PC Review


Reply
Thread Tools Rate Thread

Who reads this group, was How a Search Engine Might Assume a QueryImplies a Site Search

 
 
Robert Myers
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      31st May 2009
On May 30, 1:31*pm, Sanjidgc33 <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:
> Google has a number of special search operators that you can use in a
> search to specialize your searches.
> One of those special search operators is the “site” operator, which
> allows you to restrict your searches to a specific domain or website if
> you use a special “site” command (or operator).
> A newly granted patent from Google may assume that a searcher would
> like to see results from search of a specific site as well as search
> results from other pages on the Web. The patent attempts to make up for
> typical searchers who may fail to use the “site” operator in their
> searches. As the patent tells us:
> Some search engines permit a user to restrict a search to a set of
> related documents, such as documents associated with the same web site,
> by including special characters or terms in the search query.
> Oftentimes, however, users forget to include these special
> characters/terms or do not know about them.
> The process behind this patent looks for what the inventors call
> “entities” as part of the search query. An entity can be “anything that
> can be tagged as being associated with certain documents.” For example,
> entitles can include:
> • * * News sources,
> • * * Online stores,
> • * * Product categories,
> • * * Brands or manufacturers,
> • * * Specific product models,
> • * * Condition (such as new, used, refurbished, etc.),
> • * * Authors,
> • * * Artists,
> • * * People,
> • * * Places, and;
> • * * Organizations.
> Some entity names are unambiguous and unique, while many others are
> somewhat ambiguous or generic. If an entity name can be identified, a
> searcher’s query might be rewritten based upon that entity name. That
> rewritten query may become part of the search results shown to a
> searcher, or a link to “site” search results may be provided.
> The entity names may be found on the Web in directories, in lists, and
> in other places, and may be associated with a particular set of pages.
>

This is fascinating stuff, but I wonder why it is posted to csiphc and
only to csiphc.

I'm fairly liberal about wandering off-topic, whether it's me doing
the wandering or someone else, but I'm wondering about the underlying
assumptions about who reads this (now nearly dead) newsgroup.

I tend to stay away from software groups because the conversation
tends more quickly to become ideological and nasty; e.g.

http://linux.slashdot.org/story/09/0...ent?art_pos=18

I recently stumbled into an unwanted flame war, with the flamers being
(as is invariably the case) software developers who don't appear to be
interested in hardware at all, except as it affects their interactions
on developer lists and such.

I was using the word "flame" in a much more exact sense before there
was an Internet to use it on and before most of these flamers were
born, so I don't exactly appreciate the condescension.

Most people like me who have been around for a while have gravitated
to groups that self-police or that focus on some topic (e.g. Fortran)
that the young hip-shooters consider to be passé. Hardware groups
where people who are smart and who actually *do* big picture hardware
for a living hang out are one refuge. Some from here wandered onto
that turf and discovered that, in some places, there really are rules.

It would be nice if there were still a place for people to ramble
about hardware without having to worry about being (however subtly)
cut to pieces by people who actually do big picture hardware it for a
living and who know far more than their teensy little bit of self-
important turf. Even professors who teach the stuff step carefully
around people like that. No such constraint here, leaving the field
to flamers.

On a more positive note, this interesting off-topic post was made to
this group probably because of some (positive) assumptions about who
hangs out here. What are they, I wonder?

Robert.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Del Cecchi`
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      2nd Jun 2009
Robert Myers wrote:
> On May 30, 1:31 pm, Sanjidgc33 <(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
>
>>Google has a number of special search operators that you can use in a
>>search to specialize your searches.
>>One of those special search operators is the “site” operator, which
>>allows you to restrict your searches to a specific domain or website if
>>you use a special “site” command (or operator).
>>A newly granted patent from Google may assume that a searcher would
>>like to see results from search of a specific site as well as search
>>results from other pages on the Web. The patent attempts to make up for
>>typical searchers who may fail to use the “site” operator in their
>>searches. As the patent tells us:
>>Some search engines permit a user to restrict a search to a set of
>>related documents, such as documents associated with the same web site,
>>by including special characters or terms in the search query.
>>Oftentimes, however, users forget to include these special
>>characters/terms or do not know about them.
>>The process behind this patent looks for what the inventors call
>>“entities” as part of the search query. An entity can be “anything that
>>can be tagged as being associated with certain documents.” For example,
>>entitles can include:
>>• News sources,
>>• Online stores,
>>• Product categories,
>>• Brands or manufacturers,
>>• Specific product models,
>>• Condition (such as new, used, refurbished, etc.),
>>• Authors,
>>• Artists,
>>• People,
>>• Places, and;
>>• Organizations.
>>Some entity names are unambiguous and unique, while many others are
>>somewhat ambiguous or generic. If an entity name can be identified, a
>>searcher’s query might be rewritten based upon that entity name. That
>>rewritten query may become part of the search results shown to a
>>searcher, or a link to “site” search results may be provided.
>>The entity names may be found on the Web in directories, in lists, and
>>in other places, and may be associated with a particular set of pages.
>>

>
> This is fascinating stuff, but I wonder why it is posted to csiphc and
> only to csiphc.
>
> I'm fairly liberal about wandering off-topic, whether it's me doing
> the wandering or someone else, but I'm wondering about the underlying
> assumptions about who reads this (now nearly dead) newsgroup.
>
> I tend to stay away from software groups because the conversation
> tends more quickly to become ideological and nasty; e.g.
>
> http://linux.slashdot.org/story/09/0...ent?art_pos=18
>
> I recently stumbled into an unwanted flame war, with the flamers being
> (as is invariably the case) software developers who don't appear to be
> interested in hardware at all, except as it affects their interactions
> on developer lists and such.
>
> I was using the word "flame" in a much more exact sense before there
> was an Internet to use it on and before most of these flamers were
> born, so I don't exactly appreciate the condescension.
>
> Most people like me who have been around for a while have gravitated
> to groups that self-police or that focus on some topic (e.g. Fortran)
> that the young hip-shooters consider to be passé. Hardware groups
> where people who are smart and who actually *do* big picture hardware
> for a living hang out are one refuge. Some from here wandered onto
> that turf and discovered that, in some places, there really are rules.
>
> It would be nice if there were still a place for people to ramble
> about hardware without having to worry about being (however subtly)
> cut to pieces by people who actually do big picture hardware it for a
> living and who know far more than their teensy little bit of self-
> important turf. Even professors who teach the stuff step carefully
> around people like that. No such constraint here, leaving the field
> to flamers.
>
> On a more positive note, this interesting off-topic post was made to
> this group probably because of some (positive) assumptions about who
> hangs out here. What are they, I wonder?
>
> Robert.


Silly me. I assumed this was normal spam from some guy who wrote a
script to post it to one group at a time to evade the "crosspost
filters" that some folks use.

Although I confess I don't see the point of the post either as data or
spam.

del
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Robert Myers
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      2nd Jun 2009
On Jun 1, 9:56*pm, Del Cecchi` <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> Silly me. *I assumed this was normal spam from some guy who wrote a
> script to post it to one group at a time to evade the "crosspost
> filters" that some folks use.
>
> Although I confess I don't see the point of the post either as data or
> spam.
>


Maybe I've been spending too much time with slashdot firehose. The
purported patent is a business method patent as well as a software
patent, both of which have been fairly hot topics. On the bare face
of it, it also looks like google doing what it said it would not do;
which is to say, being evil.

Robert.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Boot-up speed might be improved by loading one application after another. (Sequential reads/seeks instead of random) Skybuck Flying Windows XP General 6 22nd Dec 2008 07:26 PM
Re: Seo , Search Engine Optimizer , Seo Search engine Optimization , search engine optimization services, SEO Consulting DGuess Windows Vista Mail 0 8th Mar 2007 07:59 AM
Re: Seo , Search Engine Optimizer , Seo Search engine Optimization , search engine optimization services, SEO Consulting Curt Christianson Windows XP General 0 8th Mar 2007 05:45 AM
Solution - The client could not connect to the remote computer. Remote connections might not be enabled or the computer might be too busy to accept... =?Utf-8?B?Y29wdWx1cw==?= Windows XP Work Remotely 5 3rd Mar 2004 07:11 PM
page reads/sec vs. disk reads/sec Bob Microsoft Windows 2000 Hardware 1 15th Jul 2003 09:49 PM


Features
 

Advertising
 

Newsgroups
 


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:58 PM.