__/ [Noticedtrends] on Sunday 16 October 2005 04:02 \__
>
> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>> __/ [zenboom] on Saturday 15 October 2005 09:32 \__
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > "Roy Schestowitz" <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> > news:dips1l$ibm$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> >> __/ [Noticedtrends] on Friday 14 October 2005 20:33 \__
>> >
>> > <snip>
>> >
>> >> > Initial search queries in most search-engines recognize the
>> >> > wildcard character "*" within two keywords in quotations --
>> >> > very-much like the Boolean NEAR; locating examples of keywords very
>> >> > close to each other. Same applies for current month, wildcard
>> >> > chacrater, & year.
>> > Search-engine
>> >> > results note "..." within text if keywords don't match month, any
>> >> > date, year.
>> >> >
>> >> > Any considerations for applying NEAR search options in most
>> >> > search-engines?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> I think it would not have much interest among the users. Judging by
>> >> logs, 99.9% of queries will probably /not/ contain quotes, pluses,
>> >> minuses and the like.
>> >>
>> >> Whether Google weigh these much (I remember the days of using
>> >> AltaVista
>> > when
>> >> these were crucial skills), I do not know, but often the effect of
>> >> these symbols on SEPR's is futile to say the least. I am sorry to be
>> >> narrow-minded here because I only know Google well enough and I barely
>> > ever
>> >> use Yahoo. There is another big player... something that begin with an
>> >> M, but I was told it's cr**.
>> >>
>> >> The improved quality of results due to query complexity is only in the
>> > mind
>> >> of the user. Plenty of room for improvements remains, but with
>> >> googlebytes of data already indexed, changing the method of indexing
>> >> would involve a complete data retension overhaul. It also might
>> >> involve /risk/ as the effects of re-indexing are not understood until
>> >> vast amounts of data get processed. Moreover, hand-tweaked search
>> >> results go down the chute.
>> >>
>> >
>> > <snip>
>> >
>> > :p Anyone that can't be bothered to express themselves clearly deserves
>> > :to
>> > wade through irrelevant responses! Search operators need to be
>> > developed, not dropped! Will Google et al somehow get much better at
>> > guessing what's on my mind before I decide to move to a service with
>> > better tools ?? fergettaboudit!
>>
>> Forget about extra tools to complement a keywork-based search. Do the
>> rational thing and go sematic; see the bottom of my sig.
>>
>> Roy
>>
>> --
>> Roy S. Schestowitz | HTML is for page layout, not for textual
>> messages
>> http://Schestowitz.com | SuSE Linux | PGP-Key: 74572E8E
>> 2:35pm up 51 days 2:49, 5 users, load average: 0.22, 0.23, 0.24
>> http://iuron.com - next generation of search paradigms
>
>
> I'm not quite sure how semantic approaches like IURON can yield results
> similar to "inferential scanning"-- for supposedly inferring emerging
> social and business trends. Can comparisons be made? Any examples of
> existing search-engines which seem to mimick something like IURON?
I could only ever think of Googlism, which I first came across back in early
2003. It was barely ever working for anything less than 'famous' and all it
did was apparently using Google SEPR's to gather some facts at a shallow
level. It was a toy that went nowhere, but nontheless a playful toy.
Roy
--
Roy S. Schestowitz | Coffee makes mw to0 jittery
http://Schestowitz.com | SuSE Linux | PGP-Key: 74572E8E
6:55am up 51 days 19:09, 5 users, load average: 0.36, 0.40, 0.52
http://iuron.com - next generation of search paradigms
|
|
