Search engines allow a user to search for the documents in a corpus of documents that are relevant to their needs for or interests in particular kinds of information. In order to perform a search, a user submits to a search engine a query, such as a query made up of one or more words. In response to the query, the search engine identifies documents that appear to be relevant to the query, and returns a list of links to these documents called a query result. The user can follow the links in the query result to display or otherwise interact with the documents identified in the query result.
This summary is provided to introduce a selection of concepts in a simplified form that are further described below in the Detailed Description. This summary is not intended to identify key factors or essential features of the claimed subject matter, nor is it intended to be used to limit the scope of the claimed subject matter.
A facility for annotating a visual representation of a document is described. The facility presents on a display device visual representations of two or more portions of a document. The facility further present on the display, in connection with each of one or more of the presented document portion visual representations, an annotation conveying a result of aggregating information describing two or more search transactions in whose results the represented document portion is included.
The inventors have recognized that information about document searching constitutes valuable feedback on documents and the ways in which they are useful. In particular, they have determined that it would be useful to document authors and others to be able to display, in connection with a particular document, information about search queries that have been or would be matched by different portions of the document, such as sections, pages, paragraphs, sentences, document storage units, etc.
Accordingly, the inventors have conceived and reduced to practice a software and/or hardware facility for visualizing, within a document, the results of document searching conducted within a corpus containing the document (“the facility”). In some embodiments, for each portion of a document, the facility (1) performs one or more aggregations across the document search transactions whose queries match the portion, then (2) displays a visual representation of the portion that reflects the result of this aggregation. For example, in some embodiments, the facility (1) counts the number of document search transactions whose queries match each paragraph of a document, then (2) displays a visual representation of the document in which, in the margin beside each paragraph, a colored rectangle indicates via its color the total number of document search transactions whose queries match it, relative to the other paragraphs.
In various embodiments, the facility operates with respect to document portions of a variety of kinds, including such nonexclusive examples as sections, pages, columns, paragraphs, lines, sentences, nodes of a graph making up a document, outline elements, spreadsheet cells, spreadsheet tabs, graphs, etc. These can occur in documents of a wide variety of types, including textual word processing documents; spreadsheets; slideshow documents; outline documents; lay, technical or architectural drawings documents; artistic documents; timeline documents; database records; webpage documents; emails and other types of messaging documents; etc.
In some embodiments, the facility performs various kinds of aggregations on information in the document search transactions for each document portion, using aggregations such as count, minimum, maximum, mean, median, etc. In some embodiments, the facility filters the matching document search transactions before aggregating them, such as by filtering them to include only transactions performed by users in a particular group, defined in various ways; transactions performed from a particular geographic location or region; transactions performed during a particular time period of any scale; transactions whose query results list the document portion in the 5, 20, or 100 most-relevant documents or document portions; transactions from whose query results the searching user accessed or otherwise interacted with the document or document portion; etc. In some embodiments, the facility similarly groups search transactions for aggregation on one or more factors, such as any of those identified above.
In some embodiments, the facility includes among the aggregated search transactions search transactions that, though they did not actually match portions of the document, would have matched under different conditions, such as current or future conditions that are different from the conditions under which the search transaction was performed. For example, documents that were not created at the time the search transaction occurred, documents that the searching user had inadequate permissions to access by searching, documents that had not yet been translated to the language in which the search transaction's query was expressed, etc. In some embodiments, the facility supports using similar functionality to determine how popular a particular document or document portion would be if made available to a population of searching users.
In various embodiments, the facility uses a variety of kinds of visual attributes to reflect the result of the aggregation; these can include various aspects of colors, including hue, saturation level, and/or brightness; patterns; shape sizes; shape types; shape border thicknesses, etc. In some embodiments, the facility also or instead annotates the document with text describing aggregation results, including copies of some or all of the matching queries; a numerical count of the number of matching queries; a textual indication of where in the search result the query most frequently occurred; the name of a user or group of users whose queries most frequently matched; the time period during which queries most frequently matched; etc.
In various embodiments, the facility visually augments the document representation with a variety of charts and graphs, such as a chart or graph displayed beside each document portion, a chart or graph that the facility displays for a document portion if the user hovers over or touches a document portion or a different kind of search information annotation applied to it, etc. In various embodiments, such charts and graphs are of a variety of types, including graphs and charts that show trends in aggregated transactions over time; charts and graphs that show aggregated transactions per user or per user group, such as the top searching users or user groups; maps that show the geographic location or region of the searching users behind the transactions, etc. In some embodiments, the facility uses an alternate display scheme in which, rather including document searching information in the context of a representation of the document, the facility displays a chart or graph in which portions of the document identified; for example, in some embodiments, the facility does so by displaying a stack chart in which each stack identifies a different portion of the document to which it corresponds, and whose height indicates the aggregation result for that document portion.
In some embodiments, the facility provides a mechanism to navigate directly to other documents and document portions that appear frequently and/or near the top in the same query results as a particular portion of the present document.
By performing in some or all of the ways described above, the facility provides a wealth of information on the significance and usefulness of documents and their individual portions.
Those skilled in the art will appreciate that the acts shown in
In some embodiments (not shown), the search history information 320 shown in
In some embodiments, the facility provides a computer-readable medium having contents configured to cause a computing system to: for a document comprised of document portions: generate a visual representation of at least part of the document containing visual representations of two or more document portions; for each of at least one of the document portions whose visual representations are contained by the document's visual representation: perform an aggregation operation on information describing two or more search transactions in whose results the document portion is included to obtain an aggregation result; annotate the document portion's visual representation in the document's visual representation in accordance with the obtained aggregation result; and cause the annotated visual representation of the document to be displayed.
In some embodiments, the facility provides a processor-based device, comprising: a display; a processor; and a memory having contents that cause the processor to: present on the display visual representations of two or more portions of a document; and present on the display, in connection with each of one or more of the presented document portion visual representations, an annotation conveying a result of aggregating information describing two or more search transactions in whose results the represented document portion is included.
In some embodiments, the facility provides a computer-readable medium storing data representing a document, comprising: a document root node for the document; contains edges each connecting a document content node to the document root node to indicate that content of the document content node is contained by the document root node; the connected document content nodes; and associated with each of a selected plurality of connected document content nodes, information regarding earlier-issued search queries that match content of the document content node.
It will be appreciated by those skilled in the art that the above-described facility may be straightforwardly adapted or extended in various ways. While the foregoing description makes reference to particular embodiments, the scope of the invention is defined solely by the claims that follow and the elements recited therein.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
6324551 | Lamping | Nov 2001 | B1 |
6356922 | Schilit | Mar 2002 | B1 |
6421691 | Kajitani | Jul 2002 | B1 |
6484162 | Edlund | Nov 2002 | B1 |
6928425 | Grefenstette | Aug 2005 | B2 |
7103609 | Elder et al. | Sep 2006 | B2 |
7334195 | Gemmell et al. | Feb 2008 | B2 |
7395501 | Graham | Jul 2008 | B2 |
7437330 | Robinson | Oct 2008 | B1 |
7478129 | Chemtob | Jan 2009 | B1 |
7627582 | Ershov | Dec 2009 | B1 |
7627590 | Boguraev | Dec 2009 | B2 |
7689624 | Huang et al. | Mar 2010 | B2 |
7703021 | Flam | Apr 2010 | B1 |
7752204 | Kao | Jul 2010 | B2 |
7849090 | Sweeney | Dec 2010 | B2 |
7865494 | Best | Jan 2011 | B2 |
8005825 | Ghosh | Aug 2011 | B1 |
8005835 | Walther | Aug 2011 | B2 |
8150820 | Herbach et al. | Apr 2012 | B1 |
8170932 | Krakowiecki | May 2012 | B1 |
8458196 | Procopio | Jun 2013 | B1 |
8515816 | King | Aug 2013 | B2 |
8538967 | Wu | Sep 2013 | B1 |
8554800 | Goldentouch | Oct 2013 | B2 |
8577911 | Stepinski et al. | Nov 2013 | B1 |
8689108 | Duffield et al. | Apr 2014 | B1 |
8825711 | Chan et al. | Sep 2014 | B2 |
8930400 | Adamic et al. | Jan 2015 | B2 |
9043695 | Saito | May 2015 | B2 |
9092773 | Daly | Jul 2015 | B2 |
9117240 | Vaynblat et al. | Aug 2015 | B2 |
9396177 | Kursun | Jul 2016 | B1 |
9588941 | Carrier | Mar 2017 | B2 |
9626455 | Miller | Apr 2017 | B2 |
9710129 | Dunne et al. | Jul 2017 | B2 |
9792583 | Perreault et al. | Oct 2017 | B2 |
20040013302 | Ma | Jan 2004 | A1 |
20040024739 | Copperman | Feb 2004 | A1 |
20040088315 | Elder et al. | May 2004 | A1 |
20040194021 | Marshall | Sep 2004 | A1 |
20040205046 | Cohen et al. | Oct 2004 | A1 |
20040255265 | Brown et al. | Dec 2004 | A1 |
20040261016 | Glass | Dec 2004 | A1 |
20070003166 | Berkner | Jan 2007 | A1 |
20070055831 | Beeston et al. | Mar 2007 | A1 |
20070294614 | Jacquin | Dec 2007 | A1 |
20080148159 | Kogan et al. | Jun 2008 | A1 |
20080154886 | Podowski | Jun 2008 | A1 |
20080184101 | Joshi | Jul 2008 | A1 |
20080201632 | Hong et al. | Aug 2008 | A1 |
20080263023 | Vailaya | Oct 2008 | A1 |
20080270396 | Herscovici et al. | Oct 2008 | A1 |
20080288859 | Yuan | Nov 2008 | A1 |
20090157572 | Chidlovskii | Jun 2009 | A1 |
20090204465 | Pradhan | Aug 2009 | A1 |
20090222490 | Kemp et al. | Sep 2009 | A1 |
20110029521 | Thayne et al. | Feb 2011 | A1 |
20110082848 | Goldentouch | Apr 2011 | A1 |
20110131211 | Harrington | Jun 2011 | A1 |
20110295844 | Sun et al. | Dec 2011 | A1 |
20120143862 | Jones | Jun 2012 | A1 |
20120254161 | Zhang | Oct 2012 | A1 |
20120323625 | Lee | Dec 2012 | A1 |
20130080428 | Wang et al. | Mar 2013 | A1 |
20130124515 | Ghimire | May 2013 | A1 |
20130124546 | Wormley et al. | May 2013 | A1 |
20130185252 | Palmucci | Jul 2013 | A1 |
20130254126 | Koenig | Sep 2013 | A1 |
20140019562 | Le chevalier et al. | Jan 2014 | A1 |
20140101527 | Suciu | Apr 2014 | A1 |
20140229475 | Walsh | Aug 2014 | A1 |
20140250377 | Bisca et al. | Sep 2014 | A1 |
20140279893 | Branton | Sep 2014 | A1 |
20140372417 | Olson | Dec 2014 | A1 |
20150039560 | Barker et al. | Feb 2015 | A1 |
20150169755 | Cierniak | Jun 2015 | A1 |
20150269153 | Fink et al. | Sep 2015 | A1 |
20150302063 | Nigam et al. | Oct 2015 | A1 |
20150339282 | Goyal | Nov 2015 | A1 |
20160034567 | Miller | Feb 2016 | A1 |
20160070741 | Lin et al. | Mar 2016 | A1 |
20160132613 | Obbard et al. | May 2016 | A1 |
20160232567 | Vaynblat et al. | Aug 2016 | A1 |
20160246886 | Chakraborty et al. | Aug 2016 | A1 |
20160372079 | Ku | Dec 2016 | A1 |
20170011073 | Deshpande et al. | Jan 2017 | A1 |
20170075862 | Kumar | Mar 2017 | A1 |
20170220546 | Codrington | Aug 2017 | A1 |
20170251072 | Rinehart | Aug 2017 | A1 |
20170351954 | Kosarek et al. | Dec 2017 | A1 |
20180025303 | Janz | Jan 2018 | A1 |
20180165554 | Zhang | Jun 2018 | A1 |
20200334298 | Mullins et al. | Oct 2020 | A1 |
Entry |
---|
“International Search Report and Written Opinion Issued in PCT Application No. PCT/US2017/027388”, dated Jul. 12, 2017, 13 Pages. |
Xu, et al., “GooRaph: Document Visualization of Search Results,” Retrieved on: Dec. 24, 2014, Available at: http://www.leeds.ac.uk/evie/workpackages/wp5/EDV_09_WP5_PR01_v2.1_DocVizOfSearchResults.pdf. |
“Final Office Action Issued in U.S. Appl. No. 15/398,555”, dated Apr. 10, 2019, 26 Pages. |
“Non Final Office Action Issued in U.S. Appl. No. 15/399,405”, dated Feb. 13, 2019, 15 Pages. |
Elsas, et al., “Leveraging Temporal Dynamics of Document Content in Relevance Ranking”, In Proceedings of the third ACM international conference on Web search and data mining, Feb. 4, 2010, 10 Pages. |
“Non Final Office Action Issued in U.S. Appl. No. 15/398,555”, dated Oct. 2, 2018, 32 Pages. |
“Invitation to Pay Additional Fee Issued in PCT Application No. PCT/US17/064388”, dated Feb. 19, 2018, 5 Pages. |
“Final Office Action Issued in U.S. Appl. No. 15/399,405”, dated Jun. 6, 2019, 13 Pages. |
“Non Final Office Action Issued in U.S. Appl. No. 15/398,555”, dated Sep. 17, 2019, 21 Pages. |
“Non Final Office Action Issued in U.S. Appl. No. 15/399,405”, dated Oct. 22, 2019, 16 Pages. |
“Final Office Action Issued in U.S. Appl. No. 15/398,555”, dated Feb. 3, 2020, 20 Pages. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20170300481 A1 | Oct 2017 | US |