The present disclosure relates to using queries provided by one or multiple users to identify the intent of the user or users.
Internet search engines aim to identify documents or other items that are relevant to a user's queries and to present the documents or items in a manner that is most useful to the user. Such activity often involves a fair amount of inferring from various clues of what the user wants. Certain clues may be user specific. For example, knowledge that a user is making a request from a mobile device, and knowledge of the location of the device, can result in much better search results for such a user.
Clues about a user's needs may also be more general. For example, search results can have an elevated importance, or inferred relevance, if a number of other search results link to them. If the linking results are themselves highly relevant, then the linked-to results may have a particularly high relevance. Such an approach to determining relevance may be premised on the assumption that, if authors of web pages felt that another web site was relevant enough to be linked to, then web searchers would also find the site to be particularly relevant. In short, the web authors “vote up” the relevance of the sites.
Other various inputs may be used instead of, or in addition to, such techniques for determining and ranking search results. For example, user reactions to particular search results or search result lists may be gauged, so that results on which users often click will receive a higher ranking. The general assumption under such an approach is that searching users are often the best judges of relevance, so that if they select a particular search result, it is likely to be relevant, or at least more relevant than the presented alternatives.
This specification describes technologies relating to ranking of resources for presentation in search results. In general, one or more aspects of the subject matter described in this specification can be embodied in one or more methods for processing query information. The methods include receiving prior queries followed by a current, the prior and current queries being received within an activity period and originating with a search requester. The methods include receiving a plurality of search results based on the current query, each search result identifying a search result document, each respective search result document being associated with a query specific score indicating a relevance of the document to the current query. The methods include determining a first category based, at least in part, on the prior queries. The methods include identifying a plurality of prior activity periods of other search requesters. Each prior activity period contains a prior activity query where the prior activity query matches the current query and where the prior activity period indicates the same first category. The methods include obtaining category based selection statistics of the other requesters search results based on the prior activity queries of the other activity periods. The methods include obtaining general selection statistics of a more general population of requesters based on the current query. The methods include generating adjusted scores for the search result documents by adjusting the respective scores based on the query specific score and the category specific score. The methods include ranking the search result documents according to the respective adjusted scores.
These and other embodiments can optionally include one or more of the following features:
Determining that the prior queries indicate the first category may also include analyzing time spent between selecting a first result and a second result. Generating may include determining a category specific selection frequency measuring the frequency with which the respective search result document is selected in the other activity periods, determining a general selection frequency measuring the frequency with which the respective search result document is selected by the more general population; and comparing the category specific selection frequency and the general selection frequency. Comparing may also include determining the difference between the category specific selection frequency and the general selection frequency. Comparing may also include determining that the difference exceeds a given threshold. Generating may also include comparing a selection value for the search result document and a total selection value aggregated across search result documents in the first category of search requester interest. The selection count for the search result may be weighted based on time between selecting the search result and at least one of a selection of successive search results and other user activity marking the end of the user engagement with the search result. Adjusting the respective scores based on the category specific score may include adjusting the respective score by multiplying and summing the category specific score and the multiplied value to the respective score. Determining a first category may include determining a second category. Determining the first category of interest may be based on search requester specific information. The search requester specific information may include demographic information and/or location information. Generating the category specific score for the search result documents may include determining an absence of the category specific score for statistically insignificant categories.
The details of one or more embodiments of the subject matter described in this specification are set forth in the accompanying drawings and the description below. Other features, objects, and advantages of the subject matter will be apparent from the description, the drawings, and the claims.
Like reference symbols and designations in the various drawings indicate like elements.
A search requester 1002 (1002a, 1002b, 1002c) can interact with the system 1000 through a client device 1004 (1004a, 1004b, 1004c) or other device. For example, the client device 1004 can be a computer terminal within a local area network (LAN) or wide area network (WAN). The client device 1004 can include a random access memory (RAM) 1006 (or other memory and/or a storage device) and a processor 1008. The processor 1008 is structured to process instructions within the system 1000. In some arrangements, the processor 1008 is a single-threaded processor. In other arrangements, the processor 1008 is a multi-threaded processor. The processor 1008 can include multiple processing cores and is structured to process instructions stored in the RAM 1006 (or other memory and/or a storage device included with the client device 1004) to display graphical information for a search requester interface.
A search requester 1002a can connect to a search engine 1030 within a server system 1014 to submit a query 1015. When the search requester 1002a submits the query 1015 through an input device attached to a client device 1004a, a client-side query signal 1010a is sent into a network 1012 and is forwarded to the server system 1014 as a server-side query signal 1010b. Server system 1014 can be one or more server devices in one or more locations. The server system 1014 includes a memory device 1016, which can include the search engine 1030 loaded therein. A processor 1018 is structured to process instructions within the system 1014. These instructions can implement one or more components of the search engine 1030. The processor 1018 can be a single-threaded processor or a multi-threaded processor, and can include multiple processing cores. The processor 1018 can process instructions stored in the memory 1016 related to the search engine 1030 and can send information to the client device 1004, through the network 1012, to create a graphical presentation in a search requester interface of the client device 1004 (e.g., a search results web page displayed in a web browser).
The server-side query signal 1010b is received by the search engine 1030. The search engine 1030 uses the information within the search requester query 1015 (e.g. query terms) to find relevant documents. The search engine 1030 can include an indexing engine 1020 that actively searches a corpus (e.g., web pages on the Internet) to index the documents found in that corpus, and the index information for the documents in the corpus can be stored in an index database 1022. This index database 1022 can be accessed to identify documents related to the search requester query 1015. Note that, an electronic document (which for brevity will simply be referred to as a document) does not necessarily correspond to a file. A document can be stored in a portion of a file that holds other documents, in a single file dedicated to the document in question, or in multiple coordinated files.
The search engine 1030 can include a ranking engine 1052 to rank the documents related to the search requester query 1015. The ranking of the documents can be performed using traditional techniques for determining an information retrieval (IR) score for indexed documents in view of a given query. The relevance of a particular document with respect to a particular search term or to other provided information may be determined by any appropriate technique. For example, the general level of back-links to a document that contains matches for a search term may be used to infer a document's relevance. In particular, if a document is linked to (e.g., is the target of a hyperlink) by many other relevant documents (e.g., documents that also contain matches for the search terms) then it can be inferred that the target document is particularly relevant. This inference can be made because the authors of the pointing documents presumably point, for the most part, to other documents that are relevant to their audience.
If the pointing documents are in turn the targets of links from other relevant documents, they can be considered more relevant, and the first document can be considered particularly relevant because it is the target of relevant (or even highly relevant) documents. Such a technique may be the determinant of a document's relevance or one of multiple determinants. The technique is exemplified in some systems that treat a link from one web page to another as an indication of quality for the latter page, so that the page with the most such quality indicators is rated higher than others. Appropriate techniques can also be used to identify and eliminate attempts to cast false votes so as to artificially drive up the relevance of a page.
Various types of information may be provided to the rank modifier engine 1056 for improving the ranking of documents. For example, search requesters are often interested in one or more particular subjects or categories for a short time period, e.g., the last 30 minutes or two hours of a search session. The short-term interests of a search requestor may be identified and used to adjust ranking of search results. To determine such underlying interests of a search requester, the search engine 1030 can include an interest identifier 1058 that may implement one or more interest identification techniques. For example, the categories of interest may be gleaned from adjustments provided by the search requester. A search requester's interested in a particular category may issue queries related to the category and select search results referring to resources related to the category. A search requester may have a browsing history that indicates a particular area of interest. Generally, the search requester's recent activity can indicate the search requester's present needs and interests. In some arrangements, after an initial search request is executed and corresponding results provided, the search may be refined by the search requester to steer the subsequent search towards desired results. For example, adding or removing particular search terms and phrases during a search session may provide clues to the interests of the search requester 1002a (regarding the search). Similarly, the manner in which an individual interacts with search results (e.g., search selections, time spent interacting with search selections, advertisement selections, etc.) may enable the interest identifier 1058 to identify one or more categories of search requester interest. In some arrangements, an interest identifier may look at information over a recent time period. (for example, the last 30 minutes, one hour, two hours, or twenty-four hours) to determine a short-term category of user interest. In some arrangements, the search system infers that a search requester is not interested in a particular category based on the search requester's recent activity, e.g., the search requester ignores a search result referring to a resource related to the particular category, or the search requester views the resource for a very short period of time after selection of the search result.
Additional information may also be used in conjunction with the refinement information for identifying search requester interest. For example, the language of the search requester (e.g., English, Spanish, etc.), the location of the search requester (e.g., country, region, state, city, etc.) and similar information may be utilized. Once identified, data representing the identified interest may be cataloged in a database (e.g., the index db 1022). Further, the identified search requester interest may be used for various applications such as providing assistance during future search sessions performed by the search requester 1002a or other search requesters. Search result scoring and ranking (e.g., as performed by the ranking engine 1020 or the rank modifier engine 1056) can be adjusted to account for interest of the search requester 1002a or similar search requesters.
In some arrangements, the ranking engine 1052 receives one or more signals (i.e., data indicative of relevance) from a rank modifier engine 1056 to assist in determining an appropriate ranking for the resources. The rank modifier engine 1056 can provide one or more measures of category relevance for the resources, which can be used by the ranking engine 1052 to improve the ranking of resources referred to by search results 1028 provided to the search requester 1002. In some arrangements, the measure of category relevance represents a probability of search result selection given the values of one or more features, as described further below. The rank modifier engine 1056 can perform one or more of the operations described below to generate the one or more measures of category relevance.
In some arrangements, the search engine 1030 includes a scoring engine that generates scores for resources based on many different features, including content based features that indicate the relevance of resource content to the query and query independent features that generally indicate the quality of resources. The ranking engine 1052 can produce a ranking of resources based on scores received from the scoring engine and one or more measures of category relevance from the rank modifier engine 1056.
The search engine 1030 can forward the final, ranked result list within a server-side search results signal 1028a through the network 1012. Exiting the network 1012, a client-side search results signal 1028b can be received by the client device 1004a where the results can be stored within the RAM 1006 and/or used by the processor 1008 to display the results on an output device for the search requester 1002a.
The ranking engine 2030 can produce a ranking of document results 2040 for display to a search requester based on IR scores received from the scoring engine 2020 and one or more signals from the rank modifier engine 2070. The rank modifier engine 2070 can adjust rankings, at least in part, based on data received from the interest identifier 2080. Along with being provided data from the result selection logs 2060, other sources may provide information to the interest identifier 2080. For example, queries entered into a search requester interface may be provided to the interest identifier 2080. The interest identifier 2080 may provide information about the relevance of particular search results for a category of interest and a query to the rank modifier engine 2070. In this particular example, the interest identifier 2080 provides information to the rank modifier engine 2070, however other architectures may be implemented. For example, a category of interest information may be provided by the interest identifier 2080 to the indexing engine 2010 or one or more other components of the information retrieval system. A tracking component 2050 can be used to record information regarding individual search requester selections of the results presented in the ranking 2040. For example, the tracking component 2050 can be embedded JavaScript code included in a web page ranking 2040 that identifies search requester selections (clicks) of individual document results and also identifies when the search requester returns to the results page. Therefore the component may indicate the amount of time the search requester spent viewing the selected document result. In other arrangements, the tracking component 2050 can be a proxy system through which search requester selections of the document results are routed, or the tracking component can include pre-installed software at the client (e.g., a toolbar plug-in to the client's operating system). Other arrangements are also possible, such as using a feature of a web browser that allows a tag/directive to be included in a page, which requests the browser to connect back to the server with message(s) regarding link(s) clicked by the search requester.
The recorded information can be stored in result selection log(s) 2060. The recorded information can include log entries that indicate, for each search requester selection, the query, the resource, the time on the resource, the language employed by the search requester, and the country or region where the search requester is likely located (e.g., based on the server used to access the IR system). Other information can also be recorded regarding search requester interactions with a presented ranking, including negative information, such as the fact that a document result was presented to a search requester but was not clicked, position(s) of click(s) in the search requester interface, IR scores of clicked results, IR scores of all results shown before the clicked result, the titles and snippets shown to the search requester before the clicked result, the search requester's cookie, cookie age, IP (Internet Protocol) address, search requester agent of the browser, etc. Still, further information can be recorded such as described below during discussion of the various features that can be used to build a prior model. Moreover, similar information (e.g., IR scores, position, etc.) can be recorded for an entire session, or multiple sessions of a search requester, including potentially recording such information for every click that occurs both before and after a current click.
The information stored in the result selection log(s) 2060 can be used by one or more components of the information retrieval system. For example, information could be provided to interest identifier 2080 and the rank modifier engine 2070 in generating one or more signals to the ranking engine 2030. In general, a wide range of information can be collected and used to modify or tune the click signal from the search requester to make the signal, and the future search results provided, a better fit for the search requester's needs. Thus, search requester interactions with the rankings presented to the search requesters of the information retrieval system can be used to improve future rankings Additionally, query adjustments indicative of refining a search can be used to modify rankings. In some arrangements, the search requester interaction and search requester interest data may be provided to one or more server systems (e.g., server system 1014) for use and storage (e.g., database 1022) for later retrieval. For example, interest identifier 2080 may compare current search results with previous search activity to provide ranking adjustments to the rank modifier engine 2070.
The components shown in
Referring to
When the score of a resource increases or decreases, the rank of the resource relative to other responsive resources may be increased or decreased. Whether the rank of a particular resource changes depends on the rank of the resource before modifying the score, how much the score is modified, and how much the score for neighboring resources are modified. For example, if the ranking engine 1052 has already ranked a particular resource as the top resource for a given query, increasing the score for that particular resource will not change the resource's rank. However, if the search system increases the score for the second-ranked resource for the given query, the amount increased might be large enough to boost the second-ranked resource to the top spot. Thus, the search system can promote or demote resources in a search results list for a particular search requester based on the search requester's inferred short-term categorical interests.
In some arrangements, the search system 1014 only modifies the score of a resource for a particular search requester issuing a given query if similarly interested search requesters selected the search result referring to the resource at a rate that differs (e.g., by a statistically significant amount) from the rate at which the general population selected the same search result returned for the same query. The required threshold to determine that the result is selected more often for search requesters with a specific interest than by search requesters with a more general interested may be a fixed threshold (for example a difference of at least 0.01 in absolute click through rate). The required threshold may be relative, for example, the click through rate may need to be at least 10% greater. For example, if a result receives a click through rate of 10% among the general population, and a click through rate of 12% among search requesters having a particular interest, the relative difference is 20%. The threshold may also be statistical. For example, if the click through rate based on a sample observation period for a given result is more than a standard deviation greater for users having a particular interest than for the general population. In some arrangements the threshold may be a combination of absolute, relative, and/or statistical thresholds.
The search system 1014 can use the rate at which search requesters select a particular search result for a given query as a measure of the relevance of the associated resource to the given query. For example, if search requesters with an identified interest select a search result more frequently then the general population, the search system can infer that other similarly interested search requesters will find the search result to be more relevant. Likewise, if search requesters with an identified interest select a search result less frequently than the general population, the search system can infer that other similarly interested search requesters will find the associated resource to be less relevant.
In some arrangements, the difference between the two rates must be greater than a predefined threshold for the search system to modify the resource's score. If the difference is greater than the predefined threshold, the search system modifies the score of the resource to reflect the measure of category relevance (e.g., the expected selection rate) of the resource to the given query for the similarly interested search requesters.
For example, referring to
Referring to
Referring to
Referring to
Operations include storing recent activity 5010. In some arrangements recent activity may be stored by the interest identifier 1058 directly. In other arrangements, another component of the server system 1014 may store the recent activity for later use by the interest identifier 1058. In one example, a search requester's browing history may be stored. In another example, a search requester's interactions with the search system are stored. Their interaction may include queries submitted by a search requester and information descriptive of a search requester's interactions with the provided search results. For example, a search requester may select a particular resource and perform some action which indicates the search requester in finished with the resource, such as selecting another result, entering a new query, or leaving the search page or selecting another result. The selected results may be stored along with a measure of the passage of time between the selection and the subsequent action. As another example, a search requester may submit a query and subsequently submit a second query which further refines the query. In another arrangement, information about the particular search requester may also be stored. For example, the system may store location, demographic, and linguistic information.
Operations also include identifying categories of interest 5020. In one example, the system may use the stored activity to identify categories of interest. In some arrangements the system may examine a search requester's interactions with the system to determine a category of interest. This may include analyzing patterns of query submission and result selection to infer a category. In some arrangements, the short term categorical interests are identified using a technique for classifying text (e.g., query terms or text in resources) into fine grained hierarchical categories. A hierarchical category may consist of a series of progressively narrower categories in a parent/child relationship, for example, a “sports” category may have a “football” child category, which in turn may have “high school football” and “professional football” child categories. Generally, the depth of the hierarchy defines the level of refinement. In some arrangements a search requester's category of interest may be defined at any level of the hierarchy. For example, a search requester may be determined to be interested in the “high school football” or a search requester may be determined to be interested in “sports.” In other arrangements, a category of interest may only be defined at the narrowest level subcategory, for example, “high school football”. In some arrangements, a determined interest in a parent category (for example, “football”) indicates interest in all child categories for that parent (for example, “professional football” and “high school football”). In other arrangements, interest in a parent category indicates only a general interest and does not indicate interest in the child categories, for example, an interest in “sports” may not indicate an interest in “football” or “high school football.”
In some arrangements, categories are formed by comparing a search requesters queries with the search results the search requester selects. For example, for the search requester submissions of query “professional football” a search engine may present a URL pointing to document to the search requester a number of times. If a search requester clicks on the URL, the click can be considered a confirmation that document is a valid search result for query. In this manner, categories of interest may be formed based on the queries and the search requester's selections. In some arrangements, queries which produce similar results or similar selected results may be determined to refer to the same category of interest.
Operations also include determining selection counts 5030. In one example, determining selection counts may include calculating the number of times a resource is selected by a search requester executing a particular query and having a particular category of interest. The results of this process may be stored for later access. In some arrangements, selection counts are further refined based on the location, demographic or linguistic information.
In some arrangements, the selection count may be weighted based on the time between a search requester selects the respective resource and when the search requester indicates that the requester is finished with the respective source. In some arrangements, the selection of a subsequent resource by a search requester indicates that the requester is finished with the first resource. For example, if a search requester selects the resource referring to a particular resource and views that resource for a long period of time before selecting a different resource, the selection count may be increased by an amount proportional to how long the requester waited before selecting the different resource. In some arrangements submitting a new query may indicate that a search requester is finished with the first resource. In still other arrangements, a search requester may indicate that the search requester is finished with a particular resource by not returning to the search results.
Operations also include calculating a category click-fraction 5040. In one example, the category click-fraction may be calculated for each resource selected for a particular query and category of interest. The category click-fraction may be a measure of the selection count for a particular resource as a percentage of the combined selection count for all resources for the query and category of interest.
Operations also include calculating a general click fraction 5050. In one example, the general click fraction may be a measure of the selection count for a particular resource as a percentage of the combined selection count for all resources for the query independent of any category of interest.
Operations also include calculating category relevance 5060. In one example, the category relevance may be a measure of the difference between category click fraction and the general click fraction. The difference may be determined in either absolute or relative terms.
Operations also include determining if the category is significant 5070. In one example, the significance of the category may be determined based on the category relevance, the category click fraction, and the general click fraction. In one arrangement, the category may be significant if the category relevance exceeds a certain threshold. In another example, the category may be significant if the difference between the category click fraction and the general click fraction is statistically significant. In other arrangements, a category may be insignificant, regardless of any click fraction, if an aggregated selection count for all queries and resources is less than a predefined threshold.
Operations also include providing a category relevance score 5080. In one example, the category relevance score may be determined based on the category relevance. In one arrangement, the category relevance score may be determined by multiplying the category relevance by a constant value. The category relevance score may be provided to a ranking engine and stored for later use.
In some arrangements, the interest identifier 1058 may execute the process 5000 in batch. The interest identifier 1058 may cache the measures of category relevance for quick retrieval. The interest identifier 1058 may modify the score of resources matching a given query for a particular search requester as soon as the system infers one or more categories of interests for the search requester. The interest identifier 1058 may also cache other scoring information, for example, measures of category relevance, general click fractions or category click fractions.
Referring to
Operations include reviewing recent activity 6010. In one example, the interest identifier 1058 reviews the recent activity of a search requester. The recent activity can be queries issued and the resources selected within a short time period, e.g., during the last 30 minutes, two hours, or 24 hours of a search session. Recent activity can also or alternatively be defined as a sequence of queries and interactions with resources with no interruption of more than a predetermined amount of time. Recent activity can also be determined in terms of the current task. In some arrangements, the end of the task may be identified when the current queries are no longer consistent with the previously identified category of interest.
Operations also include identifying categories of interest 6020. The interest identifier 1058 may identify at least one category of interest for the search requester based on the search requester's recent activity. The system can identify the categories using the technique used in process 5000 described above. In some arrangements, the category of interest is further identified using location, demographic, and linguistic information of the search requester.
Operations also include receiving a current query 6030. In one example, the interest identifier 1058 receives a new query issued by the search requester.
Operations also include identifying resources 6040. In one example, the interest identifier 1058 identifies multiple resources matching the search requester's current query. Each resource is provided with a IR score which measures the general relevance of the resource to the current query. In some arrangements, resources matching particular popular queries are predetermined and cached. If available the system retrieves a list of the cached resources and their scores.
Operations also include collecting category relevance scores 6050. In one example, the interest identifier 1058 retrieves category relevance scores for each resource matching the search requester's current query based on the category of interest.
Operations also include determining adjusted relevance scores 6060. While this operation may be performed by the interest identifier 1058, it is typically performed by the ranking engine 1052. In one example, the ranking engine 1052 adjusts IR scores based on the category relevance score provided by the interest identifier 1058. In one arrangement, the adjusted relevance score is determined by summing the IR score and the category relevance score. In other arrangements, the adjusted score is determined by multiplying the IR score and the category relevance score.
In some arrangements, the relevance score of a resource may have been previously adjusted based on other characteristics of the search requester independent of any category of interest. For example, a relevance score may be adjusted based on the search requester's location, linguistic, and demographic information. The interest identifier 1058 may further adjust the relevance score of the resource by applying an adjustment that replaces the previous adjustments and accounts for both the characteristics of the search requester and categories of interest.
In some arrangements, the interest identifier 1058 may identify multiple categories of interest for the search requester. The interest identifier 1058 then determines a category relevance score for each category of interest. The final category relevance score reflects a combination of the relevance of the multiple categories. In some arrangements, the category relevance score for multiple categories may be based on summing the click fractions for each category. In other arrangements, the category relevance score may be based on the sum of all the category relevance scores. In other arrangements, the category relevance for multiple categories may be based on the multiplication of each category click fraction.
The memory 7020 is a computer readable medium such as volatile or non volatile that stores information within the system 7000. The memory 7020 can store processes related to the functionality of the search engine 1030 (shown in
The computer system shown in
A computer program (also known as a program, software, software application, script, or code) can be written in any form of programming language, including compiled or interpreted languages, and it can be deployed in any form, including as a stand alone program or as a module, component, subroutine, or other unit suitable for use in a computing environment. A computer program does not necessarily correspond to a file in a file system. A program can be stored in a portion of a file that holds other programs or data (e.g., one or more scripts stored in a markup language document), in a single file dedicated to the program in question, or in multiple coordinated files (e.g., files that store one or more modules, sub programs, or portions of code). A computer program can be deployed to be executed on one computer or on multiple computers that are located at one site or distributed across multiple sites and interconnected by a communication network.
The processes and logic flows described in this specification can be performed by one or more programmable processors executing one or more computer programs to perform functions by operating on input data and generating output. The processes and logic flows can also be performed by, and apparatus can also be implemented as, special purpose logic circuitry, e.g., an FPGA (field programmable gate array) or an ASIC (application specific integrated circuit).
Processors suitable for the execution of a computer program include, by way of example, both general and special purpose microprocessors, and any one or more processors of any kind of digital computer. Generally, a processor will receive instructions and data from a read only memory or a random access memory or both. The essential elements of a computer are a processor for performing instructions and one or more memory devices for storing instructions and data. Generally, a computer will also include, or be operatively coupled to receive data from or transfer data to, or both, one or more mass storage devices for storing data, e.g., magnetic, magneto optical disks, or optical disks. However, a computer need not have such devices. Moreover, a computer can be embedded in another device, e.g., a mobile telephone, a personal digital assistant (PDA), a mobile audio player, a Global Positioning System (GPS) receiver, to name just a few. Computer readable media suitable for storing computer program instructions and data include all forms of non volatile memory, media and memory devices, including by way of example semiconductor memory devices, e.g., EPROM, EEPROM, and flash memory devices; magnetic disks, e.g., internal hard disks or removable disks; magneto optical disks; and CD ROM and DVD-ROM disks. The processor and the memory can be supplemented by, or incorporated in, special purpose logic circuitry.
To provide for interaction with a user, embodiments of the subject matter described in this specification can be implemented on a computer having a display device, e.g., a CRT (cathode ray tube) or LCD (liquid crystal display) monitor, for displaying information to the user and a keyboard and a pointing device, e.g., a mouse or a trackball, by which the user can provide input to the computer. Other kinds of devices can be used to provide for interaction with a user as well. For example, feedback provided to the user can be any form of sensory feedback, e.g., visual feedback, auditory feedback, or tactile feedback, and input from the user can be received in any form, including acoustic, speech, or tactile input.
Embodiments of the invention can be implemented in a computing system that includes a back end component, e.g., as a data server, or that includes a middleware component, e.g., an application server, or that includes a front end component, e.g., a client computer having a graphical user interface or a Web browser through which a user can interact with an implementation of the invention, or any combination of one or more such back end, middleware, or front end components. The components of the system can be interconnected by any form or medium of digital data communication, e.g., a communication network. Examples of communication networks include a local area network (“LAN”) and a wide area network (“WAN”), e.g., the Internet.
The computing system can include clients and servers. A client and server are generally remote from each other and typically interact through a communication network. The relationship of client and server arises by virtue of computer programs running on the respective computers and having a client-server relationship to each other.
While this specification contains many specifics, these should not be construed as limitations on the scope of the invention or of what may be claimed, but rather as descriptions of features specific to particular embodiments of the invention. Certain features that are described in this specification in the context of separate embodiments can also be implemented in combination in a single embodiment. Conversely, various features that are described in the context of a single embodiment can also be implemented in multiple embodiments separately or in any suitable subcombination. Moreover, although features may be described above as acting in certain combinations and even initially claimed as such, one or more features from a claimed combination can in some cases, be excised from the combination, and the claimed combination may be directed to a subcombination or variation of a subcombination.
Similarly, while operations are depicted in the drawings in a particular order, this should not be understood as requiring that such operations be performed in the particular order shown or in sequential order, or that all illustrated operations be performed, to achieve desirable results. In certain circumstances, multitasking and parallel processing may be advantageous. Moreover, the separation of various system components in the embodiments described above should not be understood as requiring such separation in all embodiments, and it should be understood that the described program components and systems can generally be integrated together in a single software product or packaged into multiple software products.
Particular embodiments of the subject matter described in this specification have been described. Other embodiments are within the scope of the following claims. For example, the actions recited in the claims can be performed in a different order and still achieve desirable results. As one example, the processes depicted in the accompanying figures do not necessarily require the particular order shown, or sequential order, to achieve desirable results. In certain arrangements, multitasking and parallel processing may be advantageous. In some arrangements, the search system uses a search requester's inferred short-term categorical interests to identify resources that match the search requester's present query.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
5265065 | Turtle | Nov 1993 | A |
5488725 | Turtle | Jan 1996 | A |
5696962 | Kupiec | Dec 1997 | A |
5920854 | Kirsch et al. | Jul 1999 | A |
5963940 | Liddy et al. | Oct 1999 | A |
6006222 | Culliss | Dec 1999 | A |
6006225 | Bowman et al. | Dec 1999 | A |
6014665 | Culliss | Jan 2000 | A |
6026388 | Liddy et al. | Feb 2000 | A |
6067565 | Horvitz | May 2000 | A |
6078916 | Culliss | Jun 2000 | A |
6078917 | Paulsen et al. | Jun 2000 | A |
6088692 | Driscoll | Jul 2000 | A |
6134532 | Lazarus et al. | Oct 2000 | A |
6182066 | Marques et al. | Jan 2001 | B1 |
6182068 | Culliss | Jan 2001 | B1 |
6185559 | Brin et al. | Feb 2001 | B1 |
6249252 | Dupray | Jun 2001 | B1 |
6269368 | Diamond | Jul 2001 | B1 |
6285999 | Page | Sep 2001 | B1 |
6321228 | Crandall et al. | Nov 2001 | B1 |
6327590 | Chidlovskii et al. | Dec 2001 | B1 |
6341283 | Yamakawa et al. | Jan 2002 | B1 |
6353849 | Linsk | Mar 2002 | B1 |
6363378 | Conklin et al. | Mar 2002 | B1 |
6370526 | Agrawal et al. | Apr 2002 | B1 |
6421675 | Ryan et al. | Jul 2002 | B1 |
6473752 | Fleming, III | Oct 2002 | B1 |
6480843 | Li | Nov 2002 | B2 |
6490575 | Berstis | Dec 2002 | B1 |
6502091 | Chundi et al. | Dec 2002 | B1 |
6526440 | Bharat | Feb 2003 | B1 |
6529903 | Smith et al. | Mar 2003 | B2 |
6539377 | Culliss | Mar 2003 | B1 |
6560590 | Shwe et al. | May 2003 | B1 |
6567103 | Chaudhry | May 2003 | B1 |
6587848 | Aggarwal et al. | Jul 2003 | B1 |
6615209 | Gomes | Sep 2003 | B1 |
6623529 | Lakritz | Sep 2003 | B1 |
6640218 | Golding et al. | Oct 2003 | B1 |
6658423 | Pugh et al. | Dec 2003 | B1 |
6671681 | Emens et al. | Dec 2003 | B1 |
6678681 | Brin et al. | Jan 2004 | B1 |
6701309 | Beeferman et al. | Mar 2004 | B1 |
6725259 | Bharat | Apr 2004 | B1 |
6738764 | Mao et al. | May 2004 | B2 |
6754873 | Law et al. | Jun 2004 | B1 |
6792416 | Soetarman et al. | Sep 2004 | B2 |
6795820 | Barnett | Sep 2004 | B2 |
6816850 | Culliss | Nov 2004 | B2 |
6853993 | Ortega et al. | Feb 2005 | B2 |
6873982 | Bates et al. | Mar 2005 | B1 |
6877002 | Prince | Apr 2005 | B2 |
6882999 | Cohen et al. | Apr 2005 | B2 |
6901402 | Corston-Oliver et al. | May 2005 | B1 |
6912505 | Linden et al. | Jun 2005 | B2 |
6944611 | Flank et al. | Sep 2005 | B2 |
6944612 | Roustant et al. | Sep 2005 | B2 |
6954750 | Bradford | Oct 2005 | B2 |
6963867 | Ford et al. | Nov 2005 | B2 |
6990453 | Wang et al. | Jan 2006 | B2 |
7016939 | Rothwell et al. | Mar 2006 | B1 |
7028027 | Zha et al. | Apr 2006 | B1 |
7072886 | Salmenkaita et al. | Jul 2006 | B2 |
7085761 | Shibata | Aug 2006 | B2 |
7113939 | Chou et al. | Sep 2006 | B2 |
7117206 | Bharat et al. | Oct 2006 | B1 |
7136849 | Patrick | Nov 2006 | B2 |
7146361 | Broder et al. | Dec 2006 | B2 |
7222127 | Bem et al. | May 2007 | B1 |
7231399 | Bem et al. | Jun 2007 | B1 |
7243102 | Naam et al. | Jul 2007 | B1 |
7249126 | Ginsburg et al. | Jul 2007 | B1 |
7266765 | Golovchinsky et al. | Sep 2007 | B2 |
7293016 | Shakib et al. | Nov 2007 | B1 |
7379951 | Chkodrov et al. | May 2008 | B2 |
7382358 | Kushler et al. | Jun 2008 | B2 |
7395222 | Sotos | Jul 2008 | B1 |
7426507 | Patterson | Sep 2008 | B1 |
7451487 | Oliver et al. | Nov 2008 | B2 |
7499919 | Meyerzon et al. | Mar 2009 | B2 |
7516146 | Robertson et al. | Apr 2009 | B2 |
7526470 | Karnawat et al. | Apr 2009 | B1 |
7533092 | Berkhin et al. | May 2009 | B2 |
7533130 | Narayana et al. | May 2009 | B2 |
7552112 | Jhala et al. | Jun 2009 | B2 |
7565363 | Anwar | Jul 2009 | B2 |
7565367 | Barrett et al. | Jul 2009 | B2 |
7566363 | Starling et al. | Jul 2009 | B2 |
7574530 | Wang et al. | Aug 2009 | B2 |
7584181 | Zeng et al. | Sep 2009 | B2 |
7603350 | Guha | Oct 2009 | B1 |
7610282 | Datar et al. | Oct 2009 | B1 |
7636714 | Lamping et al. | Dec 2009 | B1 |
7657626 | Zwicky | Feb 2010 | B1 |
7676507 | Maim | Mar 2010 | B2 |
7680775 | Levin et al. | Mar 2010 | B2 |
7693818 | Majumder | Apr 2010 | B2 |
7716225 | Dean et al. | May 2010 | B1 |
7747612 | Thun et al. | Jun 2010 | B2 |
7756887 | Haveliwala | Jul 2010 | B1 |
7783632 | Richardson et al. | Aug 2010 | B2 |
7801885 | Verma | Sep 2010 | B1 |
7809716 | Wang et al. | Oct 2010 | B2 |
7818315 | Cucerzan et al. | Oct 2010 | B2 |
7818320 | Makeev | Oct 2010 | B2 |
7836058 | Chellapilla et al. | Nov 2010 | B2 |
7844589 | Wang et al. | Nov 2010 | B2 |
7849089 | Zhang et al. | Dec 2010 | B2 |
7853557 | Schneider et al. | Dec 2010 | B2 |
7856446 | Brave et al. | Dec 2010 | B2 |
7877404 | Achan et al. | Jan 2011 | B2 |
7895177 | Wu | Feb 2011 | B2 |
7925498 | Baker et al. | Apr 2011 | B1 |
7925649 | Jeh et al. | Apr 2011 | B2 |
7953740 | Vadon et al. | May 2011 | B1 |
7974974 | Tankovich et al. | Jul 2011 | B2 |
7987185 | Mysen et al. | Jul 2011 | B1 |
8001136 | Papachristou et al. | Aug 2011 | B1 |
8019650 | Donsbach et al. | Sep 2011 | B2 |
8024326 | Tong et al. | Sep 2011 | B2 |
8024330 | Franco et al. | Sep 2011 | B1 |
8027439 | Zoldi et al. | Sep 2011 | B2 |
8037042 | Anderson et al. | Oct 2011 | B2 |
8037043 | Zoeter et al. | Oct 2011 | B2 |
8051061 | Niu et al. | Nov 2011 | B2 |
8060456 | Gao et al. | Nov 2011 | B2 |
8060497 | Zatsman et al. | Nov 2011 | B1 |
8065296 | Franz et al. | Nov 2011 | B1 |
8069182 | Pieper | Nov 2011 | B2 |
8073263 | Hull et al. | Dec 2011 | B2 |
8073772 | Bishop et al. | Dec 2011 | B2 |
8073867 | Chowdhury | Dec 2011 | B2 |
8082242 | Mysen et al. | Dec 2011 | B1 |
8086599 | Heymans | Dec 2011 | B1 |
8090717 | Bharat et al. | Jan 2012 | B1 |
8156111 | Jones et al. | Apr 2012 | B2 |
8209331 | Garg et al. | Jun 2012 | B1 |
8224827 | Dean et al. | Jul 2012 | B2 |
8412699 | Mukherjee et al. | Apr 2013 | B1 |
8447760 | Tong et al. | May 2013 | B1 |
8458165 | Liao et al. | Jun 2013 | B2 |
8498974 | Kim et al. | Jul 2013 | B1 |
8521725 | Pearson et al. | Aug 2013 | B1 |
8583636 | Franz et al. | Nov 2013 | B1 |
20010000356 | Woods | Apr 2001 | A1 |
20020034292 | Tuoriniemi et al. | Mar 2002 | A1 |
20020042791 | Smith et al. | Apr 2002 | A1 |
20020049752 | Bowman et al. | Apr 2002 | A1 |
20020078045 | Dutta | Jun 2002 | A1 |
20020103790 | Wang et al. | Aug 2002 | A1 |
20020123988 | Dean et al. | Sep 2002 | A1 |
20020133481 | Smith et al. | Sep 2002 | A1 |
20020165849 | Singh et al. | Nov 2002 | A1 |
20030009399 | Boerner | Jan 2003 | A1 |
20030018707 | Flocken | Jan 2003 | A1 |
20030037074 | Dwork et al. | Feb 2003 | A1 |
20030078914 | Witbrock | Apr 2003 | A1 |
20030120654 | Edlund et al. | Jun 2003 | A1 |
20030135490 | Barrett et al. | Jul 2003 | A1 |
20030149704 | Yayoi et al. | Aug 2003 | A1 |
20030167252 | Odom et al. | Sep 2003 | A1 |
20030187837 | Culliss | Oct 2003 | A1 |
20030195877 | Ford et al. | Oct 2003 | A1 |
20030204495 | Lehnert | Oct 2003 | A1 |
20030220913 | Doganata et al. | Nov 2003 | A1 |
20030229640 | Carlson et al. | Dec 2003 | A1 |
20040006456 | Loofbourrow | Jan 2004 | A1 |
20040006740 | Krohn et al. | Jan 2004 | A1 |
20040034632 | Carmel et al. | Feb 2004 | A1 |
20040049486 | Scanlon et al. | Mar 2004 | A1 |
20040059708 | Dean et al. | Mar 2004 | A1 |
20040083205 | Yeager | Apr 2004 | A1 |
20040093325 | Banerjee et al. | May 2004 | A1 |
20040119740 | Chang et al. | Jun 2004 | A1 |
20040122811 | Page | Jun 2004 | A1 |
20040153472 | Rieffanaugh, Jr. | Aug 2004 | A1 |
20040158560 | Wen et al. | Aug 2004 | A1 |
20040186828 | Yadav | Sep 2004 | A1 |
20040186996 | Gibbs et al. | Sep 2004 | A1 |
20040199419 | Kim et al. | Oct 2004 | A1 |
20040215607 | Travis, Jr. | Oct 2004 | A1 |
20050015366 | Carrasco et al. | Jan 2005 | A1 |
20050021397 | Cui et al. | Jan 2005 | A1 |
20050027691 | Brin et al. | Feb 2005 | A1 |
20050033803 | Vleet et al. | Feb 2005 | A1 |
20050050014 | Gosse et al. | Mar 2005 | A1 |
20050055342 | Bharat et al. | Mar 2005 | A1 |
20050055345 | Ripley | Mar 2005 | A1 |
20050060290 | Herscovici et al. | Mar 2005 | A1 |
20050060310 | Tong et al. | Mar 2005 | A1 |
20050060311 | Tong et al. | Mar 2005 | A1 |
20050071741 | Acharya et al. | Mar 2005 | A1 |
20050102282 | Linden | May 2005 | A1 |
20050125376 | Curtis et al. | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20050160083 | Robinson | Jul 2005 | A1 |
20050192946 | Lu et al. | Sep 2005 | A1 |
20050198026 | Dehlinger et al. | Sep 2005 | A1 |
20050222987 | Vadon | Oct 2005 | A1 |
20050222998 | Driessen et al. | Oct 2005 | A1 |
20050240576 | Piscitello et al. | Oct 2005 | A1 |
20050240580 | Zamir et al. | Oct 2005 | A1 |
20050256848 | Alpert et al. | Nov 2005 | A1 |
20060036593 | Dean et al. | Feb 2006 | A1 |
20060047643 | Chaman | Mar 2006 | A1 |
20060069667 | Manasse et al. | Mar 2006 | A1 |
20060074903 | Meyerzon et al. | Apr 2006 | A1 |
20060089926 | Knepper et al. | Apr 2006 | A1 |
20060095421 | Nagai et al. | May 2006 | A1 |
20060106793 | Liang | May 2006 | A1 |
20060123014 | Ng | Jun 2006 | A1 |
20060149710 | Koningstein et al. | Jul 2006 | A1 |
20060173830 | Smyth et al. | Aug 2006 | A1 |
20060195443 | Franklin et al. | Aug 2006 | A1 |
20060200476 | Gottumukkala et al. | Sep 2006 | A1 |
20060200556 | Brave et al. | Sep 2006 | A1 |
20060224583 | Fikes et al. | Oct 2006 | A1 |
20060227992 | Rathus et al. | Oct 2006 | A1 |
20060230040 | Curtis et al. | Oct 2006 | A1 |
20060259476 | Kadayam et al. | Nov 2006 | A1 |
20060293950 | Meek et al. | Dec 2006 | A1 |
20070005575 | Dai et al. | Jan 2007 | A1 |
20070005588 | Zhang et al. | Jan 2007 | A1 |
20070038659 | Datar et al. | Feb 2007 | A1 |
20070050339 | Kasperski et al. | Mar 2007 | A1 |
20070061195 | Liu et al. | Mar 2007 | A1 |
20070061211 | Ramer et al. | Mar 2007 | A1 |
20070081197 | Omoigui | Apr 2007 | A1 |
20070106659 | Lu et al. | May 2007 | A1 |
20070112730 | Gulli et al. | May 2007 | A1 |
20070130370 | Akaezuwa | Jun 2007 | A1 |
20070156677 | Szabo | Jul 2007 | A1 |
20070172155 | Guckenberger | Jul 2007 | A1 |
20070180355 | McCall et al. | Aug 2007 | A1 |
20070192190 | Granville | Aug 2007 | A1 |
20070208730 | Agichtein et al. | Sep 2007 | A1 |
20070214131 | Cucerzan et al. | Sep 2007 | A1 |
20070233653 | Biggs et al. | Oct 2007 | A1 |
20070233671 | Oztekin et al. | Oct 2007 | A1 |
20070255689 | Sun et al. | Nov 2007 | A1 |
20070260596 | Koran et al. | Nov 2007 | A1 |
20070260597 | Cramer et al. | Nov 2007 | A1 |
20070266021 | Aravamudan et al. | Nov 2007 | A1 |
20070266439 | Kraft | Nov 2007 | A1 |
20070288450 | Datta et al. | Dec 2007 | A1 |
20080010143 | Kniaz et al. | Jan 2008 | A1 |
20080027913 | Chang et al. | Jan 2008 | A1 |
20080052219 | Sandholm et al. | Feb 2008 | A1 |
20080052273 | Pickens | Feb 2008 | A1 |
20080059453 | Laderman | Mar 2008 | A1 |
20080059456 | Chowdhury et al. | Mar 2008 | A1 |
20080077570 | Tang et al. | Mar 2008 | A1 |
20080082518 | Loftesness | Apr 2008 | A1 |
20080091650 | Fontoura et al. | Apr 2008 | A1 |
20080104043 | Garg et al. | May 2008 | A1 |
20080114624 | Kitts | May 2008 | A1 |
20080114729 | Raman et al. | May 2008 | A1 |
20080114750 | Saxena et al. | May 2008 | A1 |
20080140699 | Jones et al. | Jun 2008 | A1 |
20080162475 | Meggs et al. | Jul 2008 | A1 |
20080172362 | Shacham et al. | Jul 2008 | A1 |
20080183660 | Szulcewski | Jul 2008 | A1 |
20080189269 | Olsen | Aug 2008 | A1 |
20080208825 | Curtis et al. | Aug 2008 | A1 |
20080228442 | Lippincott et al. | Sep 2008 | A1 |
20080256050 | Zhang et al. | Oct 2008 | A1 |
20080313168 | Liu et al. | Dec 2008 | A1 |
20080313247 | Galvin | Dec 2008 | A1 |
20090006438 | Tunkelang et al. | Jan 2009 | A1 |
20090012969 | Rail et al. | Jan 2009 | A1 |
20090055392 | Gupta et al. | Feb 2009 | A1 |
20090070194 | Song | Mar 2009 | A1 |
20090125505 | Bhalotia et al. | May 2009 | A1 |
20090157643 | Gollapudi et al. | Jun 2009 | A1 |
20090182723 | Shnitko et al. | Jul 2009 | A1 |
20090187557 | Hansen et al. | Jul 2009 | A1 |
20090228442 | Adams et al. | Sep 2009 | A1 |
20090287656 | Bennett | Nov 2009 | A1 |
20090313242 | Kodama | Dec 2009 | A1 |
20100106706 | Rorex et al. | Apr 2010 | A1 |
20100131563 | Yin | May 2010 | A1 |
20100205541 | Rapaport et al. | Aug 2010 | A1 |
20100228738 | Mehta et al. | Sep 2010 | A1 |
20100241472 | Hernandez | Sep 2010 | A1 |
20100287129 | Tsioutsiouliklis et al. | Nov 2010 | A1 |
20100299317 | Uy | Nov 2010 | A1 |
20100325131 | Dumais et al. | Dec 2010 | A1 |
20110064795 | Tosi et al. | Mar 2011 | A1 |
20110179093 | Pike et al. | Jul 2011 | A1 |
20110219025 | Lipson et al. | Sep 2011 | A1 |
20110264670 | Banerjee et al. | Oct 2011 | A1 |
20110282906 | Wong | Nov 2011 | A1 |
20110295844 | Sun et al. | Dec 2011 | A1 |
20110295879 | Logis et al. | Dec 2011 | A1 |
20120011148 | Rathus et al. | Jan 2012 | A1 |
20120191705 | Tong et al. | Jul 2012 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
WO 0077689 | Dec 2000 | WO |
WO 0116807 | Mar 2001 | WO |
WO 0167297 | Sep 2001 | WO |
WO 2004059514 | Jul 2004 | WO |
Entry |
---|
“Agglomerative clustering of a search engine query log,” by Beeferman and Berger. IN: Proceedings of the sixth ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining (2003). Available at: ACM. |
“Improving Category Specific Web Search by Learning Query Modifications,” by Glover et al. IN: Applications and the Internet (2001). Available at: IEEE Xplore. |
“Personalized Web Search by Mapping User Queries to Categories,” by Liu et al. IN: Proceedings of the eleventh international conference on Information and knowledge management (2002). Available at: ACM. |
“Personalizing Search via Automated Analysis of Interests and Activities,” by Teevan et al. IN: SIGIR'05 (2005). Available at: ACM. |
Agichtein, et al; Improving Web Search Ranking by Incorporating User Behavior Information; Aug. 2006; Proceedings of the Twenty-Ninth Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, p. 19-26. |
Agichtein, et al; Learning User Interaction Models for Predicting Web Search Result Performances; Aug. 2006; Proceedings of the Twenty-Ninth Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, p. 3-10. |
Bar-Llan et al., “Presentation Bias is Significant in Determining User Preference for Search Results—A User X Study”; Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, vol. 60, Issue 1 (p. 135-149), Sep. 2008, 15 pages. |
Bar-Llan et al.; “Methods for comparing rankings of search engine results”; Computer Networks: The International Journal of Computer and Telecommunications Networking, Jul. 2006, vol. 50, Issue 10 , 19 pages. |
Boldi, et al.; The Query-flow Graph: Model and Applications; CKIM '08, Oct. 26-30, Napaya Valley, California, USA, pp. 609-617. |
Boyan et al.; A Machine Learning Architecture for Optimizing Web Search Engines; Aug. 1996; Internet-based information systems—Workshop Technical Report—American Association for Artificial Intelligence, p. 1-8. |
Burke, Robin, Integrating Knowledge-based and Collaborative-filtering Recommender Systems, AAAI Technical Report WS-99-01. Compilation copyright © 1999, AAAI (www.aaai.org), pp. 69-72. |
Craswell, et al.; Random Walks on the Click Graph; Jul. 2007; SIGIR '07, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 8 pages. |
Cutrell, et al.; Eye tracking in MSN Search: Investigating snippet length, target position and task types; 2007; Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems—Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. |
Diligenti, et al., Users, Queries and Documents: A Unified Representation for Web Mining, wi-iat, vol. 1, 2009 IEEE/WIC/ACM International Joint Conference on Web Intelligence and Intelligent Agent Technology, 2009, pp. 238-244. |
Hofmann, Thomas, Latent Semantic Models for Collaborative Filtering, ACM Transactions on Information Systems, vol. 22, No. 1, Jan. 2004, pp. 89-115. |
Google News archive, Jul. 8, 2003, Webmasterworld.com, [online] Retrieved from the Internet http://www.webmasterwolrd.com/forum3/15085.htm [retrieved on Nov. 20, 2009] 3 pages. |
Gr{hacek over (c)}ar, Miha, User Profiling: Collaborative Filtering, SIKDD 2004, Oct. 12-15, 2004, Ljubljana, Slovenia, 4 pages. |
Joachims, T., Evaluating retrieval performance using clickthrough data. Proceedings of the SIGIR Workshop on Mathematical/Formal Methods in Information Retrieval; 2002, Aug. 12-15; Tampere, Finland, 18 pages. |
Joachims; Optimizing search engines using clickthrough data; 2002; Proceedings of the ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, p. 133-142. |
Joachims et al., “Search Engines that Learn from Implicit Feedback”; Aug. 2007, IEEE Computer Society. |
Kelly, et al.; Implicit Feedback for Inferring User Preference: A Bibliography; SIGIR Forum, vol. 37, No. 2 (2003), pp. 18-28. |
Linden, Greg et al., Amazon.com Recommendations: Item-to-Item Collaborative Filtering, [online], http://computer.org/internet/, IEEE Internet Computing, Jan.-Feb. 2003, IEEE Computer Society, pp. 76-80. |
U.S. Patent Office, U.S. Appl. No. 11/556,143, filed Nov. 2, 2006, in Office Action mailed Jan. 25, 2010, 14 pages. |
U.S. Patent Office, U.S. Appl. No. 11/556,143, filed Nov. 2, 2006, in Office Action mailed Jul. 6, 2010, 20 pages. |
U.S. Patent Office, U.S. Appl. No. 11/556,143, filed Nov. 2, 2006, in Office Action mailed Apr. 20, 2011, 18 pages. |
Nicole, Kristen, Heeii is StumbleUpon Plus Google Suggestions, [online], Retrieved from the Internet http://mashable.com/2007/05/15/heeii/, 11 pages. |
Lemire, Daniel, Scale and Translation Invariant Collaborative Filtering Systems, Published in Information Retrieval, 8(1), pp. 129-150, 2005. |
U.S. Patent Office, U.S. Appl. No. 11/685,095, filed Mar. 12, 2007, in Office Action mailed Feb. 8, 2010, 31 pages. |
U.S. Patent Office, U.S. Appl. No. 11/685,095, filed Mar. 12, 2007, in Office Action mailed Feb. 25, 2009, 21 pages. |
U.S. Patent Office, U.S. Appl. No. 11/685,095, filed Mar. 12, 2007, in Office Action mailed Sep. 10, 2009, 23 pages. |
U.S. Patent Office, U.S. Appl. No. 11/685,095, filed Mar. 12, 2007, in Office Action mailed Apr. 13, 2011, 31 pages. |
Radlinski, et al., Query Chains: Learning to Rank from Implicit Feedback, KDD '05, Aug. 21-24, 2005, Chicago, Illinois, USA, 10 pages. |
U.S. Patent Office, U.S. Appl. No. 11/556,086, filed Nov. 2, 2006, in Office Action mailed Jun. 23, 2010, 21 pages. |
Schwab, et al., Adaptivity through Unobstrusive Learning, 2002, 16(3), pp. 5-9. |
Stoilova, Lubomira et al., GiveALink: Mining a Semantic Network of Bookmarks for Web Search and Recommendation, LinkKDD '05, Aug. 21, 2005, Chicago, IL, USA, 8 pages. |
W3C, URIs, URLs and URNs: Classification and Recommendations 1.0, Report from the joint W3C/IETF URI Planning Interest Group, Sep. 21, 2001, 8 pages. |
Xiao, et al., Measuring Similarity of Interests for Clustering Web-Users, ADC, 2001, pp. 107-114. |
Xie et al., Web User Clustering from Access Log Using Belief Function, K-CAP '01, Oct. 22-23, 2001, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada, pp. 202-208. |
Yu et al., Selecting Relevant Instances for Efficient and Accurate Collaborative Filtering, CIKM '01, Nov. 5-10, 2001, Atlanta, Georgia, pp. 239-246. |
Zeng et al., Similarity Measure and Instance Selection for Collaborative Filtering, WWW '03, May 20-24, 2003, Budapest, Hungary, pp. 652-658. |
Zeng, et al., “Learning to Cluster Web Search Results”, SIGIR '04, Proceedings of the 27th Annual International ACM SIGIR conference on research and development in information retrieval, 2004. |
Soumen Chakrabarti, et al. “Enhanced Topic Distillation using Text, Markup tags, and Hyperlinks” ACM 2001, pp. 208-216. |
Gabriel Somlo et al., “Using Web Hepler Agent Profiles in Query Generation”, ACM, Jul. 2003, pp. 812-818. |
Australian Patent Office Non-Final Office Action in AU App. Ser. No. 2004275274, mailed Feb. 3, 2010, 2 pages. |
Dan Olsen et al., “Query-by-critique: Spoken Language Access to Large Lists”, ACM, Oct. 2002, pp. 131-140. |
Susan Gauch et al., “A Corpus Analysis Approach for Automatic Query Expansion and its Extension to Multiple Databases”, ACM, 1999, pp. 250-269. |
Nicolas Bruno et al., “Top-K Selection Queries over Relational Databases: Mapping Strategies and Performance Evaluation”, ACM, Jun. 2002, pp. 153-187. |
Ji-Rong Wen et al., “Query Clustering using User Logs”, ACM, Jan. 2002, pp. 59-81. |
Brin, S. and L. Page, The Anatomy of a Large-Scale Hypertextual Web Search Engine, Computer Science Department, 1998. |
International Search Report and Written Opinion for Application No. PCT/US2004/029615, dated Jan. 19, 2005, 8 pages. |
Hungarian Patent Office, International Search Report and Written Opinion for Application No. 200806756-3, dated Nov. 19, 2010 12 pages. |
Authorized Officer Athina Nickitas-Etienne, International Preliminary Report and Written Opinion for Application No. PCT/US2004/029615, mailed Mar. 23, 2006. |
Indian Office Action in Indian Application No. 686/KOLNP/2006, mailed Jun. 3, 2008, 2 pages. |
Danish Search Report and Written Opinion for Application No. 200601630-7, dated Jun. 21, 2007, 15 pages. |
Joachims, “Evaluating Search Engines Using Clickthrough Data”, Cornell University, Department of Computer Science, Draft, Feb. 19, 2002, 13 pages. |
Jansen et al., “An Analysis of Web Documents Retrieved and Viewed”, School of Information Sciences and Technology, The Pennsylvania State University, the 4th International Conference on Internet Computing, Las Vegas, Nevada, pp. 65-69, Jun. 23-26, 2003, 5 pages. |
Jones et al., “Pictures of Relevance: A Geometric Analysis of Similarity Measures”, Journal of the American Society for Information Science, Nov. 1987, 23 pages. |
Kaplan et al., “Adaptive Hypertext Navigation Based on User Goals and Context”, User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction 2, Sep. 1, 1993; pp. 193-220, 28 pages. |
Liddy et al., “A Natural Language Text Retrieval System With Relevance Feedback”, 16th National Online, May 2-6, 1995, 3 pages. |