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

Discussion in 'Processors' started by Robert Myers, May 31, 2009.

  1. Robert Myers

    Robert Myers Guest

    On May 30, 1:31 pm, Sanjidgc33 <>
    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/...s-From-Google-On-Linux-Development?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.
     
    Robert Myers, May 31, 2009
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Robert Myers

    Del Cecchi` Guest

    Re: Who reads this group, was How a Search Engine Might Assume aQuery Implies a Site Search

    Robert Myers wrote:
    > On May 30, 1:31 pm, Sanjidgc33 <>
    > 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/...s-From-Google-On-Linux-Development?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
     
    Del Cecchi`, Jun 2, 2009
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Robert Myers

    Robert Myers Guest

    Re: Who reads this group, was How a Search Engine Might Assume aQuery Implies a Site Search

    On Jun 1, 9:56 pm, Del Cecchi` <> 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.
     
    Robert Myers, Jun 2, 2009
    #3
    1. Advertisements

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Yousuf Khan
    Replies:
    51
    Views:
    1,241
    K Williams
    Jul 4, 2004
  2. YKhan

    DC Pentium might outperform 2P Xeon

    YKhan, Apr 25, 2005, in forum: Processors
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    174
    GSV Three Minds in a Can
    Apr 25, 2005
  3. Yousuf Khan

    For RM, another fine article you might enjoy

    Yousuf Khan, Jul 5, 2005, in forum: Processors
    Replies:
    17
    Views:
    349
  4. Yousuf Khan
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    246
    Jan Panteltje
    Aug 6, 2006
  5. lyon_wonder
    Replies:
    23
    Views:
    721
    David Kanter
    Dec 1, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page