The present invention relates generally to review and rating information. More specifically, the present invention relates generally to authoring tools for embedding information, such as review and rating information, in documents and to search engines (such as Internet and Intranet search engines) to process the embedded information.
Search engines provide a powerful tool for locating content in documents in a large database of documents, such as the documents on the Internet or World Wide Web (WWW), or the documents stored on the computers of an Intranet. The documents are located using an index of documents in response to a search query, consisting of one or more words, terms, keywords and/or phrases, that is submitted by a user. The document index is generated by scanning the documents using one or more network crawlers (or web crawlers). When the number of documents to be indexed is large (e.g., billions of documents), accomplishing such scanning in a timely manner usually involves multiple crawlers operating in parallel.
During the scanning of documents by one or more crawlers, additional content or documents may be discovered based on links to such additional content or documents embedded in the documents that are scanned. One existing approach to providing links to additional content or documents is in the form of link tags. In hypertext documents, such link tags (sometimes called anchor tags) may include links to other documents or to other parts of the same document. Existing link tags, however, have several limitations. Notably, the information in existing link tags only conveys a document location. While link tags may also contain commands for displaying text when the user performs a “mouse over” over the link tag, for displaying text when the user performs a “mouse out” away from the link tag, for refreshing the browser display, or for returning the browser to a previous document location, none of these commands convey information about an identified document or other entity. In particular, existing link tags do not convey opinions, such as reviews and/or ratings of the content or documents at the locations identified in the link tags. Existing link tags are also unable to convey information about the relative importance of the locations identified in the link tags. Furthermore, the information in existing link tags is public. There is no mechanism to secure the information in a link tag such that it may only be viewed by a restricted audience. There is a need, therefore, for improved anchors for use by search engines.
A method of embedding evaluations in a document is described. An identifier tag is embedded in the document in response to a first user action. The document may be a web page. The identifier tag includes a review and an identifier of the entity that is the subject of the review. A rating tag may also be embedded in the document in response to a second user action. The rating tag includes a rating value corresponding to a user-selected rating of the entity that is the subject of the review. The rating value may be selected from a set of pre-determined rating values. In some embodiments, the identifier tag and review tag are the same tag, or both comprise portions of the same tag (e.g., both comprise information embedded within a link tag).
The identifier tag and the rating tag may be compatible with hypertext markup language (HTML) and/or extensible markup language (XML).
The entity that is the subject of a review and/or rating may include a product, a business, a service provider, a restaurant, a presentation including video, a written document, a publication and a song. The identifier tag and/or the rating tag may not displayed when the document is rendered by a browser.
The identifier tag and/or the rating tag may include metadata. The metadata may include one or more of the following: a user identifier, a category identifier, a timestamp for a purchase, a timestamp for a visit to the entity, a timestamp for the review and the rating, relative rating information, a favorite item at the entity, an expiration time for the review and the rating, one or more characteristics of one or more items at the entity, one or more characteristics of the subject of the review and the rating, and location information for the entity.
The document may be posted such that its accessible using a network. The review, the identifier and/or the rating value may be provided to an aggregator that collects a plurality of evaluations from one or more sources. In some embodiments, the identifier tag and the rating tag are compatible with a search engine crawler such that the search engine crawler imports and/or captures the review, the identifier and the rating value when accessing the document.
In some embodiments, an authoring tool is provided for inserting the identifier tag and the rating tag into the document. The authoring tool may be a program embedded in a web page and executable by a client computer. Providing the authoring tool may include transmitting an authoring web page, containing the embedded authoring tool, to a client computer using a network. The authoring tool may include instructions for modifying the authoring web page to include a replica of the document.
In another embodiment, a method of processing documents is described. A document is received in a search engine crawler. An identifier tag and rating tag are embedded in the document. The identifier tag includes a review and the identifier associated with the entity that is a subject of the review. The rating tag includes a rating value corresponding to a user-selected rating of the entity that is the subject of the review. The review, the identifier and/or the rating value are imported from the document. The review, the identifier and the rating value are aggregated in a repository that includes a plurality of reviews, identifiers and rating values from one or more sources.
In some embodiments, a weight associated with at least one of the identifier tag and the rating tag may be adjusted. One or more document ranking values for one or more document locations may be computed in accordance with the weight associated with the identifier tag and/or the rating tag.
In another embodiment, an identifier tag is generated in a document. The identifier tag includes a review and an identifier associated with the entity that is a subject of the review. The rating tag is generated in the document. The rating tag includes the rating value corresponding to the user-selected rating of the entity that is the subject of the review.
For a better understanding of the invention, reference should be made to the following detailed description taken in conjunction with the accompanying drawings, in which:
Like reference numerals refer to corresponding parts throughout the drawings.
Reference will now be made in detail to embodiments, examples of which are illustrated in the accompanying drawings. In the following detailed description, numerous specific details are set forth in order to provide a thorough understanding of the present invention. However, it will be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art that the present invention may be practiced without these specific details. In other instances, well-known methods, procedures, components, and circuits have not been described in detail so as not to unnecessarily obscure aspects of the embodiments.
Improved link tags embedded in documents are described. The link tags include identifier tags and rating tags. The identifier tags and the rating tags enable one or more users to provide reviews and rating values for entities. Entities may include products, businesses, service providers, restaurants, presentations including videos (such as movies), documents (such as books, articles, reviews of other entities, etc.), publications (such as newspapers, magazines or periodicals), web pages, web sites, songs, musical and audio recordings, and so on.
Throughout this description, it is to be understood that the “identifier tag” and “rating tag” may comprise parameters specified within a tag, such as a link tag or other HTML or XML tag. Thus, in some embodiments, the identifier tag and rating tag may encompass HTML and/or XML tags and attributes. Furthermore, in some embodiments or in some instances the identifier tag and rating tag may be the same tag or data structure, while in other embodiments or other instances, the identifier tag and rating tag may be different tags or data structures.
A given link tag in a document may correspond to content at one or more content locations or one or more document locations. The one or more content locations may be in the same document and/or in other documents. The document containing the link tag as well as the one or more document locations specified by the link tag may correspond to one or more web sites and/or one or more web pages. The one or more document locations may by represented in a link tag by one or more uniform resource locators (URLs). The document containing the link tag and the one or more document locations specified by the link tag may be on an Intranet and/or the Internet, which is also referred to as the World Wide Web (WWW).
The reviews and the rating values in the improved link tags may allow one or more users or publishers of content and/or documents to convey opinions about entities. The link tags may also allow users to convey a weighting of a relative importance of an entity. In some embodiments, at least a portion of the information in the improved link tags may be encrypted, to allow the one or more users to restrict the audience that may view the information in the link tags.
Users may be provided with an authoring tool to generate and embed the improved link tags in one or more documents. In some embodiments, the authoring tool may be embedded in a web page transmitted to one or more users.
The reviews and rating values in the improved link tags may be used by one or more web crawlers and/or search engines to determine how to process the content and/or documents associated with the link tags. The reviews and rating values may be provided to an aggregator, such as a restaurant review guide or a product information web site (e.g., www.froogle.com) that collects evaluations of products, services, web sites or other entities from other sources.
In the discussion that follows, improved link tags for use with hypertext markup language (HTML) and/or extensible markup language (XML) are described. For example, an XML island containing an identifier tag and a rating tag may be included in an HTML link tag. Alternatively, attributes and values corresponding to the identifier tag and the rating tag may be added to existing HTML link tag formats or cascading style sheet (CSS) definitions. It is understood, however, that the improved link tags may be implemented using any suitable document markup language.
Existing link tags in HTML, such as link tag 116-1, have several formats. For a link to another document that is at a local location on the network, a link tag including part of a URL, known as a relative URL, may be included in the document 110. For example,
While existing link tags are useful, they contain limited information. The improved linked tags described below allow users, including publishers of content and/or documents, to embed review and rating information in the link tags. In an exemplary embodiment, the improved link tags are compatible with HTML and/or XML, thereby minimizing the disruption of the existing infrastructure. The improved link tags may allow the users to communicate review and rating information about the entities, the content locations and/or the document locations. This additional information (reviews and rating values) may be useful to WWW users. For example, the additional information may be useful in determining a relative importance or weighting for one or more content locations and/or document locations associated with one or more link tags, and ultimately, with one or more entities.
Identifier tags 118-3 and 118-4 illustrate link tags that are compatible with existing HTML link tag formats. Identifier tags 118-5 and 118-6 illustrate link tags that are XML compatible. The HTML compatible identifier tags 118-3 and 118-4 are modified HTML anchor tags, while XML compatible identifier tag 118-5 contains an anchor tag within an XML tag or element. Functionally, they are equivalent. In identifier tag 118-6, however, the entire review (i.e., the content of the review) is located inside the XML tag, while in identifier tags 118-3, 118-4 and 118-5 the review is located in a webpage that is referenced by the identifier tag.
The identifier tag 118-6 also illustrates an encrypted review 160. This may be useful in embodiments where the user or publisher of content and/or documents, such as the document 110 (
The rating tag 120-6 also illustrates an encrypted rating value 164. This may be useful in embodiments where the user or publisher of content and/or documents, such as the document 110 (
In some embodiments, one or more of the identifier tags 118 (
The rating values 162 may be selected by users from a set of pre-determined values.
In embodiments where the document (e.g., the document containing a review and a rating value) is a web page, the user may be assisted in generating and embedding the identifier and rating tags by an authoring tool. This is illustrated in
In some embodiments, the authoring tool may be embedded in a web page and executable by a client computer. In other embodiments, the authoring tool may be embedded in various applications such as a word processing application, a spreadsheet application, blog and email client applications, a presentation authoring application, or the like. In such embodiments, the authoring tool may be applied to word processor documents, spreadsheets, blogs, email messages and/or presentations. Using a web page as an example, web-page content corresponding to the composed web page (the document in these embodiments) may be stored on a server. The composed web page may be dynamically generated on the server. This is illustrated in
Regardless of the implementation of the authoring tool, it performs several operations. This is illustrated in
In those embodiments where the authoring tool is embedded in a web page and where web-page content is stored on a server, an archiving operation may occur one or more times. This is illustrated in
After generating the document, such as a web page, the user may post it on a network, such as the Internet. The posting may be direct or indirect, for example, by storing corresponding web-page content on the server. The review and rating information in one or more of the link tags, such as the identifier tags 118 (
Attention is now given to hardware and systems that may utilize and/or implement the improved link tags, such as the identifier tags and the rating tags, and the embodiments 300 (
The network 618 may be the Internet, a portion of the Internet, an Intranet or portion there of, or a specified combination of Intranet(s) and/or host servers on the Internet. The documents and web pages stored by the host servers 620 contain links to other documents or web pages. Conceptually, the network crawlers 616 are programs that automatically traverse the network's hypertext structure. In practice, the network crawlers 616 may run on separate computers or servers. For convenience, the network crawlers 616 may be thought of as a set of computers, each of which is configured to execute one or more processes or threads that download documents from the scheduled URLs 614.
The network crawlers 616 receive the assigned URLs and download (or at least attempt to download) the documents at those URLs. The network crawlers 616 may also retrieve documents that are referenced by the retrieved documents. The network crawlers 616 pass the retrieved documents to the content processing servers 610, which process the links in the downloaded pages, from which the URL managers and schedulers 612 determine which pages are to be crawled. A history log 624 stores information identifying the URLs visited.
Network crawlers 616 use various protocols to download pages associated with URLs, such as HTTP, HTTPS, gopher and File Transfer Protocol.
The content processing servers 610 may utilize one or more of the improved link tags in one or more retrieved documents to select processing of content and/or documents. The selected processing may include changing of the weights and/or ranking values in a document index corresponding to one or more content locations and/or document locations associated with one or more of the link tags. The selected processing may also include blocking processing of content and/or documents associated with one or more link tags. The URL manager(s) and schedulers 612 may exclude content locations and/or documents locations corresponding to blocked content and/or documents from the scheduled URLs 614.
The memory 722 may include high speed random access memory, such as DRAM, SRAM, DDR RAM or other random access solid state memory devices; and may also include non-volatile memory, such as one or more magnetic disk storage devices, optical disk storage devices, flash memory devices, or other non-volatile solid state storage devices. Memory 722 may optionally include mass storage that is remotely located from the CPU(s) 710. In some embodiments, memory 712 stores the following programs, modules and data structures, or a subset thereof:
an operating system 724 that includes procedures (or a set of instructions) for handling various basic system services and for performing hardware dependent tasks,
a network communications module 726 (or a set of instructions) for controlling communications via the one or more network interfaces 720; and
a crawler module 728 (or a set of instructions).
The crawler module 728 includes the following programs, modules and data structures, or a subset thereof:
a set of scheduled URLs 614 to be crawled,
URL fetch and handling instructions 730,
URL schedulers and managers 612,
a link tag management module 732,
a document ranking generator 742, and
an optional cookie management module 744.
The link tag management module 732 optionally includes instructions 734 for decrypting at least a portion of the improved link tag information, a decryption key database 736 for various publishers and content processing management module 738. The content processing management module 738 includes weight generator 740.
Memory 922 may include high-speed random access memory, such as DRAM, SRAM, DDR RAM or other random access solid state memory devices; and/or non-volatile memory, such as one or more magnetic disk storage devices, optical disk storage devices, flash memory devices, or other non-volatile solid state storage devices. Memory 922 may store an operating system 924, such as LINUX, UNIX or WINDOWS, that includes procedures (or a set of instructions) for handling basic system services and for performing hardware dependent tasks. Memory 922 may also store communication procedures (or a set of instructions) in a network communication module 926. The communication procedures are used for communicating with a search engine.
Memory 926 may also include a browser or browser tool module 928 (or a set of instructions), the search assistant module 930 (or a set of instructions) and an authoring module 940 (or a set of instructions). The search assistant module 930 may be implemented using executable code such as JavaScript which may be included in a search portal web page or a page of search results, as a plug-in application program attached to browser or browser tool 928, or a stand-alone application. The search assistant module 730 may include instructions for assisting or monitoring user entry of a search query, for sending a search query to a search engine, and/or for receiving and displaying search results. The authoring module 940 may include HTML/XML document authoring tools 942. The HTML/XML document authoring tools 942 may include a link tool generator 944 for generating the improved link tags, such as the identifier tags and/or the rating tags.
In embodiments where the client system 900 is coupled to a local server computer, one or more of the modules and/or applications in the memory 922 may be stored in a server computer at a different location than the user.
Each of the above identified modules and applications corresponds to a set of instructions for performing one or more functions described above. These modules (i.e., sets of instructions) need not be implemented as separate software programs, procedures or modules. The various modules and sub-modules may be rearranged and/or combined. The memory 922 may include additional modules and/or sub-modules, or fewer modules and/or sub-modules. For example, the search assistant module 930 may be integrated into the browser/tool module 928. Memory 922, therefore, may include a subset or a superset of the above identified modules and/or sub-modules.
The search engine 1000 may include at least one data processor or central processing unit (CPU) 1010, a communications or network interface 1020 for communicating with other computers, servers and/or clients, memory 1022 and one or more communication buses or signal lines 1012 for coupling these components to one another.
Memory 1022 may include high-speed random access memory and/or non-volatile memory, such as one or more magnetic disk storage devices. Memory 1022 may store an operating system 1024, such as LINUX, UNIX or WINDOWS, that includes procedures (or a set of instructions) for handling basic system services and for performing hardware dependent tasks. Memory 1022 may also store communication procedures (or a set of instructions) in a network communication module 1026. The communication procedures are used for communicating with clients, such as the client 900 (
Memory 1022 may also store a query processing controller 1026 (or a set of instructions). The query processing controller 1026 may include the following elements, or a subset or superset of such elements: client communication module 1018, query receipt, processing and response module 1020, document search module 1028, results generator 1030, web-page authoring module 1022, web-page content database 1024 and evaluation database 1034. The results generator 1030 may produce a ranked set of documents 1032. The ranked set of documents 1032 may be generated by searching a document database 1042, using an inverse document index 1040 to find documents in the document database 1042 that match a specified query, to produce an initial set of ranked results. The results generator 1030 may then use information obtained from the improved link tags to revise the rankings of the results, thereby allowing search results to reflect reviews and/or rating values, such as relative importance or weights, provided by content and/or document users or publishers.
Although
The search engine system 1000 may include multiple data centers each housing a backend. The data centers are generally widely dispersed from one another, such as across the continental United States. Search queries submitted by users at one of the clients 1010 to the search engine system 1000 are routed to an appropriate backend as part of the Domain Name System (DNS), based on current load, geographic locality and/or whether that data center is operating. Each backend preferably includes multiple query servers coupled to a communications network via a network interface 1020. The communications network may be the Internet, but may also be any local area network (LAN) and/or wide area network (WAN).
The search rank values for the documents in the search results are conveyed to the query processing controller 1026, and are used to construct an ordered search result list. Once the query processing controller 1026 constructs the ordered search result list, the query processing controller 1026 transmits to the document database 1032 a request for snippets of an appropriate subset of the documents in the ordered search list. For example, the query processing controller 1026 may request snippets for the first fifteen or so of the documents in the ordered search result list. The document database 1032 constructs snippets based on the search query, and returns the snippets to the query processing controller 1026. The query processing controller 1026 then returns a list of located documents and snippets back to the requesting client. In some embodiments, the snippets are stored in a cache server along with the cached results. As a result, in these embodiments the query processing controller 1026 only requests snippets for documents, if any, for which it is unable to obtain valid cached snippets from the cache server.
The information in the improved link tags may be used to change the weights and/or rank values associated with one or more content locations and/or document locations stored in the document database 1042. The information in the improved link tags may be used to Change the weights and/or rank values associated with content and/or documents stored in the document database 1042. The changed weights and/or ranks may be used by the query processing controller 1026 to compute one or more scores corresponding to the one or more content locations and/or document locations. The one or more changed weights and/or the one or more rank values may also be used in parsing of terms or information in a search query received by the query processing controller 1026.
The foregoing descriptions of specific embodiments of the present invention are presented for purposes of illustration and description. They are not intended to be exhaustive or to limit the invention to the precise forms disclosed. Rather, it should be appreciated that many modifications and variations are possible in view of the above teachings. The embodiments were chosen and described in order to best explain the principles of the invention and its practical applications, to thereby enable others skilled in the art to best utilize the invention and various embodiments with various modifications as are suited to the particular use contemplated.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
5939278 | Boon et al. | Aug 1999 | A |
6064980 | Jacobi et al. | May 2000 | A |
6236990 | Geller et al. | May 2001 | B1 |
6260064 | Kurzrok | Jul 2001 | B1 |
6285999 | Page | Sep 2001 | B1 |
6598026 | Ojha et al. | Jul 2003 | B1 |
6718324 | Edlund et al. | Apr 2004 | B2 |
6807566 | Bates et al. | Oct 2004 | B1 |
6892178 | Zacharia | May 2005 | B1 |
6892179 | Zacharia | May 2005 | B1 |
6912505 | Linden et al. | Jun 2005 | B2 |
6963848 | Brinkerhoff | Nov 2005 | B1 |
7013303 | Faybishenko et al. | Mar 2006 | B2 |
7039631 | Finger, II | May 2006 | B1 |
7246110 | Musgrove et al. | Jul 2007 | B1 |
7302429 | Wanker | Nov 2007 | B1 |
7343374 | Berkhin | Mar 2008 | B2 |
7406436 | Reisman | Jul 2008 | B1 |
7428496 | Keller et al. | Sep 2008 | B1 |
7433832 | Bezos et al. | Oct 2008 | B1 |
7461051 | Lavine | Dec 2008 | B2 |
7467206 | Moore et al. | Dec 2008 | B2 |
7493320 | Canright et al. | Feb 2009 | B2 |
7519562 | Vander Mey et al. | Apr 2009 | B1 |
7620651 | Chea et al. | Nov 2009 | B2 |
20020046203 | Siegel et al. | Apr 2002 | A1 |
20020073125 | Bier | Jun 2002 | A1 |
20020165905 | Wilson | Nov 2002 | A1 |
20020193066 | Connelly | Dec 2002 | A1 |
20040019611 | Pearse et al. | Jan 2004 | A1 |
20040030525 | Robinson et al. | Feb 2004 | A1 |
20040117340 | Blitzer | Jun 2004 | A1 |
20040205065 | Petras et al. | Oct 2004 | A1 |
20040225577 | Robinson | Nov 2004 | A1 |
20040225672 | Landers et al. | Nov 2004 | A1 |
20040255237 | Tong | Dec 2004 | A1 |
20050027685 | Kamvar et al. | Feb 2005 | A1 |
20050034071 | Musgrove et al. | Feb 2005 | A1 |
20050065811 | Chu et al. | Mar 2005 | A1 |
20050091038 | Yi et al. | Apr 2005 | A1 |
20050097188 | Fish | May 2005 | A1 |
20050131918 | Hillis et al. | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20050137939 | Calabria et al. | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20050216295 | Abrahamsohn | Sep 2005 | A1 |
20060064343 | Burke et al. | Mar 2006 | A1 |
20060129446 | Ruhl et al. | Jun 2006 | A1 |
20060143158 | Ruhl et al. | Jun 2006 | A1 |
20060277290 | Shank | Dec 2006 | A1 |
20060282762 | Diamond et al. | Dec 2006 | A1 |
20070033092 | Iams | Feb 2007 | A1 |
20070038620 | Ka et al. | Feb 2007 | A1 |
20070078669 | Dave et al. | Apr 2007 | A1 |
20070078670 | Dave et al. | Apr 2007 | A1 |
20070078699 | Scott et al. | Apr 2007 | A1 |
20070078845 | Scott et al. | Apr 2007 | A1 |
20070078851 | Grell et al. | Apr 2007 | A1 |
20070208613 | Backer | Sep 2007 | A1 |
20070294127 | Zivov | Dec 2007 | A1 |
20080015925 | Sundaresan | Jan 2008 | A1 |
20080120166 | Fernandez et al. | May 2008 | A1 |
20080256040 | Sundaresan et al. | Oct 2008 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
1834249 | Sep 2007 | EP |
WO 2004025516 | Mar 2004 | WO |
Entry |
---|
Jacob Palme, “How to integrate the SELECT rating serice with other Web services?”, publisher: www.sztaki.hu, May 2001, pp. A-1, A-2, B-1, B-2 , http://web.archive.org/web/20010502234530/www.sztaki.hu/SELECT/integration.html. |
Kent Kurchak, “Notes application strategies: Document rating”, published: Apr. 5, 2004, pp. 1-16. |
Kushal, D.B., et al., “Mining the Peanut Gallery: Opinion Extraction and Semantic Classification of Product Reviews”, WWW 2003, May 20-24, 2003, Budapest, Hungary. |
Hu, M.; et al., “Mining Opinion Features in Customer Reviews”, Proceedings of Nineteenth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-2004), Jul. 2004, San Jose, CA. |
Nigam, K., et al., “Towards a Robust Metric of Opinion”, Proceedings of Nineteenth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-2004), Jul. 2004, San Jose, CA. |
Yi, J., et al., “Sentiment Analyzer: Extracting Sentiments about a Given Topic using Natural Language Processing Techniques”, Proceedings of the Third IEEE International Conference on Data Mining, 2003. |
Hu, M., et al., “Mining and Summarizing Customer Reviews”, KDD '04, Aug. 22-25, 2004, Seattle, WA. |
Abonyi, et al., “Computational Intelligence in Data Mining,” Informatica, An International Journal of Computing and Informatics, vol. 29, No. 1, May 2005, pp. 3-121. |
Berkhin, “A Survey on PageRank Computing,” Internet Mathematics, vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 73-120. |
Borodin, “Link Analysis Ranking: Algorithms, Theory and Experiments,” ACM Transactions on Internet Technology, vol. 5, No. 1, Feb. 2005, pp. 231-297. |
Church et al., “Inverse document frequency (IDF): a measure of deviations from Poisson,” AT&T Bell Laboratories, 1995, pp. 121-130. |
Ding et al., “Link Analysis: Hubs and Authorities on the World Wide Web,” LBNL Tech Report 47847, May 7, 2001, 12 pgs. |
Ding et al., Link Analysis: Hubs and Authorities on the World Wide Web, SIAM Review, vol. 46, No. 2, 2004, 13 pgs. |
O'Donovan et al., “Personalizing Trust in Online Auctions,” Adaptive Information Cluster, School of Computer Science and Informatics, 2003, 12 pgs. |
Furner, “On Recommending,” Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2002, pp. 1-27. |
Gibson, “Communities and Reputation on the Web,” UMI Microform 3082196, 2003, pp. 1-106. |
Google: Google Gram—Google launches Froogle, M2 Presswire, Coventry, May 22, 2005, 1 pg. |
Guha et al., “Propagation of Trust and Distrust,” ACM, May 17-22, 2004, 10 pgs. |
Haveliwala et al., “The Second Eigenvalue of the Google Matrix,” Technical Report, Stanford, 2003, 8 pgs. |
Haveliwala, “Topic-Sensitive PageRank: A Context-Sensitive Ranking Algorithm for Web Search,” IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, vol. 15, No. 4, Jul./Aug. 2003, pp. 784-796. |
International Search Report for PCT/US2006/038552 mailed Aug. 31, 2007. |
Kamvar et al., “The EigenTrust Algorithm for Reputation Management in P2P Networks,” ACM, May 20-24, 2003, 12 pgs. |
Kleinberg, “Authoritative Sources in a Hyperlinked Environment,” Proceedings of the ACM-SIAM on Discrete Algorithms, 1998, IBM Research Report RJ 10076, May 1997. |
Langville et al., “A Survey of Eigenvector Methods for Web Information Retrieval,” Department of Mathematics, North Carolina State University, Dec. 17, 2003, , pp. 1-26. |
Langville et al., “Deeper Inside PageRank,” Internet Mathematics vol. 1, No. 3, Oct. 1, 2003, pp. 335-380. |
Lempel et al., “Rank-Stability and Rank-Similarity of Link-Based Web Ranking Algorithms in Authority-Connected Graphs,” Information Retrieval, 8, vol. 8, 2005, pp. 245-264. |
Malaga et al., Web-Based Reputation Management Systems: Problems and Suggested Solutions, Electronic Commerce Research, vol. 1, 2001, pp. 403-417. |
Massa et al., “Page-reRank: Using Trusted Links to Re-rank Authority,” IEEE/WIC/ACM International Conference on Web Intelligence, 2005, 15 pgs. |
Massa et al., “Trust-Aware Collaborative Filtering for Recommender Systems,” LNCS 3290, 2004, pp. 492-508. |
Mendelzon et al., “What do the Neighbours Think? Computing Web Page Reputations,” IEEE Computer Society Technical Committee on Data Engineering, 2000, pp. 1-8. |
Mui et al., “Evaluating Reputation in Multi-agents Systems,” AAMAS 2002 Ws Trust, LNAI 2631, 2003, pp. 123-137. |
ProQuest, “My Research,” 2008, 1 pg. |
Resnick et al., “Reputation Systems,” Association for Computing Machinery, Communications of the ACM, Dec. 2000, vol. 43, No. 13, pp. 45-48. |
Richardson et al., Trust management for the Semantic Web, Proceedings of the 2nd International Semantic Web Conference, 2003, 17 pgs. |
Riggs et al., “An Algorithm for Automated Rating of Reviewers,” JCDL 2001, Jun. 24-28, 2001, pp. 381-387. |
Wang et al., “Computing PageRank in a Distributed Internet Search System,” Proceedings of the 30th VLDB Conference, 2004, pp. 420.431. |
Zacharia et al., “Collaborative reputation mechanisms for electronic marketplace,” Decision Support Systems 29 2000, pp. 371-388. |
Zhang et al., “A Web Analysis Algorithm Combined with Content Correlation Analysis Method,” J. Computer Science & Technology, Jan. 2003, vol. 18, No. 1, pp. 114-117. |
Google, Office Action, Japanese Patent Application No. JP 2008-533768, Oct. 1, 2012, 3 pgs. |
Google Inc., Office Action, Chinese Patent Application 200680043620.7, Oct. 8, 2010, 5 pgs. |
Google Inc., Office Action, Japanese Patent Application 2008-533768, Dec. 21, 2011, 3 pgs. |
Tateishi, A Reputation Search Engine from the Internet, the Journal of the Society for Artificial Intelligence, Japan, the Japanese Society for Artificial Intelligence, vol. 19, Issue 3, May 1, 2004, pp. 317-323. |
Tateishi, A Reputation Search Engine That Collects People's Opinions Using Information Extraction Technology, IPSJ Transactions on Databases, vol. 45, No. SIG7(TOD22), Jun. 2004, 9 pgs. |
Alguliev, Effective Summarization Method of Text Documents, Proceedings of the 2005 IEEE/WIC/ACM, Sep. 19, 2005, 8 pgs. |
Google Inc., European Search Report, European Patent Application No. 11189258.4, Feb. 15, 2012, 6 pgs. |
Google Inc., Office Action, Chinese Patent Application No. 200680043620.7, Mar. 7, 2012, 7 pgs. |
Hahn, The Challenges of Automatic Summarization, Nov. 1, 2000, pp. 29-36. |
Method for Automatic Extraction of Relevant Sentences from Text, IBM Technical Disclosure Bulletin, vol. 33, No. 6A, Nov. 1, 1990, 2 pgs. |
Wang, Construction of Mathematic Model for Automatic Summarization, Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Machine Learning and Cybernetics, Guangzhou, Aug. 18-21, 2005, pp. 2278-2283. |
White, Web document summarisation: a task-oriented evaluation, Sep. 3, 2001, pp. 951-955. |
European Supplemental Search Report for EP 06825371 dated Jul. 22, 2011, 6 pgs. |