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.