By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
424,647 Members | 1,832 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 424,647 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

Inference search engines? -- links to inference searches included.

P: n/a

Can inference search-engines narrow-down the number of often irrelevant
results, by using specific keywords; for the purpose of discerning
emerging social & business trends?

For example, if authors of content subconsciously mention the keywords
"lately and noticed" within the same brief sentence, the reader may
infer "an unintended message" through the process of "inferential
scanning;" a method of noting "semantic anomalies" which may
signal emerging trends.
Note: The wildcard character asterisk "*" is important for two
examples:

-- In the current month and year, the wildcard character "*"
represents a specific date. In quotations: "October * 2005" infers
content that mentions the current month and year. Yet, search results
also include older content.

-- Search terms in quotations with the wildcard character "*"
indicates two words NEAR each other: "lately * noticed." This type
of search is excellent for trend spotting.

-- Search results are further narrowed-down by an astounding 80-90% by
excluding such words he, she, me. After all, content which may signal
emerging trends usually doesn't contain 'he, she, me.' Certain
pronouns usually indicate personal accounts of individuals; rather than
the "collective conscious" of people & businesses developing into
emerging trends.

-- Examples of links offer plenty of ideas for experimenting with
different combinations of keywords. To narrow-down searches further;
the addition of keywords mentioning specific industries, occupations,
businesses, people, places, culture, etc. can discern developing
trends.

There are many examples of keywords useful for trend-spotting. Five
examples:

-- Lately and noticed example.

http://www.google.com/search?as_q=+l...h=&safe=images
-- Noticed lately is another variation.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&l...m3&btnG=Search
--'Lately and become' OR 'lately and becoming' can yield
"important developments" to watch.

http://www.google.com/search?as_q=%2...h=&safe=images
--'People have become' OR 'people are becoming' may infer
emerging developments from social points of view.

http://www.google.com/search?as_q=%2...h=&safe=images
--'Trend toward' AND 'becoming more' are one of the first
examples of keywords I developed for trend-watching.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&l...m3&btnG=Search
Entering in keywords which may infer content signaling the emerging
business & public zeitgeist yields a wide variety search results. In
quite a few cases, search results don't necessarily have value e.g.,
individual opinions which don't necessarily indicate emerging trends.
In some cases, search results yield specialty websites that are
fee-only and even restricted access content. Usually, content which may
be interpreted like "a crystal-ball of sorts" is free.

Any recommendations for marketing an "inference-like"
search-engine?

Thank-you

Oct 13 '05 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
39 Replies


P: n/a
Noticedtrends wrote:
Can inference search-engines narrow-down the number of often irrelevant
results, by using specific keywords; for the purpose of discerning
emerging social & business trends?

For example, if authors of content subconsciously mention the keywords
"lately and noticed" within the same brief sentence, the reader may
infer "an unintended message" through the process of "inferential
scanning;" a method of noting "semantic anomalies" which may
signal emerging trends.


Public relations wonks feed stories with exactly those key words to
bored, talentless news people who are in need of stories all the time.
Lies, lies, lies.

What you need is a system that you can train up. Punish it when it
predicts incorrectly or (less popularly used) reward it when it predicts
correctly. A neural net component to an expert system is in order.
--
mbstevens
http://www.mbstevens.com/
Oct 13 '05 #2

P: n/a

mbstevens wrote:
Noticedtrends wrote:
Can inference search-engines narrow-down the number of often irrelevant
results, by using specific keywords; for the purpose of discerning
emerging social & business trends?

For example, if authors of content subconsciously mention the keywords
"lately and noticed" within the same brief sentence, the reader may
infer "an unintended message" through the process of "inferential
scanning;" a method of noting "semantic anomalies" which may
signal emerging trends.
Public relations wonks feed stories with exactly those key words to
bored, talentless news people who are in need of stories all the time.
Lies, lies, lies.

Any set of keywords can be applied for better or for worse (mostly for
better in this case). Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater!
What you need is a system that you can train up. Punish it when it
predicts incorrectly or (less popularly used) reward it when it predicts
correctly. A neural net component to an expert system is in order.
Great idea; it's not going to happen anytime soon. Human inputs &
intuition are needed for filtering out the truth from lies; just as
human feedback is needed for discerning...........emerging trends! --
mbstevens
http://www.mbstevens.com/


Oct 13 '05 #3

P: n/a
__/ [Noticedtrends] on Thursday 13 October 2005 21:50 \__
Can inference search-engines narrow-down the number of often irrelevant
results, by using specific keywords; for the purpose of discerning
emerging social & business trends?

Yes, but I guess it was rhetorical or maybe the question was intended to ask
if engines 'in the wild' are capable or are doing this.

For example, if authors of content subconsciously mention the keywords
"lately and noticed" within the same brief sentence, the reader may
infer "an unintended message" through the process of "inferential
scanning;" a method of noting "semantic anomalies" which may
signal emerging trends.

I have been thinking about such concepts when registering http://iuron.com a
few days ago. There is not much use of any semantics, yet.

Note: The wildcard character asterisk "*" is important for two
examples:

-- In the current month and year, the wildcard character "*"
represents a specific date. In quotations: "October * 2005" infers
content that mentions the current month and year. Yet, search results
also include older content.

The problem with much of the content on the Web is that even dates are
hard-coded in unnatural ways. As oppose to XML, standardised metadata or
the like, dates are embedded as standard content, unlike LaTeX, for
instance.

-- Search terms in quotations with the wildcard character "*"
indicates two words NEAR each other: "lately * noticed." This type
of search is excellent for trend spotting.

What would be the intended practicality? Use tags in Technorati, for
example, to spot trends. Tagclouds come to mind too. They feeds on plenty
of fresh RSS'd (XML, hence time labelled) content.

-- Search results are further narrowed-down by an astounding 80-90% by
excluding such words he, she, me. After all, content which may signal
emerging trends usually doesn't contain 'he, she, me.' Certain
pronouns usually indicate personal accounts of individuals; rather than
the "collective conscious" of people & businesses developing into
emerging trends.

-- Examples of links offer plenty of ideas for experimenting with
different combinations of keywords. To narrow-down searches further;
the addition of keywords mentioning specific industries, occupations,
businesses, people, places, culture, etc. can discern developing
trends.

There are many examples of keywords useful for trend-spotting. Five
examples:

-- Lately and noticed example.

<LONG URL>

-- Noticed lately is another variation.

<LONG URL> >

--'Lately and become' OR 'lately and becoming' can yield
"important developments" to watch.

<LONG URL> >

--'People have become' OR 'people are becoming' may infer
emerging developments from social points of view.

<LONG URL> >

--'Trend toward' AND 'becoming more' are one of the first
examples of keywords I developed for trend-watching.

<LONG URL> >

Entering in keywords which may infer content signaling the emerging
business & public zeitgeist yields a wide variety search results. In
quite a few cases, search results don't necessarily have value e.g.,
individual opinions which don't necessarily indicate emerging trends.
In some cases, search results yield specialty websites that are
fee-only and even restricted access content. Usually, content which may
be interpreted like "a crystal-ball of sorts" is free.

Any recommendations for marketing an "inference-like"
search-engine?

Thank-you

I like your direction of thoughts, but I think you must go farther than that
in order to make it viable or marketable. I am currently looking into
similar idea and may soon speak to one of the fathers of the semantic Web.
I truly believe it's where we all are headed.

Roy
--
Roy S. Schestowitz | Useless fact: Women blink twice as much as men
http://Schestowitz.com | SuSE Linux | PGP-Key: 74572E8E
3:45pm up 50 days 3:59, 3 users, load average: 0.13, 0.12, 0.09
http://iuron.com - next generation of search paradigms
Oct 14 '05 #4

P: n/a
Roy Schestowitz wrote:
The problem with much of the content on the Web is that even dates are
hard-coded in unnatural ways. As oppose to XML, standardised metadata or
the like, dates are embedded as standard content, unlike LaTeX, for
instance.


There are some Perl modules that can help with this kind of data mining
until such time as there is a semantic web.

--'People have become' OR 'people are becoming' may infer
emerging developments from social points of view.
<LONG URL> >

--'Trend toward' AND 'becoming more' are one of the first
examples of keywords I developed for trend-watching.


Because of the very common practice of PR people to claim trends when
there aren't any, depending on the content of any few articles is not
likely to predict a trend. You would have to mine over hundreds of
articles, comparing content with your system. Since it is possible to
create temporary 'trends' with PR techniques, if you have enough money
to pump into it, careful weighing of sources is also in order.
Modification of weights given to particular sources might be one method
of training the system -- among others.
Oct 14 '05 #5

P: n/a

Roy Schestowitz wrote:
__/ [Noticedtrends] on Thursday 13 October 2005 21:50 \__
Can inference search-engines narrow-down the number of often irrelevant
results, by using specific keywords; for the purpose of discerning
emerging social & business trends?

Yes, but I guess it was rhetorical or maybe the question was intended to ask
if engines 'in the wild' are capable or are doing this.

For example, if authors of content subconsciously mention the keywords
"lately and noticed" within the same brief sentence, the reader may
infer "an unintended message" through the process of "inferential
scanning;" a method of noting "semantic anomalies" which may
signal emerging trends.

I have been thinking about such concepts when registering http://iuron.com a
few days ago. There is not much use of any semantics, yet.

Note: The wildcard character asterisk "*" is important for two
examples:

-- In the current month and year, the wildcard character "*"
represents a specific date. In quotations: "October * 2005" infers
content that mentions the current month and year. Yet, search results
also include older content.

The problem with much of the content on the Web is that even dates are
hard-coded in unnatural ways. As oppose to XML, standardised metadata or
the like, dates are embedded as standard content, unlike LaTeX, for
instance.

-- Search terms in quotations with the wildcard character "*"
indicates two words NEAR each other: "lately * noticed." This type
of search is excellent for trend spotting.

What would be the intended practicality? Use tags in Technorati, for
example, to spot trends. Tagclouds come to mind too. They feeds on plenty
of fresh RSS'd (XML, hence time labelled) content.
Initial search queries in most search-engines recognize the wildcard character "*" within two keywords in quotations -- very-much like the Boolean NEAR; locating examples of keywords very close to each other. Same applies for current month, wildcard chacrater, & year. Search-engine results note "..." within text if keywords don't match month, any date, year.


Any considerations for applying NEAR search options in most
search-engines?
-- Search results are further narrowed-down by an astounding 80-90% by
excluding such words he, she, me. After all, content which may signal
emerging trends usually doesn't contain 'he, she, me.' Certain
pronouns usually indicate personal accounts of individuals; rather than
the "collective conscious" of people & businesses developing into
emerging trends.

-- Examples of links offer plenty of ideas for experimenting with
different combinations of keywords. To narrow-down searches further;
the addition of keywords mentioning specific industries, occupations,
businesses, people, places, culture, etc. can discern developing
trends.

There are many examples of keywords useful for trend-spotting. Five
examples:

-- Lately and noticed example.

<LONG URL>

-- Noticed lately is another variation.

<LONG URL> >

--'Lately and become' OR 'lately and becoming' can yield
"important developments" to watch.

<LONG URL> >

--'People have become' OR 'people are becoming' may infer
emerging developments from social points of view.

<LONG URL> >

--'Trend toward' AND 'becoming more' are one of the first
examples of keywords I developed for trend-watching.

<LONG URL> >

Entering in keywords which may infer content signaling the emerging
business & public zeitgeist yields a wide variety search results. In
quite a few cases, search results don't necessarily have value e.g.,
individual opinions which don't necessarily indicate emerging trends.
In some cases, search results yield specialty websites that are
fee-only and even restricted access content. Usually, content which may
be interpreted like "a crystal-ball of sorts" is free.

Any recommendations for marketing an "inference-like"
search-engine?

Thank-you

I like your direction of thoughts, but I think you must go farther than that
in order to make it viable or marketable. I am currently looking into
similar idea and may soon speak to one of the fathers of the semantic Web.
I truly believe it's where we all are headed.

Roy
--
Roy S. Schestowitz | Useless fact: Women blink twice as much as men
http://Schestowitz.com | SuSE Linux | PGP-Key: 74572E8E
3:45pm up 50 days 3:59, 3 users, load average: 0.13, 0.12, 0.09
http://iuron.com - next generation of search paradigms


Oct 14 '05 #6

P: n/a

Roy Schestowitz wrote:
__/ [Noticedtrends] on Thursday 13 October 2005 21:50 \__
Can inference search-engines narrow-down the number of often irrelevant
results, by using specific keywords; for the purpose of discerning
emerging social & business trends?

Yes, but I guess it was rhetorical or maybe the question was intended to ask
if engines 'in the wild' are capable or are doing this.

For example, if authors of content subconsciously mention the keywords
"lately and noticed" within the same brief sentence, the reader may
infer "an unintended message" through the process of "inferential
scanning;" a method of noting "semantic anomalies" which may
signal emerging trends.

I have been thinking about such concepts when registering http://iuron.com a
few days ago. There is not much use of any semantics, yet.

Note: The wildcard character asterisk "*" is important for two
examples:

-- In the current month and year, the wildcard character "*"
represents a specific date. In quotations: "October * 2005" infers
content that mentions the current month and year. Yet, search results
also include older content.

The problem with much of the content on the Web is that even dates are
hard-coded in unnatural ways. As oppose to XML, standardised metadata or
the like, dates are embedded as standard content, unlike LaTeX, for
instance.

-- Search terms in quotations with the wildcard character "*"
indicates two words NEAR each other: "lately * noticed." This type
of search is excellent for trend spotting.

What would be the intended practicality? Use tags in Technorati, for
example, to spot trends. Tagclouds come to mind too. They feeds on plenty
of fresh RSS'd (XML, hence time labelled) content.
Initial search queries in most search-engines recognize the wildcard character "*" within two keywords in quotations -- very-much like the Boolean NEAR; locating examples of keywords very close to each other. Same applies for current month, wildcard chacrater, & year. Search-engine results note "..." within text if keywords don't match month, any date, year.


Any considerations for applying NEAR search options in most
search-engines?
-- Search results are further narrowed-down by an astounding 80-90% by
excluding such words he, she, me. After all, content which may signal
emerging trends usually doesn't contain 'he, she, me.' Certain
pronouns usually indicate personal accounts of individuals; rather than
the "collective conscious" of people & businesses developing into
emerging trends.

-- Examples of links offer plenty of ideas for experimenting with
different combinations of keywords. To narrow-down searches further;
the addition of keywords mentioning specific industries, occupations,
businesses, people, places, culture, etc. can discern developing
trends.

There are many examples of keywords useful for trend-spotting. Five
examples:

-- Lately and noticed example.

<LONG URL>

-- Noticed lately is another variation.

<LONG URL> >

--'Lately and become' OR 'lately and becoming' can yield
"important developments" to watch.

<LONG URL> >

--'People have become' OR 'people are becoming' may infer
emerging developments from social points of view.

<LONG URL> >

--'Trend toward' AND 'becoming more' are one of the first
examples of keywords I developed for trend-watching.

<LONG URL> >

Entering in keywords which may infer content signaling the emerging
business & public zeitgeist yields a wide variety search results. In
quite a few cases, search results don't necessarily have value e.g.,
individual opinions which don't necessarily indicate emerging trends.
In some cases, search results yield specialty websites that are
fee-only and even restricted access content. Usually, content which may
be interpreted like "a crystal-ball of sorts" is free.

Any recommendations for marketing an "inference-like"
search-engine?

Thank-you

I like your direction of thoughts, but I think you must go farther than that
in order to make it viable or marketable. I am currently looking into
similar idea and may soon speak to one of the fathers of the semantic Web.
I truly believe it's where we all are headed.

Roy
--
Roy S. Schestowitz | Useless fact: Women blink twice as much as men
http://Schestowitz.com | SuSE Linux | PGP-Key: 74572E8E
3:45pm up 50 days 3:59, 3 users, load average: 0.13, 0.12, 0.09
http://iuron.com - next generation of search paradigms


Oct 14 '05 #7

P: n/a
The trends that are discerned through 'inferential scanning' relate to
how the natural social/economic zeitgest evolves, and not to some
'manufactured PR.

Oct 14 '05 #8

P: n/a
Good thing these posts are posting to 'search-engine forums.' Why did
GOOGLE Newsgroups repeat message #6 in message #8? The reply spaces can
display in two or three different variations, and the responses may be
posted (despite the preview option) at the wrong locations of
discussion threads? Why are the processes of posting responses become
less intuitive?

Oct 14 '05 #9

P: n/a
Noticedtrends wrote:
The trends that are discerned through 'inferential scanning' relate to
how the natural social/economic zeitgest evolves, and not to some
'manufactured PR.


Have you seen this article on inferential scanning?
http://if.psfk.com/when/archives/tre...f_content.html
....Your original post makes me think so.

I brought the PR stuff up just to make you aware that it is an easy
trap. It is hard enough for a human to differentiate hype from real
trends. Some PR people are very smart, and a great deal of their work
is promoting 'trends' that may or may not exist.

Looking for unintended wording as clues...
Sounds kind of like trying to turn software into a Freudian analyst --
Catch those pesky Floydian Ships, er.. Freudian Slips, or the near like.

The trouble I see with it is that any smart PR wonk is going to be
using phrases like 'lately' and 'noticed' in close relation in any so
called 'trend' she's trying to boost. She is likely to use 'people have
become' or 'trend toward' -- indeed any phrase that will make the reader
come to believe that a real trend is happening. It is one of the oldest
and most commonly used tricks in the PR book. Cola marketers,
Republicans, Democrats, candy manufacturers, medicines, you name it --
if they have PR people they are likely to be trying to convince you that
there are trends in their direction at hand.

What I need to know is how this 'inferential scanning' is going to
differentiate between public relations crocks and real trends. You say
it does, but nothing I have read answers the question.

How will it do so?
Oct 14 '05 #10

P: n/a

mbstevens wrote:
Noticedtrends wrote:
The trends that are discerned through 'inferential scanning' relate to
how the natural social/economic zeitgest evolves, and not to some
'manufactured PR.


Have you seen this article on inferential scanning?
http://if.psfk.com/when/archives/tre...f_content.html
...Your original post makes me think so.

I brought the PR stuff up just to make you aware that it is an easy
trap. It is hard enough for a human to differentiate hype from real
trends. Some PR people are very smart, and a great deal of their work
is promoting 'trends' that may or may not exist.

Looking for unintended wording as clues...
Sounds kind of like trying to turn software into a Freudian analyst --
Catch those pesky Floydian Ships, er.. Freudian Slips, or the near like.

The trouble I see with it is that any smart PR wonk is going to be
using phrases like 'lately' and 'noticed' in close relation in any so
called 'trend' she's trying to boost. She is likely to use 'people have
become' or 'trend toward' -- indeed any phrase that will make the reader
come to believe that a real trend is happening. It is one of the oldest
and most commonly used tricks in the PR book. Cola marketers,
Republicans, Democrats, candy manufacturers, medicines, you name it --
if they have PR people they are likely to be trying to convince you that
there are trends in their direction at hand.

What I need to know is how this 'inferential scanning' is going to
differentiate between public relations crocks and real trends. You say
it does, but nothing I have read answers the question.

How will it do so?


As I stated earlier, inferential scanning can be used for better or for
worse. What matters most is who is applying it, and how it applies. I'm
not familiar with PR. I see inferential scanning as crucial from a
marketing point of view; where reliable data on emerging trends is a
must. Many small to medium sized busineses can apply inferential
scanning at no cost in order to shape marketing plans and see what "the
competition" is doing. The limited funds of smaller enterprises can
best go to hiring advisors who have "street-smarts." As I stated
earier, it is the wise intuition of humans that distinguishs lies, from
truths; that no computing resources can accomplish.

No, I don't want to get into the debate of whether trends are born or
made, and yes I have read & wrote the PSFK report!

Oct 14 '05 #11

P: n/a
Noticedtrends wrote:
What I need to know is how this 'inferential scanning' is going to
differentiate between public relations crocks and real trends. You say
it does, but nothing I have read answers the question.

How will it do so?

As I stated earlier, inferential scanning can be used for better or for
worse. What matters most is who is applying it, and how it applies.


Well, OK, if it won't differentiate between real trends and hype,
-- exactly what does it do for the 'who' who is applying it?

I'm looking for specifics.
Does it give the human primate operator a set of articles that includes
both trends and hype on a particular subject, which the human then
carefully goes over to choose the best articles?

Oct 14 '05 #12

P: n/a

mbstevens wrote:
Noticedtrends wrote:
What I need to know is how this 'inferential scanning' is going to
differentiate between public relations crocks and real trends. You say
it does, but nothing I have read answers the question.

How will it do so?

As I stated earlier, inferential scanning can be used for better or for
worse. What matters most is who is applying it, and how it applies.


Well, OK, if it won't differentiate between real trends and hype,
-- exactly what does it do for the 'who' who is applying it?

I'm looking for specifics.
Does it give the human primate operator a set of articles that includes
both trends and hype on a particular subject, which the human then
carefully goes over to choose the best articles?

Yes, some of the examples I gave in the original post yield a
reasonable number of results. It can be quite interesting to view
"emerging developments" on a wide variety of subjects inside of a
minute.

Some of the examples in the original post yield many results, and
specific topics must be added in order to narrow-down results lists.

Here is a specific example; searches can be narrowed-down with the
addition of keywords mentioning specific industries, (in this case
public relations in PRWEEK's website content).
http://www.google.com/search?as_q=+a...om&safe=images
On "alternative marketing" in PRWEEK.

http://www.prweek.com/us/thisissue/a...oods-advantage

Oct 14 '05 #13

P: n/a

mbstevens wrote:
Noticedtrends wrote:
What I need to know is how this 'inferential scanning' is going to
differentiate between public relations crocks and real trends. You say
it does, but nothing I have read answers the question.

How will it do so?

As I stated earlier, inferential scanning can be used for better or for
worse. What matters most is who is applying it, and how it applies.


Well, OK, if it won't differentiate between real trends and hype,
-- exactly what does it do for the 'who' who is applying it?

I'm looking for specifics.
Does it give the human primate operator a set of articles that includes
both trends and hype on a particular subject, which the human then
carefully goes over to choose the best articles?

Yes, some of the examples I gave in the original post yield a
reasonable number of results. It can be quite interesting to view
"emerging developments" on a wide variety of subjects inside of a
minute.

Some of the examples in the original post yield many results, and
specific topics must be added in order to narrow-down results lists.

Here is a specific example; searches can be narrowed-down with the
addition of keywords mentioning specific industries, (in this case
public relations in PRWEEK's website content).
http://www.google.com/search?as_q=+a...om&safe=images
On "alternative marketing" in PRWEEK.

http://www.prweek.com/us/thisissue/a...oods-advantage

Oct 14 '05 #14

P: n/a

Noticedtrends wrote:
mbstevens wrote:
Noticedtrends wrote:
>What I need to know is how this 'inferential scanning' is going to
>differentiate between public relations crocks and real trends. You say
>it does, but nothing I have read answers the question.
>
>How will it do so?
As I stated earlier, inferential scanning can be used for better or for
worse. What matters most is who is applying it, and how it applies.


Well, OK, if it won't differentiate between real trends and hype,
-- exactly what does it do for the 'who' who is applying it?

I'm looking for specifics.
Does it give the human primate operator a set of articles that includes
both trends and hype on a particular subject, which the human then
carefully goes over to choose the best articles?

Yes, some of the examples I gave in the original post yield a
reasonable number of results. It can be quite interesting to view
"emerging developments" on a wide variety of subjects inside of a
minute.

Some of the examples in the original post yield many results, and
specific topics must be added in order to narrow-down results lists.

Here is a specific example; searches can be narrowed-down with the
addition of keywords mentioning specific industries, (in this case
public relations in PRWEEK's website content).
http://www.google.com/search?as_q=+a...om&safe=images
On "alternative marketing" in PRWEEK.

http://www.prweek.com/us/thisissue/a...oods-advantage


This repeat posting is a complete mystery. Posting was delayed, and a
'server error' message was displayed along with 'try again thirty
seconds later." What is going on here???

Oct 14 '05 #15

P: n/a
Noticedtrends wrote:
This repeat posting is a complete mystery. Posting was delayed, and a
'server error' message was displayed along with 'try again thirty
seconds later." What is going on here???

Reading source code for your message:

Path: newsspool2.news.pas.earthlink.net!stamper.
news.pas.earthlink.net!elnk-nf2-pas!newsfeed.
earthlink.net!newshub.sdsu.edu!postnews.
google.com!z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail

Google works in mysterious ways. It might be better to get a
newsreader and go straight through an IP.

Oct 14 '05 #16

P: n/a
Noticedtrends wrote:
mbstevens wrote:
Noticedtrends wrote:

What I need to know is how this 'inferential scanning' is going to
differentiate between public relations crocks and real trends. You say
it does, but nothing I have read answers the question.

How will it do so?
As I stated earlier, inferential scanning can be used for better or for
worse. What matters most is who is applying it, and how it applies.


Well, OK, if it won't differentiate between real trends and hype,
-- exactly what does it do for the 'who' who is applying it?

I'm looking for specifics.
Does it give the human primate operator a set of articles that includes
both trends and hype on a particular subject, which the human then
carefully goes over to choose the best articles?


Yes, some of the examples I gave in the original post yield a
reasonable number of results. It can be quite interesting to view
"emerging developments" on a wide variety of subjects inside of a
minute.

Some of the examples in the original post yield many results, and
specific topics must be added in order to narrow-down results lists.

Here is a specific example; searches can be narrowed-down with the
addition of keywords mentioning specific industries, (in this case
public relations in PRWEEK's website content).
http://www.google.com/search?as_q=+a...om&safe=images
On "alternative marketing" in PRWEEK.

http://www.prweek.com/us/thisissue/a...oods-advantage

But what makes this different from a normal Google search? If you were
searching for trends and for information about public relations,
wouldn't you just naturally search for something like "public relations
trends" I know there is the stuff in the method going on about the
'subconscious' and 'unintended messages',
but in this case I don't see how 'trend toward' is an example of such a
message hidden from the writer's consciousness.
What am I missing?
Oct 14 '05 #17

P: n/a
mbstevens wrote:
Noticedtrends wrote:
mbstevens wrote:
Noticedtrends wrote:
>What I need to know is how this 'inferential scanning' is going to
>differentiate between public relations crocks and real trends. You say
>it does, but nothing I have read answers the question.
>
>How will it do so?
As I stated earlier, inferential scanning can be used for better or for
worse. What matters most is who is applying it, and how it applies.

Well, OK, if it won't differentiate between real trends and hype,
-- exactly what does it do for the 'who' who is applying it?

I'm looking for specifics.
Does it give the human primate operator a set of articles that includes
both trends and hype on a particular subject, which the human then
carefully goes over to choose the best articles?


Yes, some of the examples I gave in the original post yield a
reasonable number of results. It can be quite interesting to view
"emerging developments" on a wide variety of subjects inside of a
minute.

Some of the examples in the original post yield many results, and
specific topics must be added in order to narrow-down results lists.

Here is a specific example; searches can be narrowed-down with the
addition of keywords mentioning specific industries, (in this case
public relations in PRWEEK's website content).
http://www.google.com/search?as_q=+a...om&safe=images
On "alternative marketing" in PRWEEK.

http://www.prweek.com/us/thisissue/a...oods-advantage

But what makes this different from a normal Google search? If you were
searching for trends and for information about public relations,
wouldn't you just naturally search for something like "public relations
trends" I know there is the stuff in the method going on about the
'subconscious' and 'unintended messages',
but in this case I don't see how 'trend toward' is an example of such a
message hidden from the writer's consciousness.
What am I missing?


The five examples I provided are five of many, many examples which may
be applied towards trend spotting. Typing in "public realtions trends"
is too simple; considering that content usually consists of complex
semantics. Since search-engines are designed to treat separate keywords
on the Boolean 'AND' functions by default, the more keywords added in
an initial search, the more the results are narrowed-down.

The examples of specifc keywords (which may be helpful for
trend-spotting) are best treated as "search-engine templates" of sorts;
most often the templates are another Boolean 'AND' addtion which can
best reduce the number of search-results down to a resonable size.

The previous posts in this thread discussed the 'Semantic Web' as a
future development [which may 'infer content' and discern meaning.]

Oct 14 '05 #18

P: n/a
Noticedtrends wrote:
The five examples I provided are five of many, many examples which may
be applied towards trend spotting. Typing in "public realtions trends"
is too simple; considering that content usually consists of complex
semantics. Since search-engines are designed to treat separate keywords
on the Boolean 'AND' functions by default, the more keywords added in
an initial search, the more the results are narrowed-down.

The examples of specifc keywords (which may be helpful for
trend-spotting) are best treated as "search-engine templates" of sorts;
most often the templates are another Boolean 'AND' addtion which can
best reduce the number of search-results down to a resonable size.
I can understand the usefulness of search-engine templates.

But you ignored the main point of my post: "I know there is the stuff in
the method going on about the 'subconscious' and 'unintended messages',
but in this case I don't see how 'trend toward' is an example of such a
message hidden from the writer's consciousness."

If I'm reading the original post correctly, this 'unintended message'
stuff is what gives the method its distinction. Otherwise it would be
just another guy's search template collection, wouldn't it?

The previous posts in this thread discussed the 'Semantic Web' as a
future development [which may 'infer content' and discern meaning.]

Relevance?

Oct 15 '05 #19

P: n/a

mbstevens wrote:
Noticedtrends wrote:
The five examples I provided are five of many, many examples which may
be applied towards trend spotting. Typing in "public realtions trends"
is too simple; considering that content usually consists of complex
semantics. Since search-engines are designed to treat separate keywords
on the Boolean 'AND' functions by default, the more keywords added in
an initial search, the more the results are narrowed-down.

The examples of specifc keywords (which may be helpful for
trend-spotting) are best treated as "search-engine templates" of sorts;
most often the templates are another Boolean 'AND' addtion which can
best reduce the number of search-results down to a resonable size.
I can understand the usefulness of search-engine templates.

But you ignored the main point of my post: "I know there is the stuff in
the method going on about the 'subconscious' and 'unintended messages',
but in this case I don't see how 'trend toward' is an example of such a
message hidden from the writer's consciousness."

Inferential scanning is a very subjective process; which cannot fully
be explained without strecthing the English-language beyond its limits!
I've applied, modified, developed and even phased-out many different
keywords as "search engine" templates; the term "trend-toward" can
become very limited after awhile! I sometimes develop "new keywords"
out of the search results themselves. Hence, inferring new keywords is
ironic.

One posted response to PSFK piqued my interest. After trend-spotting
for awhile, patterns emerge where one can infer emerging-trends before
there is any published mention. In these cases, inferential scanning is
irrelavant. e.g., PSKF response, news & commentray radio is making a
comeback, as fewer people have time to watch television.
If I'm reading the original post correctly, this 'unintended message'
stuff is what gives the method its distinction. Otherwise it would be
just another guy's search template collection, wouldn't it?
No, it is "not just another guy's" search template. It's not just
trends that are being inferred, but the keywords which may only be
useful for one person are also inferred. My five examples are excellent
"starting points!"

The previous posts in this thread discussed the 'Semantic Web' as a
future development [which may 'infer content' and discern meaning.]

Relevance?


One of the previous posters who may have been looking at ideas similar
to inferential scanning, may soon speak with one of the founders of the
Semantic Web.

I hope this answers what was being asked.

P.S. Google Newsgroups now display active topics, as well as how may
authors contributed to the number of posts; I suppose this allows
readers to infer the degrees of diversity. This thread is 20 posts by
only 3 authors. I hope to see more authors contributing to this
thread-- which I check-back on Saturday.

Oct 15 '05 #20

P: n/a
Noticedtrends wrote:
But you ignored the main point of my post: "I know there is the stuff in
the method going on about the 'subconscious' and 'unintended messages',
but in this case I don't see how 'trend toward' is an example of such a
message hidden from the writer's consciousness."


Inferential scanning is a very subjective process; which cannot fully
be explained without strecthing the English-language beyond its limits!


If there is no public and objective way to verify it, or even to verify
whether you are _doing_ it, it has to be a very unscientific process.

At this point I can only leave you with a Hume quote:
"If we take in our hand any volume --
of divinity or school metaphysics for instance --
let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning
concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain
any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact
and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames,
for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion."
Oct 15 '05 #21

P: n/a
__/ [Noticedtrends] on Friday 14 October 2005 20:33 \__
Good thing these posts are posting to 'search-engine forums.' Why did
GOOGLE Newsgroups repeat message #6 in message #8? The reply spaces can
display in two or three different variations, and the responses may be
posted (despite the preview option) at the wrong locations of
discussion threads? Why are the processes of posting responses become
less intuitive?
What bothered me more is that your lines are not being wrapped properly and
my newsreader does not cope with that in ideal ways. It fits to width which
has a distracting effect. Oddly enough, it's Google Groups I notice from
the headers...

Re: your question...

__/ [Noticedtrends] on Friday 14 October 2005 19:07 \__
Initial search queries in most search-engines recognize the wildcard
character "*" within two keywords in quotations -- very-much like the
Boolean NEAR; locating examples of keywords very close to each other.
Same applies for current month, wildcard chacrater, & year. Search-engine
results note "..." within text if keywords don't match month, any date,
year.

Any considerations for applying NEAR search options in most
search-engines?

I think it would not have much interest among the users. Judging by logs,
99.9% of queries will probably /not/ contain quotes, pluses, minuses and
the like.

Whether Google weigh these much (I remember the days of using AltaVista when
these were crucial skills), I do not know, but often the effect of these
symbols on SEPR's is futile to say the least. I am sorry to be
narrow-minded here because I only know Google well enough and I barely ever
use Yahoo. There is another big player... something that begin with an M,
but I was told it's cr**.

The improved quality of results due to query complexity is only in the mind
of the user. Plenty of room for improvements remains, but with googlebytes
of data already indexed, changing the method of indexing would involve a
complete data retension overhaul. It also might involve /risk/ as the
effects of re-indexing are not understood until vast amounts of data get
processed. Moreover, hand-tweaked search results go down the chute.

Roy

--
Roy S. Schestowitz | while (sig==sig) sig=!sig;
http://Schestowitz.com | SuSE Linux | PGP-Key: 74572E8E
3:55am up 50 days 16:09, 3 users, load average: 0.83, 0.81, 0.65
http://iuron.com - next generation of search paradigms
Oct 15 '05 #22

P: n/a
On Sat, 15 Oct 2005 02:30:20 GMT, mbstevens
<NO***********@xmbstevensx.com> wrote:
Noticedtrends wrote:
But you ignored the main point of my post: "I know there is the stuff in
the method going on about the 'subconscious' and 'unintended messages',
but in this case I don't see how 'trend toward' is an example of such a
message hidden from the writer's consciousness."


Inferential scanning is a very subjective process; which cannot fully
be explained without strecthing the English-language beyond its limits!


If there is no public and objective way to verify it, or even to verify
whether you are _doing_ it, it has to be a very unscientific process.

At this point I can only leave you with a Hume quote:
"If we take in our hand any volume --
of divinity or school metaphysics for instance --
let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning
concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain
any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact
and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames,
for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion."


May I remind you of a Buffy quote?
"Sky blue, trees green."
Les mots juste!

BB
--
www.kruse.co.uk/ se*@kruse.demon.co.uk
Elvis does my SEO
Oct 15 '05 #23

P: n/a

"Roy Schestowitz" <ne********@schestowitz.com> wrote in message
news:di**********@godfrey.mcc.ac.uk...
__/ [Noticedtrends] on Friday 14 October 2005 20:33 \__
<snip>
Initial search queries in most search-engines recognize the wildcard
character "*" within two keywords in quotations -- very-much like the
Boolean NEAR; locating examples of keywords very close to each other.
Same applies for current month, wildcard chacrater, & year. Search-engine results note "..." within text if keywords don't match month, any date,
year.

Any considerations for applying NEAR search options in most
search-engines?

I think it would not have much interest among the users. Judging by logs,
99.9% of queries will probably /not/ contain quotes, pluses, minuses and
the like.

Whether Google weigh these much (I remember the days of using AltaVista

when these were crucial skills), I do not know, but often the effect of these
symbols on SEPR's is futile to say the least. I am sorry to be
narrow-minded here because I only know Google well enough and I barely ever use Yahoo. There is another big player... something that begin with an M,
but I was told it's cr**.

The improved quality of results due to query complexity is only in the mind of the user. Plenty of room for improvements remains, but with googlebytes
of data already indexed, changing the method of indexing would involve a
complete data retension overhaul. It also might involve /risk/ as the
effects of re-indexing are not understood until vast amounts of data get
processed. Moreover, hand-tweaked search results go down the chute.


<snip>

:p Anyone that can't be bothered to express themselves clearly deserves to
wade through irrelevant responses! Search operators need to be developed,
not dropped! Will Google et al somehow get much better at guessing what's on
my mind before I decide to move to a service with better tools ??
fergettaboudit!
Oct 15 '05 #24

P: n/a
__/ [zenboom] on Saturday 15 October 2005 09:32 \__

"Roy Schestowitz" <ne********@schestowitz.com> wrote in message
news:di**********@godfrey.mcc.ac.uk...
__/ [Noticedtrends] on Friday 14 October 2005 20:33 \__


<snip>
> Initial search queries in most search-engines recognize the wildcard
> character "*" within two keywords in quotations -- very-much like the
> Boolean NEAR; locating examples of keywords very close to each other.
> Same applies for current month, wildcard chacrater, & year. Search-engine > results note "..." within text if keywords don't match month, any
> date, year.
>
> Any considerations for applying NEAR search options in most
> search-engines?

I think it would not have much interest among the users. Judging by logs,
99.9% of queries will probably /not/ contain quotes, pluses, minuses and
the like.

Whether Google weigh these much (I remember the days of using AltaVista

when
these were crucial skills), I do not know, but often the effect of these
symbols on SEPR's is futile to say the least. I am sorry to be
narrow-minded here because I only know Google well enough and I barely

ever
use Yahoo. There is another big player... something that begin with an M,
but I was told it's cr**.

The improved quality of results due to query complexity is only in the

mind
of the user. Plenty of room for improvements remains, but with
googlebytes of data already indexed, changing the method of indexing
would involve a complete data retension overhaul. It also might involve
/risk/ as the effects of re-indexing are not understood until vast
amounts of data get processed. Moreover, hand-tweaked search results go
down the chute.


<snip>

:p Anyone that can't be bothered to express themselves clearly deserves to
wade through irrelevant responses! Search operators need to be developed,
not dropped! Will Google et al somehow get much better at guessing what's
on my mind before I decide to move to a service with better tools ??
fergettaboudit!


Forget about extra tools to complement a keywork-based search. Do the
rational thing and go sematic; see the bottom of my sig.

Roy

--
Roy S. Schestowitz | HTML is for page layout, not for textual messages
http://Schestowitz.com | SuSE Linux | PGP-Key: 74572E8E
2:35pm up 51 days 2:49, 5 users, load average: 0.22, 0.23, 0.24
http://iuron.com - next generation of search paradigms
Oct 15 '05 #25

P: n/a
Big Bill wrote:
On Sat, 15 Oct 2005 02:30:20 GMT, mbstevens
<NO***********@xmbstevensx.com> wrote:

Noticedtrends wrote:

But you ignored the main point of my post: "I know there is the stuff in
the method going on about the 'subconscious' and 'unintended messages',
but in this case I don't see how 'trend toward' is an example of such a
message hidden from the writer's consciousness."
Inferential scanning is a very subjective process; which cannot fully
be explained without strecthing the English-language beyond its limits!


If there is no public and objective way to verify it, or even to verify
whether you are _doing_ it, it has to be a very unscientific process.

At this point I can only leave you with a Hume quote:
"If we take in our hand any volume --
of divinity or school metaphysics for instance --
let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning
concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain
any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact
and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames,
for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion."

May I remind you of a Buffy quote?
"Sky blue, trees green."
Les mots juste!

BB

I know that episode!
Oct 15 '05 #26

P: n/a
On Sat, 15 Oct 2005 14:11:08 GMT, mbstevens
<NO***********@xmbstevensx.com> wrote:
Big Bill wrote:
On Sat, 15 Oct 2005 02:30:20 GMT, mbstevens
<NO***********@xmbstevensx.com> wrote:

Noticedtrends wrote:
>But you ignored the main point of my post: "I know there is the stuff in
>the method going on about the 'subconscious' and 'unintended messages',
>but in this case I don't see how 'trend toward' is an example of such a
>message hidden from the writer's consciousness."
>

Inferential scanning is a very subjective process; which cannot fully
be explained without strecthing the English-language beyond its limits!

If there is no public and objective way to verify it, or even to verify
whether you are _doing_ it, it has to be a very unscientific process.

At this point I can only leave you with a Hume quote:
"If we take in our hand any volume --
of divinity or school metaphysics for instance --
let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning
concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain
any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact
and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames,
for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion."

May I remind you of a Buffy quote?
"Sky blue, trees green."
Les mots juste!

BB

I know that episode!


Oh yeah? Well I know ALL them episodes!

BB
--
www.kruse.co.uk/ se*@kruse.demon.co.uk
Elvis does my SEO
Oct 15 '05 #27

P: n/a

On Fri, 14 Oct 2005, mbstevens wrote:
[snip]
The trouble I see with it is that any smart PR wonk is going to be
using phrases like 'lately' and 'noticed' in close relation in any so
called 'trend' she's trying to boost. She is likely to use 'people have
become' or 'trend toward' -- indeed any phrase that will make the reader
come to believe that a real trend is happening. It is one of the oldest
and most commonly used tricks in the PR book. Cola marketers,
Republicans, Democrats, candy manufacturers, medicines, you name it --
[beep]ing pump-n-dump spammers?
if they have PR people they are likely to be trying to convince you that
there are trends in their direction at hand.

What I need to know is how this 'inferential scanning' is going to
differentiate between public relations crocks and real trends. You say
it does, but nothing I have read answers the question.

How will it do so?


Then:
Oct 16 '05 #28

P: n/a

Roy Schestowitz wrote:
__/ [zenboom] on Saturday 15 October 2005 09:32 \__

"Roy Schestowitz" <ne********@schestowitz.com> wrote in message
news:di**********@godfrey.mcc.ac.uk...
__/ [Noticedtrends] on Friday 14 October 2005 20:33 \__


<snip>
> Initial search queries in most search-engines recognize the wildcard
> character "*" within two keywords in quotations -- very-much like the
> Boolean NEAR; locating examples of keywords very close to each other.
> Same applies for current month, wildcard chacrater, & year.

Search-engine
> results note "..." within text if keywords don't match month, any
> date, year.
>
> Any considerations for applying NEAR search options in most
> search-engines?
I think it would not have much interest among the users. Judging by logs,
99.9% of queries will probably /not/ contain quotes, pluses, minuses and
the like.

Whether Google weigh these much (I remember the days of using AltaVista

when
these were crucial skills), I do not know, but often the effect of these
symbols on SEPR's is futile to say the least. I am sorry to be
narrow-minded here because I only know Google well enough and I barely

ever
use Yahoo. There is another big player... something that begin with an M,
but I was told it's cr**.

The improved quality of results due to query complexity is only in the

mind
of the user. Plenty of room for improvements remains, but with
googlebytes of data already indexed, changing the method of indexing
would involve a complete data retension overhaul. It also might involve
/risk/ as the effects of re-indexing are not understood until vast
amounts of data get processed. Moreover, hand-tweaked search results go
down the chute.


<snip>

:p Anyone that can't be bothered to express themselves clearly deserves to
wade through irrelevant responses! Search operators need to be developed,
not dropped! Will Google et al somehow get much better at guessing what's
on my mind before I decide to move to a service with better tools ??
fergettaboudit!


Forget about extra tools to complement a keywork-based search. Do the
rational thing and go sematic; see the bottom of my sig.

Roy

--
Roy S. Schestowitz | HTML is for page layout, not for textual messages
http://Schestowitz.com | SuSE Linux | PGP-Key: 74572E8E
2:35pm up 51 days 2:49, 5 users, load average: 0.22, 0.23, 0.24
http://iuron.com - next generation of search paradigms

I'm not quite sure how semantic approaches like IURON can yield results
similar to "inferential scanning"-- for supposedly inferring emerging
social and business trends. Can comparisons be made? Any examples of
existing search-engines which seem to mimick something like IURON?

Oct 16 '05 #29

P: n/a
__/ [Noticedtrends] on Sunday 16 October 2005 04:02 \__

Roy Schestowitz wrote:
__/ [zenboom] on Saturday 15 October 2005 09:32 \__
>
>
>
> "Roy Schestowitz" <ne********@schestowitz.com> wrote in message
> news:di**********@godfrey.mcc.ac.uk...
>> __/ [Noticedtrends] on Friday 14 October 2005 20:33 \__
>
> <snip>
>
>> > Initial search queries in most search-engines recognize the
>> > wildcard character "*" within two keywords in quotations --
>> > very-much like the Boolean NEAR; locating examples of keywords very
>> > close to each other. Same applies for current month, wildcard
>> > chacrater, & year.
> Search-engine
>> > results note "..." within text if keywords don't match month, any
>> > date, year.
>> >
>> > Any considerations for applying NEAR search options in most
>> > search-engines?
>>
>>
>> I think it would not have much interest among the users. Judging by
>> logs, 99.9% of queries will probably /not/ contain quotes, pluses,
>> minuses and the like.
>>
>> Whether Google weigh these much (I remember the days of using
>> AltaVista
> when
>> these were crucial skills), I do not know, but often the effect of
>> these symbols on SEPR's is futile to say the least. I am sorry to be
>> narrow-minded here because I only know Google well enough and I barely
> ever
>> use Yahoo. There is another big player... something that begin with an
>> M, but I was told it's cr**.
>>
>> The improved quality of results due to query complexity is only in the
> mind
>> of the user. Plenty of room for improvements remains, but with
>> googlebytes of data already indexed, changing the method of indexing
>> would involve a complete data retension overhaul. It also might
>> involve /risk/ as the effects of re-indexing are not understood until
>> vast amounts of data get processed. Moreover, hand-tweaked search
>> results go down the chute.
>>
>
> <snip>
>
> :p Anyone that can't be bothered to express themselves clearly deserves
> :to
> wade through irrelevant responses! Search operators need to be
> developed, not dropped! Will Google et al somehow get much better at
> guessing what's on my mind before I decide to move to a service with
> better tools ?? fergettaboudit!


Forget about extra tools to complement a keywork-based search. Do the
rational thing and go sematic; see the bottom of my sig.

Roy

--
Roy S. Schestowitz | HTML is for page layout, not for textual
messages
http://Schestowitz.com | SuSE Linux | PGP-Key: 74572E8E
2:35pm up 51 days 2:49, 5 users, load average: 0.22, 0.23, 0.24
http://iuron.com - next generation of search paradigms

I'm not quite sure how semantic approaches like IURON can yield results
similar to "inferential scanning"-- for supposedly inferring emerging
social and business trends. Can comparisons be made? Any examples of
existing search-engines which seem to mimick something like IURON?


I could only ever think of Googlism, which I first came across back in early
2003. It was barely ever working for anything less than 'famous' and all it
did was apparently using Google SEPR's to gather some facts at a shallow
level. It was a toy that went nowhere, but nontheless a playful toy.

Roy

--
Roy S. Schestowitz | Coffee makes mw to0 jittery
http://Schestowitz.com | SuSE Linux | PGP-Key: 74572E8E
6:55am up 51 days 19:09, 5 users, load average: 0.36, 0.40, 0.52
http://iuron.com - next generation of search paradigms
Oct 16 '05 #30

P: n/a

Noticedtrends wrote:
mbstevens wrote:
Noticedtrends wrote:
Great idea; it's not going to happen anytime soon. Human inputs &
intuition are needed for filtering out the truth from lies; just as
human feedback is needed for discerning...........emerging trends!


No. The solution is intelligent algorithms:

Do the questions below all mean the same thing - a man walks into a
shop and asks:

How much is that?
What is the price?
What is the cost?
What is the selling price?
What's the price tag?
How much do you sell that for?
May I buy that, how much?
What's the damage if I have that one?
.... plus a hundred more

Google is indexing WORDS and not meaning of words/paragraphs. That is
why it is not an intelligent alogrithm.

--
mbstevens
http://www.mbstevens.com/


Oct 16 '05 #31

P: n/a
__/ [Logician] on Sunday 16 October 2005 08:15 \__

Noticedtrends wrote:
mbstevens wrote:
> Noticedtrends wrote:


Great idea; it's not going to happen anytime soon. Human inputs &
intuition are needed for filtering out the truth from lies; just as
human feedback is needed for discerning...........emerging trends!


No. The solution is intelligent algorithms:

Do the questions below all mean the same thing - a man walks into a
shop and asks:

How much is that?
What is the price?
What is the cost?
What is the selling price?
What's the price tag?
How much do you sell that for?
May I buy that, how much?
What's the damage if I have that one?
... plus a hundred more

Google is indexing WORDS and not meaning of words/paragraphs. That is
why it is not an intelligent alogrithm.


Which is /exactly/ the issue I hope to resolve with http://iuron.com . I
contacted the father of the semantic Web on Friday. He lives here in
Manchester, so I hope to get a reply or an opinion face-to-face...

Roy

--
Roy S. Schestowitz | Useless fact: 21978 x 4 = 21978 backwards
http://Schestowitz.com | SuSE Linux | PGP-Key: 74572E8E
8:30am up 51 days 20:44, 6 users, load average: 0.60, 0.66, 0.63
http://iuron.com - next generation of search paradigms
Oct 16 '05 #32

P: n/a
On Sun, 16 Oct 2005 08:32:49 +0100, Roy Schestowitz
<ne********@schestowitz.com> wrote:
I contacted the father of the semantic Web on Friday. He lives here in
Manchester, so I hope to get a reply or an opinion face-to-face...


Which Manchester-based father of SemWeb is that ? There are several
candidates!

This is a very interesting topic, has been for some years, and
Manchester Uni is one of the hotbeds of work on it. You should take a
look at what Ian Horrocks' group have been doing.
Oct 16 '05 #33

P: n/a
__/ [Andy Dingley] on Sunday 16 October 2005 15:33 \__
On Sun, 16 Oct 2005 08:32:49 +0100, Roy Schestowitz
<ne********@schestowitz.com> wrote:
I contacted the father of the semantic Web on Friday. He lives here in
Manchester, so I hope to get a reply or an opinion face-to-face...


Which Manchester-based father of SemWeb is that ? There are several
candidates!

This is a very interesting topic, has been for some years, and
Manchester Uni is one of the hotbeds of work on it. You should take a
look at what Ian Horrocks' group have been doing.

He is the one whom I contacted, formerly Carole Goble's student. Very young
and highly influential already:

http://www.sigmod.org/dblp/db/indice...rocks:Ian.html

He was my lecturer a few years ago and I happen to be an external student in
that department, which is headed by my Ph.D. supervisor.

http://www.daml.org/

Somebody whose article I read today used the term Web 2.1 in a different
context, so let's call DAML, microformats and the like Web 3.0. Maybe Web
2.0 will never be actualised because so-called 3.0 will reach there first
and overtake it.

Do you believe that some time in the future books and text will become
useless and ambiguous form of information that can go down the bin? Will we
formulate knowledge precisely rather than compose it in what we now call
"natural language"? A controversial contention such as this is more likely
to get me enemies, so I'll stop...

Roy

--
Roy S. Schestowitz | WARNING: /dev/null running out of space
http://Schestowitz.com | SuSE Linux | PGP-Key: 74572E8E
3:40pm up 52 days 3:54, 5 users, load average: 0.63, 0.50, 0.50
http://iuron.com - next generation of search paradigms
Oct 16 '05 #34

P: n/a

mbstevens wrote:
Noticedtrends wrote:
But you ignored the main point of my post: "I know there is the stuff in
the method going on about the 'subconscious' and 'unintended messages',
but in this case I don't see how 'trend toward' is an example of such a
message hidden from the writer's consciousness."


Inferential scanning is a very subjective process; which cannot fully
be explained without strecthing the English-language beyond its limits!


If there is no public and objective way to verify it, or even to verify
whether you are _doing_ it, it has to be a very unscientific process.

At this point I can only leave you with a Hume quote:
"If we take in our hand any volume --
of divinity or school metaphysics for instance --
let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning
concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain
any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact
and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames,
for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion."


At this point I'll muse about the parable of "The Six Blind Men and the
Elephant!"

Oct 16 '05 #35

P: n/a

Roy Schestowitz wrote:
__/ [Andy Dingley] on Sunday 16 October 2005 15:33 \__
On Sun, 16 Oct 2005 08:32:49 +0100, Roy Schestowitz
<ne********@schestowitz.com> wrote:
I contacted the father of the semantic Web on Friday. He lives here in
Manchester, so I hope to get a reply or an opinion face-to-face...


Which Manchester-based father of SemWeb is that ? There are several
candidates!

This is a very interesting topic, has been for some years, and
Manchester Uni is one of the hotbeds of work on it. You should take a
look at what Ian Horrocks' group have been doing.

He is the one whom I contacted, formerly Carole Goble's student. Very young
and highly influential already:

http://www.sigmod.org/dblp/db/indice...rocks:Ian.html

He was my lecturer a few years ago and I happen to be an external student in
that department, which is headed by my Ph.D. supervisor.

http://www.daml.org/

Somebody whose article I read today used the term Web 2.1 in a different
context, so let's call DAML, microformats and the like Web 3.0. Maybe Web
2.0 will never be actualised because so-called 3.0 will reach there first
and overtake it.

Do you believe that some time in the future books and text will become
useless and ambiguous form of information that can go down the bin? Will we
formulate knowledge precisely rather than compose it in what we now call
"natural language"? A controversial contention such as this is more likely
to get me enemies, so I'll stop...

Roy

--
Roy S. Schestowitz | WARNING: /dev/null running out of space
http://Schestowitz.com | SuSE Linux | PGP-Key: 74572E8E
3:40pm up 52 days 3:54, 5 users, load average: 0.63, 0.50, 0.50
http://iuron.com - next generation of search paradigms


Hello,

I'm still not clear on how IURON and the "Semantic Web" can mimick
"inferential scanning" e.g., will requests like "What are emerging
trends (on any topic) within the last 30 days?" be typed into some sort
of inference search-engine; which would infer, and yield content on
emerging trends?

Would the search-results contain content; which happens to frequently
mention seemingly disconnected sets of keywords like "Lately (Boolean
NEAR) noticed", "Trend toward" OR "becoming more", "people have
become", or "Lately (Boolean NEAR) [specific industry segments,
companies, products, social trends, etc.]?"

Such proposals seem to involve artificial intelligence where computers
can actually infer; which is a combination of logical and intuitive
processes. Applying such developments on practical scales still seems
to be a long way into the future.

Thank-you

Oct 16 '05 #36

P: n/a
__/ [Noticedtrends] on Sunday 16 October 2005 22:49 \__

Roy Schestowitz wrote:
__/ [Andy Dingley] on Sunday 16 October 2005 15:33 \__
> On Sun, 16 Oct 2005 08:32:49 +0100, Roy Schestowitz
> <ne********@schestowitz.com> wrote:
>
>>I contacted the father of the semantic Web on Friday. He lives here in
>>Manchester, so I hope to get a reply or an opinion face-to-face...
>
> Which Manchester-based father of SemWeb is that ? There are several
> candidates!
>
> This is a very interesting topic, has been for some years, and
> Manchester Uni is one of the hotbeds of work on it. You should take a
> look at what Ian Horrocks' group have been doing.

He is the one whom I contacted, formerly Carole Goble's student. Very
young and highly influential already:

http://www.sigmod.org/dblp/db/indice...rocks:Ian.html

He was my lecturer a few years ago and I happen to be an external student
in that department, which is headed by my Ph.D. supervisor.

http://www.daml.org/

Somebody whose article I read today used the term Web 2.1 in a different
context, so let's call DAML, microformats and the like Web 3.0. Maybe Web
2.0 will never be actualised because so-called 3.0 will reach there first
and overtake it.

Do you believe that some time in the future books and text will become
useless and ambiguous form of information that can go down the bin? Will
we formulate knowledge precisely rather than compose it in what we now
call "natural language"? A controversial contention such as this is more
likely to get me enemies, so I'll stop...

Roy

--
Roy S. Schestowitz | WARNING: /dev/null running out of space
http://Schestowitz.com | SuSE Linux | PGP-Key: 74572E8E
3:40pm up 52 days 3:54, 5 users, load average: 0.63, 0.50, 0.50
http://iuron.com - next generation of search paradigms


Hello,

I'm still not clear on how IURON and the "Semantic Web" can mimick
"inferential scanning" e.g., will requests like "What are emerging
trends (on any topic) within the last 30 days?" be typed into some sort
of inference search-engine; which would infer, and yield content on
emerging trends?

You could probably datestamp facts and do relevant queries if designed
properly.

Aside: does Google provide anything for the dimension of time, something
long the lines of filetype:XYZ?

If you want to discover emerging trends, better try:

* http://technorati.com/

* http://gada.be/ (just unveiled)

Would the search-results contain content; which happens to frequently
mention seemingly disconnected sets of keywords like "Lately (Boolean
NEAR) noticed", "Trend toward" OR "becoming more", "people have
become", or "Lately (Boolean NEAR) [specific industry segments,
companies, products, social trends, etc.]?"

I suggest you see:

http://www.veen.com/jeff/archives/000749.html

In particular the discussion which revolves around the word "apparently"

Such proposals seem to involve artificial intelligence where computers
can actually infer; which is a combination of logical and intuitive
processes. ...

Intuition is nothing beyond what we know as knowledge (or logic to remain
consistent with your wording). "Intuition" is a 'fluffy' term used to
overcomplicate things we sometimes fail (or do not wish) to understand.
Examples: "Soul", "Love", "Fate"...

... Applying such developments on practical scales still seems
to be a long way into the future.

It's resource-greedy, I know.

Thank-you


Roy

--
Roy S. Schestowitz | No SCO code was used to generate this sig
http://Schestowitz.com | SuSE Linux | PGP-Key: 74572E8E
1:00am up 52 days 13:14, 5 users, load average: 0.22, 0.15, 0.12
http://iuron.com - next generation of search paradigms
Oct 17 '05 #37

P: n/a

Roy Schestowitz wrote:
__/ [Noticedtrends] on Sunday 16 October 2005 22:49 \__

Roy Schestowitz wrote:
__/ [Andy Dingley] on Sunday 16 October 2005 15:33 \__

> On Sun, 16 Oct 2005 08:32:49 +0100, Roy Schestowitz
> <ne********@schestowitz.com> wrote:
>
>>I contacted the father of the semantic Web on Friday. He lives here in
>>Manchester, so I hope to get a reply or an opinion face-to-face...
>
> Which Manchester-based father of SemWeb is that ? There are several
> candidates!
>
> This is a very interesting topic, has been for some years, and
> Manchester Uni is one of the hotbeds of work on it. You should take a
> look at what Ian Horrocks' group have been doing.
He is the one whom I contacted, formerly Carole Goble's student. Very
young and highly influential already:

http://www.sigmod.org/dblp/db/indice...rocks:Ian.html

He was my lecturer a few years ago and I happen to be an external student
in that department, which is headed by my Ph.D. supervisor.

http://www.daml.org/

Somebody whose article I read today used the term Web 2.1 in a different
context, so let's call DAML, microformats and the like Web 3.0. Maybe Web
2.0 will never be actualised because so-called 3.0 will reach there first
and overtake it.

Do you believe that some time in the future books and text will become
useless and ambiguous form of information that can go down the bin? Will
we formulate knowledge precisely rather than compose it in what we now
call "natural language"? A controversial contention such as this is more
likely to get me enemies, so I'll stop...

Roy

--
Roy S. Schestowitz | WARNING: /dev/null running out of space
http://Schestowitz.com | SuSE Linux | PGP-Key: 74572E8E
3:40pm up 52 days 3:54, 5 users, load average: 0.63, 0.50, 0.50
http://iuron.com - next generation of search paradigms


Hello,

I'm still not clear on how IURON and the "Semantic Web" can mimick
"inferential scanning" e.g., will requests like "What are emerging
trends (on any topic) within the last 30 days?" be typed into some sort
of inference search-engine; which would infer, and yield content on
emerging trends?

You could probably datestamp facts and do relevant queries if designed
properly.

Aside: does Google provide anything for the dimension of time, something
long the lines of filetype:XYZ?

If you want to discover emerging trends, better try:

* http://technorati.com/

* http://gada.be/ (just unveiled)

Would the search-results contain content; which happens to frequently
mention seemingly disconnected sets of keywords like "Lately (Boolean
NEAR) noticed", "Trend toward" OR "becoming more", "people have
become", or "Lately (Boolean NEAR) [specific industry segments,
companies, products, social trends, etc.]?"

I suggest you see:

http://www.veen.com/jeff/archives/000749.html

In particular the discussion which revolves around the word "apparently"

Such proposals seem to involve artificial intelligence where computers
can actually infer; which is a combination of logical and intuitive
processes. ...

Intuition is nothing beyond what we know as knowledge (or logic to remain
consistent with your wording). "Intuition" is a 'fluffy' term used to
overcomplicate things we sometimes fail (or do not wish) to understand.
Examples: "Soul", "Love", "Fate"...

... Applying such developments on practical scales still seems
to be a long way into the future.

It's resource-greedy, I know.

Thank-you


Roy

--
Roy S. Schestowitz | No SCO code was used to generate this sig
http://Schestowitz.com | SuSE Linux | PGP-Key: 74572E8E
1:00am up 52 days 13:14, 5 users, load average: 0.22, 0.15, 0.12
http://iuron.com - next generation of search paradigms


By any chance, can Microsoft WORD's feature AUTOSUMMARIZE serve as a
study? AUTOSUMMARIZE does a good job on discerning relevant points on
content that is impartial and objective in scope. Yet, one content that
is more "subjective" in scope, AUTOSUMMARIZE at best does a fair-job at
discerning relevance; at times the results are amusing!

Oct 17 '05 #38

P: n/a
__/ [Noticedtrends] on Monday 17 October 2005 20:02 \__
<snips>
> Would the search-results contain content; which happens to frequently
> mention seemingly disconnected sets of keywords like "Lately (Boolean
> NEAR) noticed", "Trend toward" OR "becoming more", "people have
> become", or "Lately (Boolean NEAR) [specific industry segments,
> companies, products, social trends, etc.]?"

I suggest you see:

http://www.veen.com/jeff/archives/000749.html

In particular the discussion which revolves around the word "apparently"

> Such proposals seem to involve artificial intelligence where computers
> can actually infer; which is a combination of logical and intuitive
> processes. ...

Intuition is nothing beyond what we know as knowledge (or logic to remain
consistent with your wording). "Intuition" is a 'fluffy' term used to
overcomplicate things we sometimes fail (or do not wish) to understand.
Examples: "Soul", "Love", "Fate"...

> ... Applying such developments on practical scales still seems
> to be a long way into the future.

It's resource-greedy, I know.


<snips>
By any chance, can Microsoft WORD's feature AUTOSUMMARIZE serve as a
study? AUTOSUMMARIZE does a good job on discerning relevant points on
content that is impartial and objective in scope. Yet, one content that
is more "subjective" in scope, AUTOSUMMARIZE at best does a fair-job at
discerning relevance; at times the results are amusing!

I can imagine that would be about as amusing as a lookup at googlism.com.
The issue with AUTOSUMMARIZE is that it's closed source, but I agree it can
serve as a 'proof of concept' case study. The method -- that is what
happens behind the scenes -- is not accessible and I loathe the idea of an
impending software patent, of which Microsoft has plenty lined up like
cannonballs. They begin to fear Linux too much so they try to 'shut the
doors' while they still can.

I am writing a formal 1-pager for Iuron at the moment. I hope I can put it
up later this morning.

<snip>

....engines have no so-called "thirst for knowledge", but rather a thirst for
text.

</snip>

The site has been getting quite a lot of visits, which have overwhelmed me
as surprising and had me set up a sourceforge project page yesterday. I am
now just waiting for the moderator's approval.

Roy

--
Roy S. Schestowitz | make install -not war
http://Schestowitz.com | SuSE Linux | PGP-Key: 74572E8E
6:15am up 53 days 18:29, 8 users, load average: 0.34, 0.37, 0.48
http://iuron.com - next generation of search paradigms
Oct 18 '05 #39

P: n/a

Noticedtrends wrote:
Can inference search-engines narrow-down the number of often irrelevant
results, by using specific keywords; for the purpose of discerning
emerging social & business trends?

For example, if authors of content subconsciously mention the keywords
"lately and noticed" within the same brief sentence, the reader may
infer "an unintended message" through the process of "inferential
scanning;" a method of noting "semantic anomalies" which may
signal emerging trends.
Note: The wildcard character asterisk "*" is important for two
examples:

-- In the current month and year, the wildcard character "*"
represents a specific date. In quotations: "October * 2005" infers
content that mentions the current month and year. Yet, search results
also include older content.

-- Search terms in quotations with the wildcard character "*"
indicates two words NEAR each other: "lately * noticed." This type
of search is excellent for trend spotting.

-- Search results are further narrowed-down by an astounding 80-90% by
excluding such words he, she, me. After all, content which may signal
emerging trends usually doesn't contain 'he, she, me.' Certain
pronouns usually indicate personal accounts of individuals; rather than
the "collective conscious" of people & businesses developing into
emerging trends.

-- Examples of links offer plenty of ideas for experimenting with
different combinations of keywords. To narrow-down searches further;
the addition of keywords mentioning specific industries, occupations,
businesses, people, places, culture, etc. can discern developing
trends.

There are many examples of keywords useful for trend-spotting. Five
examples:

-- Lately and noticed example.

http://www.google.com/search?as_q=+l...h=&safe=images
-- Noticed lately is another variation.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&l...m3&btnG=Search
--'Lately and become' OR 'lately and becoming' can yield
"important developments" to watch.

http://www.google.com/search?as_q=%2...h=&safe=images
--'People have become' OR 'people are becoming' may infer
emerging developments from social points of view.

http://www.google.com/search?as_q=%2...h=&safe=images
--'Trend toward' AND 'becoming more' are one of the first
examples of keywords I developed for trend-watching.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&l...m3&btnG=Search
Entering in keywords which may infer content signaling the emerging
business & public zeitgeist yields a wide variety search results. In
quite a few cases, search results don't necessarily have value e.g.,
individual opinions which don't necessarily indicate emerging trends.
In some cases, search results yield specialty websites that are
fee-only and even restricted access content. Usually, content which may
be interpreted like "a crystal-ball of sorts" is free.

Any recommendations for marketing an "inference-like"
search-engine?

Thank-you


Here are some current trends to note: Posted Tuesday October 18, 2005

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&l...m3&btnG=Search
Scroll down to title, "Kick-Off Your Traffic Virus!"

EXCERPT STARTS: Have you noticed lately how savvy webmasters are using
simple, content-rich articles to pull-in more targeted "traffic" to
their Web Site audience without spending a dime on promotion or
advertising?
Additional content on "emerging trends" in www.magnet4web.com

http://www.google.com/search?as_q=+o...om&safe=images
For the first link: Scroll down to:

* Building your Own Authority Website.
* Search-Engine Optimization: Get the Low-Down.

For the second-link: Scroll-down to:

* End of the Free-Ride; Many Top Search-Engines & Directories Switching
to Pay Model.

Oct 18 '05 #40

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.