Category: Google

Google Adds Topic Clusters to Search Results

Google has been very conservative about changing their search results page. Indeed, the design of the page and the information presented has changed little since the search engine’s public introduction in 1998. Innovations have literally been marginal: Google has added helpful spelling corrections (“Did you mean…?”), related search terms, and news items near the top of the page, and of course the ubiquitous text ads to the right. But the primary search results block has remained fairly untouched. Competitors have come and gone (mostly the latter), promoting new—and they say better—ways of browsing masses of information. But Google’s clean, relevant list has brushed off these upstarts. So it surprised me when I was doing some fact checking on a book I’m finishing to see the following search results page:

As you can see, Google has evidently introduced a search results page that clusters relevant web pages by subject matter. Google has often disparaged other search engines that do this sort of clustering, like the gratingly named Clusty and Vivisimo, perhaps because Google’s engineers must be some of the few geeks who understand that regular human beings don’t particularly care for fancier ways of structuring or visualizing search results. Just the text, ma’am.

But while this addition of clustering (based on the information theory of document classification, as I recently discussed in D-Lib and in a popular prior blog post) to Google’s search results page is surprising, the way they’ve done it is typically simple and useful. No little topic folders in a sidebar; no floating circles connected by relationship lines. The page registers the same visually, but it’s more helpful. I was looking for the year in which the Victorian artist C.R. Ashbee died, and the first three results are about him. Then, above the fold, there’s a block of another three results that are mildly set apart (note the light grey lines), asking if I meant to look up information about the Ashbee Lacrosse League (with a link to the full results for that topic), then back to the artist. The page reads like a conversation, without any annoying, overly fancy technical flourishes: “Here’s some info about C.R. Ashbee…oh, did you mean the lacrosse league?…if you didn’t here’s some more about the artist.”

Now I just hope they add this clustering to their Web Search API, which would really help out with H-Bot, my automated historical fact finder.

March 21, 2006 Add Comment

What Would You Do With a Million Books?

What would you do with a million digital books? That’s the intriguing question this month’s D-Lib Magazine asked its contributors, as an exercise in understanding what might happen when massive digitization projects from Google, the Open Content Alliance, and others reach their fruition. I was lucky enough to be asked to write one of the responses, “From Babel to Knowledge: Data Mining Large Digital Collections,” in which I discuss in much greater depth the techniques behind some of my web-based research tools. (A bonus for readers of the article: learn about the secret connection between cocktail recipes and search engines.) Most important, many of the contributors make recommendations for owners of any substantial online resource. My three suggestions, summarized here, focus on why openness is important (beyond just “free beer” and “free speech” arguments), the relatively unexplored potential of application programming interfaces (APIs), and the curious implications of information theory.

1. More emphasis needs to be placed on creating APIs for digital collections. Readers of this blog have seen this theme in several prior posts, so I won’t elaborate on it again here, though it’s a central theme of the article.

2. Resources that are free to use in any way, even if they are imperfect, are more valuable than those that are gated or use-restricted, even if those resources are qualitatively better. The techniques discussed in my article require the combination of dispersed collections and programming tools, which can only happen if each of these services or sources is openly available on the Internet. Why use Wikipedia (as I do in my H-Bot tool), which can be edited—or vandalized—by anyone? Not only can one send out a software agent to scan entire articles on the Wikipedia site (whereas the same spider is turned away by the gated Encyclopaedia Britannica), one can instruct a program to download the entire Wikipedia and store it on one’s server (as we have done at the Center for History and New Media), and then subject that corpus to more advanced manipulations. While flawed, Wikipedia is thus extremely valuable for data-mining purposes. For the same reason, the Open Content Alliance digitization project (involving Yahoo, Microsoft, and the Internet Archive, among others) will likely prove more useful for advanced digital research than Google’s far more ambitious library scanning project, which only promises a limited kind of search and retrieval.

3. Quantity may make up for a lack of quality. We humanists care about quality; we greatly respect the scholarly editions of texts that grace the well-tended shelves of university research libraries and disdain the simple, threadbare paperback editions that populate the shelves of airport bookstores. The former provides a host of helpful apparatuses, such as a way to check on sources and an index, while the latter merely gives us plain, unembellished text. But the Web has shown what can happen when you aggregate a very large set of merely decent (or even worse) documents. As the size of a collection grows, you can begin to extract information and knowledge from it in ways that are impossible with small collections, even if the quality of individual documents in that giant corpus is relatively poor.

March 17, 2006 1 Comment

Impact of Field v. Google on the Google Library Project

I’ve finally had a chance to read the federal district court ruling in a case, Field v. Google, that has not been covered much (except in the technology press), but which has obvious and important implications for the upcoming battle over the legality of Google’s library digitization project. The case, Field v. Google, involved a lawyer who dabbles in some online poetry, and who was annoyed that Google’s spider cached a version of his copyrighted ode to delicious tea (“Many of us must have it iced, some of us take it hot and combined with milk, and others are not satisfied unless they know that only the rarest of spices and ingredients are contained therein…”). Field sued Google for copyright infringement; Google argued fair use. Field lost the case, with most of his points rejected by the court. The Electronic Frontier Foundation has hailed Google’s victory as a significant one, and indeed there are some very good aspects of the ruling for the book copying case. But there also seem to be some major differences between Google’s wholesale copying of websites and its wholesale copying of books that the court implicitly recognized. The following seem to be the advantages and disadvantages of this ruling for Google, the University of Michigan, and others who wish to see the library project reach completion.

Courts have traditionally used four factors to determine fair use—the purpose of the copying, the nature of the work, the extent of the copying, and the effect on the market of the work.

On purpose, the court ruled that Google’s cache was not simply a copy of that work, but added substantial value that was important to users of Google’s search engine. Users could still read Field’s poetry even if his site was down; they could compare Google’s cache with the original site to see if any changes had been made; they could see their search terms highlighted in the page. Furthermore, with a clear banner across the top Google tells its users that this is a copy and provides a link to the original. It also provides methods for website owners to remove their pages from the cache. This emphasis on opt out seems critical, since Google has argued that book publishers can simply tell them if they don’t want their books digitized. Also, the court ruled that the Google’s status as a commercial enterprise doesn’t matter here. Advantage for Google et al.

On the nature of the work, the court looked less at the quality of Field’s writing (“Simple flavors, simple aromas, simple preparation…”) than at Field’s intentions. Since he “sought to make his works available to the widest possible audience for free” by posting his poems on the Internet, and since Field was aware that he could (through the robots.txt file) exclude search engines from indexing his site, the court thought Field’s case with respect to this fair use factor was weakened. But book publishers and authors fighting Google will argue that they do not intend this free and wide distribution. Disadvantage for Google et al.

One would think that the third factor, the extent of the copying, would be a clear loser for Google, since they copy entire web pages as a matter of course. But the Nevada court ruled that because Google’s cache serves “multiple transformative and socially valuable purposes…that could not be effectively accomplished by using only portions” of web pages, and because Google points users to the original texts, this wholesale copying was OK. You can see why Google’s lawyers are overjoyed by this part of the ruling with respect to the book digitization project. Big advantage for Google et al.

Perhaps the cruelest part of the ruling had to do with the fourth factor of fair use, the effect on the market of the work. The court determined from its reading of Field’s ode to tea that “there is no evidence of any market for Field’s works.” Ouch. But there is clearly a market for many books that remain in copyright. And since the Google library project has just begun we don’t have any economic data about Google Book Search’s impact on the market for hard copies. No clear winner here.

In additional, the Nevada court added a critical fifth factor for determining fair use in this case: “Google’s Good Faith.” By providing ways to include and exclude materials from its cache, by providing a way to complain to the company, and by clearly spelling out its intentions in the display of the cache, the court determined that Google was acting in good faith—it was simply trying to provide a useful service and had no intention to profit from Field’s obsession with tea. Google has a number of features that replicate this sense of good faith in its book program, like providing links to libraries and booksellers, methods for publishers and authors to complain, and techniques for preventing user copies of copyrighted works. Advantage for Google et al.

A couple of final points that may work against Google. First, the court made a big deal out of the fact that the cache copying was completely automated, which the Google book project is clearly not. Second, the ruling constantly emphasizes the ability of Field to opt out of the program, but upset book publishers and authors believe this should be opt in, and it’s quite possible another court could agree with that position, which would weaken many of the points made above.

February 9, 2006 Add Comment

Google, the Khmer Rouge, and the Public Good

Like Daniel into the lion’s den, Mary Sue Coleman, the President of the University of Michigan, yesterday went in front of the Association of American Publishers to defend her institution’s participation in Google’s massive book digitization project. Her speech, “Google, the Khmer Rouge and the Public Good,” is an impassioned defense of the project, if a bit pithy at certain points. It’s worth reading in its entirety, but here are some highlights with commentary.

In two prior posts, I wondered what will happen to those digital copies of the in-copyright books the university receives as part of its deal with Google. Coleman obviously knew that this was a major concern of her audience, and she went overboard to satisfy them: “Believe me, students will not be reading digital copies of ‘Harry Potter’ in their dorm rooms…We will safeguard the entirety of this archive with the same diligence we accord our most sensitive materials at the University: medical records, Defense Department data, and highly infectious disease agents used in research.” I’m not sure if books should be compared to infectious disease agents, but it seems clear that the digital copies Michigan receives are not likely to make it into “the wild” very easily.

Coleman reminded her audience that for a long time the books in the Michigan library did not circulate and were only accessible to the Board of Regents and the faculty (no students allowed, of course). Finally Michigan President James Angell declared that books were “not to be locked up and kept away from readers, but to be placed at their disposal with the utmost freedom.” Coleman feels that the Google project is a natural extension of that declaration, and more broadly, of the university’s mission to disseminate knowledge.

Ultimately, Coleman turns from more abstract notions of sharing and freedom to the more practical considerations of how students learn today: “When students do research, they use the Internet for digitized library resources more than they use the library proper. It’s that simple. So we are obligated to take the resources of the library to the Internet. When people turn to the Internet for information, I want Michigan’s great library to be there for them to discover.” Sounds about right to me.

February 7, 2006 Add Comment

How Much Google Knows About You

As the U.S. Justice Department put pressure on Google this week to hand over their search records in a questionable pursuit of evidence for an overturned pornography law, I wondered: How much information does Google really know about us? Strangely, at nearly the same time an email arrived from Google (one of the Google Friends Newsletters) telling me that they had just launched Google Personal Search Trends. Someone in the legal department must not have vetted that email: Google Personal Search Trends reveals exactly how much they know about you. So, how much?

A lot. If you have a Google account (you have one if you have a software developer’s username, a Gmail account, or other Google service account), you can login to your Personal Search Trends page and find out. I logged in and even though I’ve never checked a box or filled out a consent form saying that I don’t mind if Google collects information about my search habits, there appeared a remarkable and slightly unsettling series of charts and tables about me and what I’m interested in.

You can discover not only your top 10 search phrases but also the top 10 sites you visit and the top 10 links you click on. Like Santa, Google knows when you are awake and when you are sleeping—amazingly, no searches for me between midnight and 6 AM ET over the past 12 months. And comparing my search habits with its vast database of users, Google Personal Search Trends tells me that I might also like go to websites on RSS, Charles Dickens, Frankenstein, search engine optimization, and Virginia Tech football. (It’s very wrong about that last one, which I hope it only derives from my search terms and websites visited and not also from the IP address of my laptop in an office on the campus of a Virginia state university.)

Of course, you begin to wonder: wouldn’t someone else like to see this same set of charts and tables? Couldn’t they glean a tremendous amount of information about me? This disturbing feeling grows when you do some more investigation of what Google’s storing on your hard drive in addition to theirs. For instance, if you use Google’s Book Search, they know through a cookie stored on your computer which books you’ve looked at—as well as how many pages of each book (so they can block you from reading too much of a copyrighted book).

Seems like the time is ripe for Google to offer its users a similar deal to the one TiVo has had for years: If you want us to provide the “best” search experience—extras in addition to the basic web search such as personalized search results and recommendations based on what you seem to like—you must provide us with some identifying information; if you want to search the web without these extras, then so be it—we’ll only save your searches on a fully anonymous basis for our internal research. Surely when government entities and private investigators hear about Google Personal Search Trends, they’ll want to have a look. One suspects that in China and perhaps the United States too, someone’s already doing just that.

January 26, 2006 Add Comment

10 Most Popular History Syllabi

My Syllabus Finder search engine has been in use for three years now, and I thought it would be interesting to look back at the nearly half-million searches and 640,000 syllabi it has handled to see which syllabi have been the most popular. The following list was compiled by running a series of calculations to determine the number of times Syllabus Finder users glanced at a syllabus (had it turn up in a search), read a syllabus (actually went from the Syllabus Finder website to the website of the syllabus to do further reading), and “attractiveness” of a syllabus (defined as the ratio of full reads to mere glances). Here are the most popular history syllabi on the web.

#1 – U.S. History to 1870 (Eric Mayer, Victor Valley College, total of 6104 points)

#2 – America in the Progressive Era (Robert Bannister, Swarthmore College, 6000 points)

#3 – The American Colonies (Bruce Dorsey, Swarthmore College, 5589 points)

#4 – The American Civil War (Sheila Culbert, Dartmouth College, 5521 points)

#5 – Early Modern Europe (Andrew Plaa, Columbia University, 5485 points)

#6 – The United States since 1945 (Robert Griffith, American University, 5109 points)

#7 – American Political and Social History II (Robert Dykstra, University at Albany, State University of New York, 5048 points)

#8 – The World Since 1500 (Sarah Watts, Wake Forest University, 4760 points)

#9 – The Military and War in America (Nicholas Pappas, Sam Houston State University, 4740 points)

#10 – World Civilization I (Jim Jones, West Chester University of Pennsylvania, 4636 points)

This is, of course, a completely unscientific study. It obviously gives an advantage to older syllabi, since those courses have been online longer and thus could show up in search results for several years. On the other hand, the ten syllabi listed here range almost uniformly from 1998 to 2005.

Whatever its faults, the study does provide a good sense of the most visible and viewed syllabi on the web (high Google rankings help these syllabi get into a lot of Syllabus Finder search results), and I hope it provides a sense of the kinds of syllabi people frequently want to consult (or crib)—mostly introductory courses in American history. The variety of institutions represented is also notable (and holds true beyond the top ten; no domination by, e.g., Ivy League schools). I’ll probably do some more sophisticated analyses when I have the time; if there’s interest from this blog’s audience I’ll calculate the most popular history syllabi from 2005 courses, or the top ten for other topics. If you would like to read a far more elaborate (and scientific) data-mining study I did using the Syllabus Finder, please take a look at “By the Book: Assessing the Place of Textbooks in U.S. Survey Courses.”

[How the rankings were determined: 1 point was awarded for each time a syllabus showed up in a Syllabus Finder search result; 10 points were awarded for each time a Syllabus Finder user clicked through to view the entire syllabus; 100 points were awarded for each percent of “attractiveness,” where 100% attractive meant that every time a syllabus made an appearance in a search result it was clicked on for further information. For instance, the top syllabus appeared in 1211 searches and was clicked on 268 times (22.13% of the searches), for a point total of 1211 + (268 X 10) + (22.13 X 100) = 6104.]

January 11, 2006 Add Comment

Hurricane Digital Memory Bank Featured on CNN

I was interviewed yesterday by CNN about a new project at the Center for History and New Media, the Hurricane Digital Memory Bank, which uses digital technology to record memories, photographs, and other media related to the Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma. (CNN is going to feature the project sometime this week on its program The Situation Room.) The HDMB is a democratic historical project similar to our September 11 Digital Archive, which saved the recollections and digital files of tens of thousands of contributors from around the world; this time we’re trying to save thousands of perspectives on what occurred on the Gulf Coast in the fall of 2005. What amazes me is how the interest in online historical projects and collections has exploded recently. Several of the web projects I’ve co-directed over the last five years have engaged in collecting history online. But even a project with as prominent a topic as September 11 took a long time to be picked up by the mass media. This time CNN called us just a few weeks after we launched the website, and before we’ve done any real publicity. Here are three developments from the last two years I think account for this sharply increased interest.

Technologies enabling popular writing (blogs) and image sharing (e.g., Flickr) have moved into the mainstream, creating an unprecedented wave of self-documentation and historicizing. Blogs, of course, have given millions of people a taste for daily or weekly self-documentation unseen since the height of diary use in the late nineteenth century. And it used to be fairly complicated to set up an online gallery of one’s photos. Now you can do it with no technical know-how whatsoever, and it’s become much easier for others to find these photos (partly due to tagging/folksonomies). The result is that millions of photographs are being shared daily and the general public is getting used to the instantaneous documentation of events. Look at what happened in the hours after the London subway bombings— photographic documentation of the event that took place on photo-sharing sites within two days formerly would have taken months or even years for archivists to compile.

New web services are making combinations of these democratic efforts at documentation feasible and compelling. Our big innovation for the HDMB is to locate each contribution on an interactive map (using the Google Maps API), which allows one to compare the experiences and images from one place (e.g. an impoverished parish in New Orleans) with another (e.g., a wealthier suburb of Baton Rouge). (Can someone please come up with a better word for these combinations than the current “mashups”?) Through the savvy use of unique Technorati or Flickr tags, a scattered group of friends or colleagues can now automatically associate a group of documents or photographs to create an instant collection on an event or issue.

The mass media has almost completely reversed its formerly antagonistic posture toward new media. CNN now has at least two dedicated “Internet reporters” who look for new websites and scan blogs for news and commentary—once disparaged as the last refuge of unpublishable amateurs. In the last year the blogosphere has actually broken several stories (e.g., the Dan Rather document scandal), and many journalists have started their own blogs. The Washington Post has just hired its first full-time blogger. Technorati now tracks over 24 million blogs; even if 99% of those are discussing the latest on TomKat (the celebrity marriage) or Tomcat (the Linux server technology for Java), there are still a lot of new, interesting perspectives out there to be recorded for posterity.

January 4, 2006 Add Comment

2006: Crossroads for Copyright

The coming year is shaping up as one in which a number of copyright and intellectual property issues will be highly contested or resolved, likely having a significant impact on academia and researchers who wish to use digital materials in the humanities. In short, at stake in 2006 are the ground rules for how professors, teachers, and students may carry out their work using computer technology and the Internet. Here are three major items to follow closely.

Item #1: What Will Happen to Google’s Massive Digitization Project?

The conflict between authors, publishers, and Google will probably reach a showdown in 2006, with either the beginning of court proceedings or some kind of compromise. Google believes it has a good case for continuing to digitize library books, even those still under copyright; some authors and most publishers believe otherwise. So far, not much in the way of compromise. Indeed, if you have been following the situation carefully, it’s clear that each side is making clever pre-trial maneuvers to bolster their case. Google cleverly changed the name of its project to Google Book Search from Google Print, which emphasizes not the (possibly illegal) wholesale digitization of printed works but the fact that the program is (as Google’s legal briefs assert) merely a parallel project to their indexing of the web. The implication is that if what they’re doing with their web search is OK (for which they also need to make copies, albeit of born-digital pages), then Google Book Search is also OK. As Larry Lessig, Siva Vaidhyanathan, and others have highlighted, if the ruling goes against Google given this parallelism (“it’s all in the service of search”), many important web services might soon be illegal as well.

Meanwhile, the publishers have made some shrewd moves of their own. They have announced a plan to work with Amazon to accept micropayments for a few page views from a book (e.g., a recipe). And HarperCollins recently decided to embark on its own digitization program, ostensibly to provide book searches through its website. If you look at the legal basis of fair use (which Google is professing for its project), you’ll understand why these moves are important to the publishers: they can now say that Google’s project hurts the market for their works, even if Google shows only a small amount of a copyrighted book. In addition, a judge can no longer rule that Google is merely providing a service of great use to the public that the publishers themselves are unable or unwilling to provide. And I thought the only smart people in this debate were on Google’s side.

If you haven’t already read it, I recommend looking at my notes on what a very smart lawyer and a digital visionary have to say about the impending lawsuits.

Item #2: Chipping Away at the DMCA

In the first few months of 2006, the Copyright Office of the United States will be reviewing the dreadful Digital Millenium Copyright Act—one of the biggest threats to scholars who wish to use digital materials. The DMCA has effectively made many researchers, such as film studies professors, criminals, because they often need to circumvent rights management protection schemes on devices like DVDs to use them in a classroom or for in-depth study (or just to play them on certain kinds of computers). This circumvention is illegal under the law, even if you own the DVD. Currently there are only four minor exemptions to the DMCA, so it is critical that other exemptions for teachers, students, and scholars be granted. If you would like to help out, you can go to the Copyright Office’s website in January and sign your name to various efforts to carve out exemptions. One effort you can join, for instance, is spearheaded by Peter Decherney and others at the University of Pennsylvania. They want to clear the way for fully legal uses of audiovisual works in educational settings. Please contact me if you would like to add your name to that important effort.

Item #3: Libraries Reach a Crossroads

In an upcoming post I plan to discuss at length a fascinating article (to be published in 2006) by Rebecca Tushnet, a Georgetown law professor, that highlights the strange place at which libraries have arrived in the digital age. Libraries are the center of colleges and universities (often quite literally), but their role has been increasingly challenged by the Internet and the protectionist copyright laws this new medium has engendered. Libraries have traditionally been in the long-term purchasing and preservation business, but they increasing spend their budgets on yearly subscriptions to digital materials that could disappear if their budgets shrink. They have also been in the business of sharing their contents as widely as possible, to increase knowledge and understanding broadly in society; in this way, they are unique institutions with “special concerns not necessarily captured by the end-consumer-oriented analysis with which much copyright scholarship is concerned,” as Prof. Tushnet convincingly argues. New intellectual property laws (such as the DMCA) threaten this special role of libraries (aloof from the market), and if they are going to maintain this role, 2006 will have to be the year they step forward and reassert themselves.

December 29, 2005 Add Comment

Creating a Blog from Scratch, Part 4: Searching for a Good Search

It often surprises those who have never looked at server logs (the detailed statistics about a website) that a tremendous percentage of site visitors come from searches. In the case of the Center for History and New Media, this is a staggering 400,000 unique visitors a month out of about one million. Furthermore, many of these visitors ignore a website’s navigation and go right to the site search box to complete their quest for information. While I’m not a big fan of consultants that tell webmasters to sacrifice virtually everything for usability, I do feel that searching has been undervalued by digital humanities projects, in part because so much effort goes into digitization, markup, interpretation, and other time-consuming tasks. But there’s another, technical reason too: it’s actually very hard to create an effective search—one, for instance, that finds phrases as well as single words, that is able to rank matches well, and that is easy to maintain through software and server upgrades. In this installment of “Creating a Blog from Scratch” (for those who missed them, here are parts 1, 2, and 3) I’ll take you behind the scenes to explain the pluses and minuses of the various options for adding a search feature to a blog, or any database-driven website for that matter.

There are basically four options for searching a website that is generated out of a database: 1) have the database do it for you, since it already has indexing and searching built in; 2) install another software package on your server that spiders your site, indices it, and powers your search; 3) use an application programming interface (API) from Google, Yahoo, or MSN to power the search, taking search results from this external source and shoehorning them into your website’s design; 4) outsourcing the search entirely by passing search queries to Google, Yahoo, or MSN’s website, with a modifier that says “only search my site for these words.”

Option #1 seems like the simplest. Just create an SQL statement (a line of code in database lingo) that sends the visitor’s query to the database software—in the case of this blog, the popular MySQL—and have it return a list of entries that match the query. Unfortunately, I’ve been using MySQL extensively for five years now and have found its ability to match such queries less than adequate. First of all, until the most recent version of the MySQL it would not handle phrase searching at all, so you would have to strip quotation marks out of queries and fool the user into believing your site could do something that it couldn’t (that is, do a search like Google could). Secondly, I have found its indexing and ranking schemes to be far behind what you expect from a major search engine. Maybe this has changed in version 5, but for many years it seemed as if MySQL was using search principles from the early 1990s, where the number of times a word appeared on the page signified how well the page matched the query (rather than the importance of the place of each instance of the word on the page, or even better, how important the document was in the constellation of pages that contained that word). MySQL will return a fraction from 0 to 1 for the relevance of a match, but it’s a crude measure. I’m still not convinced, even with the major upgrades in version 5, that MySQL’s searching is acceptable for demanding users.

Option #2 is to install specialized search packages such as the open source ht://Dig on your server, point it to your blog (or website) and let it spider the whole thing, just as Google or Yahoo does from the outside. These software packages can do a decent job indexing and swiftly finding documents that seem more relevant than the rankings in MySQL. But using them obviously requires installing and maintaining another complicated piece of software, and I’ve found that spiders have a way of wandering beyond the parameters you’ve set for them, or flaking out during server upgrades. (Over the last few days, for instance, I’ve had two spiders request hundreds of posts from this blog that don’t exist. Maybe they can see into the future.) Anecdotally, I also think that the search results are better from commercial services such as Google or Yahoo.

I’ve become increasingly enamored of Option #3, which is to use APIs, or direct server-to-server communications, with the indices maintained by Google, Yahoo, or Microsoft. The advantage of these APIs is that they provide you with very high quality search results and query handling (at least for Google and Yahoo; MSN is far behind). Ranking is done properly, with the most important documents (e.g., blog posts that many other bloggers link to or that you have referenced many times on your own site) coming up first if there are multiple hits in the search results. And these search giants have far more sophisticated ways of handling phrase searches (even long ones) and boolean searches than MySQL. The disadvantage of APIs is that for some reason the indices made available to software developers are only a fraction the size of the main indices for these search engines, and are only updated about once a month. So visitors may not find recent material, or some material that is ranked fairly low, through API searches. Another possibility for Option #3 is to use the API for a blog search engine, rather than a broad search engine. For instance, Technorati has a blog-specific search API. Since Technorati automatically receives a ping from my Atom feed every time I post (via FeedBurner), it’s possible that this (or another blog search engine) will ultimately provide a solid API-based search.

I’ve been experimenting with ways of getting new material into the main Google index swiftly (i.e., within a day or two rather than a month or two), and have come up with a good enough solution that I have chosen Option #4: outsourcing the search entirely to Google, by using their free (though unfortunately ad-supported) site-specific search. With little fanfare, this year Google released Google Sitemaps, which provides an easy way for those who maintain websites, especially database-driven ones, to specify where all of their web pages are using an XML schema. (Spiders often miss web pages generated out of a database because there are often so many of them, and some of these pages may not be linked to.) While not guaranteeing that everything in your sitemap will be crawled and indexed, Google does say that it makes it easier for them to crawl your site more effectively. (By the way, Google’s recent acquisition of 5 percent of AOL seems to have been, at least ostensibly, very much about providing AOL with better crawls, thus upping the visibility of their millions of pages without messing with Google’s ranking schemes.) And—here’s the big news if you’ve made it this far—I’ve found that having a sitemap gets new blog posts into the main Google index extremely fast. Indeed, usually within 24 hours of submitting a new post Google downloads my updated sitemap (created automatically by a PHP script I’ve written), sees the new URL for the post, and adds it to its index. This means that I can very effectively use the Google’s main search engine for this blog, although because I’m not using the API I can’t format the results page to match the design of my site exactly.

One final note, and I think an important one for those looking to increase the visibility of their blog posts (or any web page created from a database) in Google’s search results: have good URLs, i.e., ones with important keywords rather than meaningless numbers or letters. Database-driven sites often have such poor URLs featuring an ugly string of variables, which is a shame, since server technology (such as Apache’s mod_rewrite) allows webmasters to replace these variables with more memorable words. Moreover, Google, Yahoo, and other search engines clearly favor keywords in URLs (very apparent when you begin to work with Google’s Web API), assigning them a high value when determining the relevance of a web page to a query. Some blog software automatically creates good URLs (like Blogger, owned by Google), while many other software packages do not—typically emphasizing the date of a post in the URL or the page number in the blog. For my own blogging software, I designed a special field in the database just for URLs, so I can craft a particularly relevant and keyword-laden string. Mod_rewrite takes care of the rest, translating this string into an ID number that’s retrieved by the database to generate the page you’re reading.

For many reasons, including making it accessible to alternative platforms such as audio browsers and cell phones, I wanted to generate this page in strict XHTML, unlike my old website, which had poor coding practices left over from the 1990s. Unfortunately, as the next post in this series details, I failed terribly in the pursuit of this goal, and this floundering made me think twice about writing my own blogging software when existing packages like WordPress will generate XHTML for you, with no fuss.

Part 5: What is XHTML, and Why Should I Care?

December 26, 2005 Add Comment

The Wikipedia Story That’s Being Missed

With all of the hoopla over Wikipedia in the recent weeks (covered in two prior posts), most of the mainstream as well as tech media coverage has focused on the openness of the democratic online encyclopedia. Depending on where you stand, this openness creates either a Wild West of publishing, where anything goes and facts are always changeable, or an innovative mode of mostly anonymous collaboration that has managed to construct in just a few years an information resource that is enormous, often surprisingly good, and frequently referenced. But I believe there is another story about Wikipedia that is being missed, a story unrelated to its (perhaps dubious) openness. This story is about Wikipedia being free, in the sense of the open source movement—the fact that anyone can download the entirety of Wikipedia and use it and manipulate it as they wish. And this more hidden story begins when you ask, Why would Google and Yahoo be so interested in supporting Wikipedia?

This year Google and Yahoo pledged to give various freebies to Wikipedia, such as server space and bandwidth (the latter can be the most crippling expense for large, highly trafficked sites with few sources of income). To be sure, both of these behemoth tech companies are filled with geeks who appreciate the anti-authoritarian nature of the Wikipedia project, and probably a significant portion of the urge to support Wikipedia comes from these common sentiments. Of course, it doesn’t hurt that Google and Yahoo buy their bandwidth in bulk and probably have some extra lying around, so to speak.

But Google and Yahoo, as companies at the forefront of search and data-mining technologies and business models, undoubtedly get an enormous benefit from an information resource that is not only open and editable but also free—not just free as in beer but free as in speech. First of all, affiliate companies that Yahoo and Google use to respond to queries, such as Answers.com, primarily use Wikipedia as their main source, benefiting greatly from being able to repackage Wikipedia content (free speech) and from using it without paying (free beer). And Google has recently introduced an automated question-answering service that I suspect will use Wikipedia as one of its resources (if it doesn’t already).

But in the longer term, I think that Google and Yahoo have additional reasons for supporting Wikipedia that have more to do with the methodologies behind complex search and data-mining algorithms, algorithms that need full, free access to fairly reliable (though not necessarily perfect) encyclopedia entries.

Let me provide a brief example that I hope will show the value of having such a free resource when you are trying to scan, sort, and mine enormous corpora of text. Let’s say you have a billion unstructured, untagged, unsorted documents related to the American presidency in the last twenty years. How would you differentiate between documents that were about George H. W. Bush (Sr.) and George W. Bush (Jr.)? This is a tough information retrieval problem because both presidents are often referred to as just “George Bush” or “Bush.” Using data-mining algorithms such as Yahoo’s remarkable Term Extraction service, you could pull out of the Wikipedia entries for the two Bushes the most common words and phrases that were likely to show up in documents about each (e.g., “Berlin Wall” and “Barbara” vs. “September 11” and “Laura”). You would still run into some disambiguation problems (“Saddam Hussein,” “Iraq,” “Dick Cheney” would show up a lot for both), but this method is actually quite a powerful start to document categorization.

I’m sure Google and Yahoo are doing much more complex processes with the tens of gigabtyes of text on Wikipedia than this, but it’s clear from my own work on H-Bot (which uses its own cache of Wikipedia) that having a constantly updated, easily manipulated encyclopedia-like resource is of tremendous value, not just to the millions of people who access Wikipedia every day, but to the search companies that often send traffic in Wikipedia’s direction.

Update [31 Jan 2006]: I’ve run some tests on the data mining example given here in a new post. See Wikipedia vs. Encyclopaedia Britannica for Digital Research.

December 20, 2005 3 Comments