The document provides a comprehensive overview of search engines, focusing on their history, functioning, and the concept of information retrieval. It discusses the evolution of major search engines like Google and Yahoo, their strengths and weaknesses, and the models used for ranking and retrieving information. Additionally, it explores the challenges faced in refining search capabilities and the significance of concepts like PageRank and web mining.

1. Search Engines
Google & Co. vs Internet
An Introduction to Information Retrieval

2. Contents
 Overview
 History
 Introduction to Information Retrieval
 Page Rank in Example
 Google & Co.

3. Search Engines Overview
 deep impact (not only for search)
 developers in big challenge
 search engines getting larger
 problems not new

4. History
 The web happened (1992)
 Mosaic/Netscape happened (1993-95)
 Crawler happened (1994): M. Mauldin
 SEs happened 1994-1996
 – InfoSeek, Lycos, Altavista, Excite, Inktomi, …
 Yahoo decided to go with a directory
 Google happened 1996-98
 Tried selling technology to other engines
 SEs though search was a commodity, portals were in
 Microsoft said: whatever …

5. Present
 Most search engines have vanished
 Google is a big player
 Yahoo decided to de-emphasize directories
 Buys three search engines
 Microsoft realized Internet is here to stay
 Dominates the browser market
 Realizes search is critical

6. Share Of Searches: July 2005

7. Google
 first launched Sep. 1999
 Over 4 billion pages by beginning of 2004
 strengths
 size and scope
 relevance based
 cached archive
 weaknesses
 limited search features
 only indexes first 101KB of sites and PDFs

8. Yahoo!
 David Filo, Jerry Yang => 1995
 originally just a subject directory
 strengths
 large, new(Feb. 2004) database
 cached copies
 support of full boolean searching
 weaknesses
 lack of some advanced search features
 indexes only the first 500KB
 tricky wildcard

9. MSN Search
 used to use third party db´s
 Feb. 2005 began using own db
 strenghts
 large, unique database
 cached copies including data cached
 weaknesses
 limited advanced features
 no title search, truncation, stemming

10. How Search Engines Work
 Crawler-Based Search Engines
 listing created automatically
 Human-Powered Directories
 contents filled by hand
 "Hybrid Search Engines" Or Mixed Results
 best of both worlds

11. Ranking Of Sites
 location and frequency of keywords
 keywords near top of page
 spamming filter
 „off the page“ ranking
 link structure
 filtering fake links
 clickthrough measurement

12. Search Engine Placement Tips (1)
 pick your target keywords
 position your keywords
 have relevant content
 avoid search engine stumbling blocks
 have html links
 frames can kill
 dynamic doorblocks

13. Search Engine Placement Tips (2)
 build links
 just say no to search engine spamming
 submit your key pages
 verify & maintain your listing
 beyond search engines

14. Features for webmasters
Crawling Yes No Notes
AllTheWeb, Google,
Deep Crawl AltaVista, Teoma
Inktomi
Frames Support All n/a
Robots.txt All n/a
Meta Robots Tag All n/a
Paid Inclusion All but… Google
Some stop words may
Full Body Text All n/a
not be indexed
AltaVista, Inktomi,
Stop Words FAST Teoma unkown
Google
All provide some support, but AltaVista, AllTheWeb and Teoma make most
Meta Description
use of the tag
AllTheWeb, Altavista, Teoma support is
Meta Keywords Inktomi, Teoma
Google „unofficial“
AltaVista, Google,
ALT text AllTheWeb, Inktomi
Teoma
Comments Inktomi Others

15. What is Information Retrieval?
 Informations get lost in the amount of
documents, but have to be relocated
 Definition:
 IR is the field, that deals with the relocation of
information/knowledge out of large document
database.

16. Quality of an IR-System (1)
 Precision:
 Is the ratio of the relevant documents retrieved
to the total number of documents retrieved.
= [0;1]
 Precision = 1: all retrieved documents are
relevant

17. Quality of an IR-System (2)
 Recall:
 Is the ratio of the number of relevant
documents retrieved to the total number of
relevant documents (retrieved and not).
= [0;1]
 Recall = 1: all relevant documents were found

18. Quality of an IR-System (3)
 Aim of a good IR-System:
 increasing Precision and Recall!
 Problem:
 increasing Precision cause a decrease of Recall
 e.g.: search results 1 document:
Recall->0, Precision=1
 increasing Recall cause a decrease of Precision
 e.g. search results all available documents
Recall=1, Precision->0

19. Mathematical models
 Boolean Model
 Vector Space Model

20. Boolean model
 checks if the document includes the search
term (true) or not (false). True means, the
document is relevant
 Problem:
 high variation on the result size, depending on
the search term
 no ranking on result set -> no sort possible
 “relevance” criteria is too strict (e.g. AND,OR)

21. Vector space model (1)
 index weighted vector

dj = ( w1, j , w2 , j , w3, j , wn , j )
 search weighted vector

q = ( w1, q, w2 , q, w3, q, wn , q )
 analyze the angle between search vector and
document vector by using the cosine function
 the smaller the angle, the more relevant is the
document -> use it for ranking

22. Vector space model (2)
 “relevance” criteria is more tolerant
 no use of boolean operators
 uses weighting
 creates a ranking -> sort is possible
 Problem:
 automatic weighting of index terms in queries
and documents

23. Weighting Methods (1)
 law of Zipf
 global weighting (IDF “inverse document
frequency”)
 considers the distribution of words in a
language
 filters out words like “or”, “and” (words with
large occurrence) and weights them weakly
IDF = log( N / n)
N = Number of documents in the system
n = number of documents including the index term

24. Weighting Methods (2)
 local weighting
 considers term frequency into documents
 weighting corresponding to the frequency
 regards different length of documents and
normalize the term frequency
tfi , j
ntfi , j =
max l ∈ {1... n }tfl , j
tfi , j = absolute number of term frequency ti in a document di

25. Weighting Methods (3)
 tf-idf weighting
 combination of global (inverse document
frequency) and local (normalized term
frequency) weighting
wi , j = ntfi , j ∗ idfi

26. Web-Mining
 Web-Mining ≈ Data-Mining, different problems
 Mining of: Content, Structure or User
 Content-Mining: VSM,BM
 Structure-Mining: Analysis of Structure
 User-Mining: Infos about User of a page
Let‘s have a deeper look at Web-Structure-Mining!

27. History
 IR necessary but not sufficient for web search
 Doesn’t address web navigation
 Query ibm seeks www.ibm.com
 To IR www.ibm.com may look less topical than a
quarterly report
 Link analysis
 Hubs and authority (Jon Kleinberg)
 PageRank (Brin and Page)
 Computed on the entire graph
 Query independent
 Faster if serving lots of queries
 Others…

28. Analysis of Hyperlinks
 Links
 Long history in citation analysis
 Navigational tools on the web
 Also a sign of popularity
 Can be thought of as recommendations
(source recommends destination)
 Also describe the destination: anchor text
 Idea: The exist of a Hyperlink between two
pages can also give Information
 Hyperlinks can be used to:
 Create a weighting of web pages
 Find pages with similiar topics
 Group pages by different context of meaning

29. Hubs and Authorities
 Describe the qualitiy of a
website
 Authorities: pages which
is linked very often
 Hubs: pages which are
linking other pages very
often
 Example:
 Authority: Heise.de
 Hub: Peter‘s Linklist

30. Page Rank
 Invented by Lawrence Page a. Sergey Brin
 Algorithm itself is well-described
 Implementations are not (Google)
 Main Idea:
 relationship of all Links in WWW
 The more a document is linked, the more important it is
 Not every link counts the same – a link from an
important page has more worth

31. Page Rank Algorithm
 PR(p0) : Page Rank of a page
 PR(pi) : Page Rank of pages linking to p0
 outlink(pi): All outgoing links of pi
 q = Random walks (normally q=0,85)
 Attention: Recursive Function!

32. Page Rank Example
 with q=0.5
 PR(A) = 0.5 + 0.5 PR(C)
PR(B) = 0.5 + 0.5 (PR(A) / 2)
PR(C) = 0.5 + 0.5 (PR(A) / 2 + PR(B))
 PR(A) = 14/13 = 1.07692308
PR(B) = 10/13 = 0.76923077
PR(C) = 15/13 = 1.15384615

33. Page Rank Calculation
 Solution of system of equation not possible
 Iterative Calcuation of Page Rank necessary
 Each page starts with 1

34. Page Rank Incoming Links
 Given
 PR(A) = PR(B) = PR(C) = PR(D) = 1
 PR(X) = 10
 PR(A) = 0.5 + 0.5 (PR(X) + PR(D)) = 5.5 + 0.5 PR(D)
PR(B) = 0.5 + 0.5 PR(A)
PR(C) = 0.5 + 0.5 PR(B)
PR(D) = 0.5 + 0.5 PR(C)
 PR(A) = 19/3 = 6.33
PR(B) = 11/3 = 3.67
PR(C) = 7/3 = 2.33
PR(D) = 5/3 = 1.67

35. Page Rank Outgoing Links
 PR(A) = 0.25 + 0.75 PR(B)
PR(B) = 0.25 + 0.375 PR(A)
PR(C) = 0.25 + 0.75 PR(D) + 0.375 PR(A)
PR(D) = 0.25 + 0.75 PR(C)
 PR(A) = 14/23
PR(B) = 11/23
PR(C) = 35/23
PR(D) = 32/23

36. Page Rank other Examples
 Dangling Links
 Different
hierachies

37. Page Rank Implementation
 Normally implemented as weighting system
 Additional content-search needed for
retrieving the document set
 Also involved in Page Rank
 The markup of a link
 The position of a link in the document
 The distance between the pages (e.g. other
domain)
 The context of the linking page
 The actuality of the page

38. Google Past
 1995 research project at Stanford University

39. Google Past
 One of the earliest storage systems

40. Google – How it began
 Peak of google.stanford.edu

41. Google
 Servers 1999

42. Google

43. Google by Numbers
 Index: 40 TB (4 Bill. Pages with est. Size 10 kb)
 Up to 2000 Servers in one Cluster
 Over 30 Cluster
 One Petabyte Data per Cluster – so much that a
quota of hard disk breakdowns with 1 in 10-15 Bits
gets a real problem
 Each day in each greater cluster normally two
servers will breakdown
 System running stable (without any breakdowns)
since February 2000 (Yes, they don’t use Windows
server…)

44. Look-out: Semantic Web
 Information should be read by men &
machine
 Unified description of data & knowledge
 First approaches: Meta-Data, e.g. Dublin
Core
 Actual: RDF

45. Look-out: Personalized Search Engine
 A new approach: personalized Search
Engines
 Advantage: Only get in what you‘re personally
interested
 Disadvantage: A lot of data has to be
collected
 Example:
 www.fooxx.com

46. Links
 www.searchenginewatch.com (common
Information about search engines)
 http://pr.efactory.de (page rank algorithm)
 http://zdnet.de/itmanager/unternehmen/0,3902344
(article: “Google’s Technologien: Von
Zauberei kaum zu unterscheiden”)

47. The End
 Thank you for your attention