Search Engine News


...the search industry queries new media

search engine lowdown home search engine resources rss news feedcontact search engine lowdown

.:: SEL partners ::.
Desktop search engine from Copernic
Targeted traffic with Epilot
Text Link Ads
.:: navigating SEL ::.

>> marketing how-to's!

>> search/media interviews!

>> search news analysis!

>> SEL on your mobile!

>> sponsor SEL!

.:: get fed ::.

>> Subscribe to RSS Feed
>> Add to Bloglines
>> Add to Newsgator
>> Add to My Yahoo!
.:: sel (an)archives ::.

 >> 07.2003
 >> 08.2003
 >> 09.2003
 >> 10.2003
 >> 11.2003
 >> 12.2003
 >> 01.2004
 >> 02.2004
 >> 03.2004
 >> 04.2004
 >> 05.2004
 >> 06.2004
 >> 07.2004
 >> 08.2004
 >> 09.2004
 >> 10.2004
 >> 11.2004
 >> 12.2004
 >> 01.2005
 >> 02.2005
 >> 03.2005
 >> 04.2005
 >> 05.2005
 >> 06.2005
 >> 07.2005
 >> 08.2005
 >> 09.2005
 >> 10.2005
 >> 11.2005
 >> 12.2005
 >> 01.2006
 >> 02.2006
 >> 03.2006
 >> 04.2006
 >> 05.2006
 >> 06.2006
 >> 07.2006
 >> 08.2006
 >> 09.2006
 >> 10.2006
 >> 11.2006
 >> 12.2006
 >> 01.2007
 >> 02.2007

Search marketing in the new media era.

August 24, 2006
 
Google Awarded "Editorial Opinion Parameter" Patent Filed in 2000
The USPTO awarded Google a patent for a System and method for supporting editorial opinion in the ranking of search results.

Bill Slawski has the best write up I've seen thus far, in Google looks at Query Themes and Reranking Based upon Editorial Opinion.

Before I weigh in I want to quote Bill: "Keep in mind that the processes described in this patent may never be used, or that they could be implemented in different ways than described here."

An Artifact or New Direction?
Another important note: the patent was filed on December 13, 2000. From that perspective, plus knowing Google's preferance for elegant engineering solutions to relevance, I'm thinking that this is more of an artifact than it is a strong indicator of a new direction for Google.

To me the most curious item is that this patent includes an "editorial opinion parameter" by which, from my reading of Slawski and the patent itself, a team of human editors determine whether specific sources are "favored" or "un-favored."

My suspicion is that Google only intended these editors to operate in specific verticals, but its very filing, and in 2000 at that, shows a human-reliance side of Google that's quite uncharacteristic.

Other Reads on the Patent:
Rand, in Favored vs. Non-Favored Sources, points out that "This is also one of the rare times I've seen a patent application from a search engine refer to a "site" or "source" as a whole rather than individual pages."

I'm not sure what this indicates, but speculate that it's easier for editors to think in terms of whole sites rather than individual pages.

In follow up comments on Rand's post Slawski notes that "I've looked at a few industries in enough depth to consider the possibility that something like this was in place before ever seeing this patent, but thought that another algorithm, like a "reranking based upon local interconnectivity" might be partially responsible."

Changes Coming in Google News?
In Steve Bryant's New Google Patent Hints at Direction of Social Search he notes that "What's most interesting to me about this patent, though, is that Krishna Bharat, inventor of Google News, is listed as one of the inventors. Google said recently that it was making some changes to Google News."

I think he's off in his title - I don't believe this patent has anything to do with social search unless the editors the patent refers to represents any Google user, which I don't think they do.

In all, an interesting patent. It will be fun to see the theories that emerge because of it.

See Google News Creator Watches Portal Quiet Critics With 'Best News' Webby for an interview with one of the patent filers. Marissa Mayer was also cited as an author on this patent.




Powered by Blogger
Weblog Commenting by HaloScan.com
© 2006 Search Engine Lowdown. All Rights Reserved.
All views and opinions expressed are those of the author only,
protected by the First Amendment and are not representative of any company listed. All trademarks, slogans, text or logo representation used or referred to in this website are the property of their respective owners.