mordorintelligence.com/industry-reports/global-gaming-market. https://www.mordorintelligence.com/industry-reports/global-gaming-marketGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  46. Natus Vincere. 2017. Money system in CS:GO explained. https://web.archive.org/web/20170102060245http://read.navi-gaming.com/en/team_news/money_system_in_csgo_explained.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  47. Gonzalo Navarro. 2001. A guided tour to approximate string matching. Comput. Surveys 33, 1 (2001), 31–88. https://doi.org/10.1145/375360.375365Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  48. Robert A. Opoku and Muhammad Naeem Khan. 2004. Customer Feedback Online: Case Studies of Swedish Manufacturing SMEs. Master’s thesis. Luleå University of Technology.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  49. Deana Pennell and Yang Liu. 2010. Normalization of text messages for text-to-speech. 2010 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (2010), 4842–4845.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  50. PXI. 2022. PXI Bench. https://playerexperienceinventory.org/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  51. Python Software Foundation. 2022. Difflib — Helpers for Computing Deltas. https://docs.python.org/3/library/difflib.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  52. Zhixin Qi, Hongzhi Wang, Jianzhong Li, and Hong Gao. 2018. Impacts of Dirty Data: and Experimental Evaluation. CoRR abs/1803.06071 (2018). arXiv:1803.06071http://arxiv.org/abs/1803.06071Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  53. Erhard Rahm and Hong Hai Do. 2000. Data Cleaning: Problems and Current Approaches. IEEE Data Engineering Bulletin 23 (2000), 2000.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  54. Nikhil Raj. 2021. Pandas Functions for Data Analysis and Manipulation. https://www.analyticsvidhya.com/blog/2021/03/pandas-functions-for-data-analysis-and-manipulation/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  55. L. Ratinov and E. Gudes. 2004. Abbreviation Expansion in Schema Matching and Web Integration. In IEEE/WIC/ACM International Conference on Web Intelligence (WI’04). 485–489. https://doi.org/10.1109/WI.2004.10083Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  56. Martin Reddy. 2011. API Design for C++. Elsevier Science.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  57. Neal W. Topp and Bob Pawloski. 2002. Online Data Collection. Journal of Science Education and Technology 11, 2 (01 Jun 2002), 173–178. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014669514367Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  58. Anders Tychsen, Michael Hitchens, and Thea Brolund. 2008. Motivations for Play in Computer Role-Playing Games. In Proceedings of the 2008 Conference on Future Play: Research, Play, Share (Toronto, Ontario, Canada) (Future Play ’08). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 57–64. https://doi.org/10.1145/1496984.1496995Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  59. Max Van Kleek, Michael Bernstein, David R. Karger, and mc schraefel. 2007. Gui — Phooey! The Case for Text Input. In Proceedings of the 20th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (Newport, Rhode Island, USA) (UIST ’07). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 193–202. https://doi.org/10.1145/1294211.1294247Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  60. Jiannan Wang, Guoliang Li, and Jianhua Feng. 2014. Extending String Similarity Join to Tolerant Fuzzy Token Matching. ACM Trans. Database Syst. 39, 1, Article 7 (jan 2014), 45 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/2535628Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  61. David Ward, Jim Hahn, and Kirsten Feist. 2012. Autocomplete as Research Tool: A Study on Providing Search Suggestions. Information Technology and Libraries 31, 4 (Dec. 2012), 6–19. https://doi.org/10.6017/ital.v31i4.1930Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  62. Chun Wei, Alan Sprague, and Gary Warner. 2009. Clustering Malware-Generated Spam Emails with a Novel Fuzzy String Matching Algorithm. In Proceedings of the 2009 ACM Symposium on Applied Computing (Honolulu, Hawaii) (SAC ’09). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 889–890. https://doi.org/10.1145/1529282.1529473Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  63. William Winkler. 1990. String Comparator Metrics and Enhanced Decision Rules in the Fellegi-Sunter Model of Record Linkage. In Proceedings of the Section on Survey Research Methods. American Statistical Association, 354–359.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  64. Peter Zackariasson and Timothy Wilson (Eds.). 2014. The Video Game Industry: Formation, Present State, and Future. Routledge, London.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. GMap: Supporting Free-Form Text Entry of Game Titles in Games User Research

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Conferences
      CHI PLAY Companion '23: Companion Proceedings of the Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play
      October 2023
      370 pages
      ISBN:9798400700293
      DOI:10.1145/3573382

      Copyright © 2023 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 6 October 2023

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article
      • Research
      • Refereed limited

      Acceptance Rates

      Overall Acceptance Rate421of1,386submissions,30%
    • Article Metrics

      • Downloads (Last 12 months)56
      • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)9

      Other Metrics

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader

    HTML Format

    View this article in HTML Format .

    View HTML Format