Apple Augmented Reality Improved with Acquisition of Project Tango Collaborator Flyby Media


What does this acquisition of Flyby Media mean for Apple’s Efforts in developing Augmented Reality Devices and Media?

I noticed this headline in the news this morning: Apple patent details visual-based AR navigation, confirms Flyby Media acquisition.

The article tells us that augmented reality can be accomplished by using information from a phone such as image data from a camera, and sensor data from devices such as a gyroscope and an accelerometer, and that information can be augmented by marrying images of reality with computer generated imagery.

I checked out the patent referred to in the article, and it had me wondering what role Flyby Media played in Google’s Project Tango, which we are told that they used in the Apple Insider article.

The patent linked to in that news story is in Apple’s name, but the inventors are originally from Flyby Media. The patent is:

Visual-based inertial navigation
Inventors: Alex Flint, Oleg Naroditsky, Christopher P. Broaddus, Andriy Grygorenko, Stergios Roumeliotis, and Oriel Bergig
Assigned to: Apple Inc.
Regents of the University of Minnesota
US Patent 9,424,647
Granted August 23, 2016
Filed: August 12, 2014

Abstract

A method includes: receiving sensor measurements from a pre-processing module, in which the sensor measurements include image data and inertial data for a device; transferring, using a processor, information derived from the sensor measurements, from a first set of variables associated with a first window of time to a second set of variables associated with a second window of time, in which the first and second windows consecutively overlap in time; and outputting, to a post-processing module, a state of the device based on the transferred information.

An image from the patent shows how indoor mapping might be improved by the collection of information using imagery from Flyby Media:

Indoor Mapping
Improved Indoor Mapping

The Apple Insider article points to this earlier article from them that describes other acquisitions of companies working in Augmented Reality: Rumor: Apple has ‘hundreds of staff’ working on virtual & augmented reality projects

Two of the inventors listed on this patent supposedly now work at Apple, Naroditsky and Grygorenko,and one, Roumeliotis, is a professor at the University of Minnesota.

I was curious as to what other patents Flyby Media might have, and the last sentence in the abstract from the first one, about augmented reality games was interesting.

Systems and methods for efficient 3D tracking of weakly textured planar surfaces for augmented reality applications
Inventors: Christopher Broaddus, Andriy Grygorenko, Netanel Hagbi, and Oriel Y. Bergig;
Assignee: Flyby Media, Inc.
US Patent 9,147,251
Granted: September 29, 2015
Filed: August 3, 2012

Abstract

The present system provides an on the fly simple to complex 6DOF registration approach using the direct method. On the fly means it does not require training time, a user points a phone/camera to a planar surface and can start tracking it instantly. Simple to complex means the system performs registration in multiple levels of complexity from 2DOF to 6DOF. By increasing the complexity model the system enables more surfaces to be tracked and for surfaces that are tracked the system can avoid local minima solution providing a more robust and accurate 6DOF tracking. Even surfaces that are very weak in features can be tracked in 6DOF and virtual content can be registered to them. The system enables playing Augmented Reality games on low-end devices such as mobile phones on almost any surface in the real world.

Systems and methods for tracking natural planar shapes for augmented reality applications
Inventors: Netanel Hagbi, Oriel Y. Bergig, and Jihad A. Elsana
Assigned to: Flyby Media, Inc.
US Patent 8,644,551
Granted: February 4, 2014
Filed: October 15, 2010

Abstract

The present disclosure relates to systems and methods for tracking planar shapes for augmented-reality (AR) applications. Systems for real-time recognition and camera six degrees of freedom pose-estimation from planar shapes are disclosed. Recognizable shapes can be augmented with 3D content. Recognizable shapes can be in form of a predefined library being updated online using a network. Shapes can be added to the library when the user points to a shape and asks the system to start recognizing it. The systems perform shape recognition by analyzing contour structures and generating projective invariant signatures. Image features are further extracted for pose estimation and tracking. Sample points are matched by evolving an active contour in real time.

It’s interesting seeing how Apple is advancing in Augmented Reality Technology by acquisitions of technology and hiring employees from companies such as Flyby Media. Will Apple be focusing upon games such as Pokemon Go, or do they have other ideas in mind, like I alluded to in this post on a new Apple patent on Augmented Reality Displays from them: Might We Soon See Apple Augmented Reality?. We see Apple is working upon building devices that can display augmented reality, and they are acquiring expertise and technology that assists in using augmented reality in applications such as indoor mapping.


Copyright © 2016 SEO by the Sea. This Feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this material in your news aggregator, the site you are looking at may be guilty of copyright infringement. Please contact SEO by the Sea, so we can take appropriate action immediately.
Plugin by Taragana

The post Apple Augmented Reality Improved with Acquisition of Project Tango Collaborator Flyby Media appeared first on SEO by the Sea.





Source link

Share Button

Google Granted Design Patent on Camera Bracelet


This design patent shows off a camera mounted on a bracelet. It doesn’t tell us anything about the camera beyond showing off the design of the camera. I looked for profiles of the inventors listed on the patent, and I think the ones I found may be the ones involved in the creation of this design (though I can’t be completely certain). There does looks like there is some hardware design involving cameras among the skills in the profiles I found. We will have to keep our eyes open for news of a camera like this potentially made by people building things like the cameras built for off street views of Street Views – It’s possible that this camera could be a way of indexing the world, like street view cameras are, rather than a consumer product.

Among the named inventors is:

1. A Staff Optical Engineer at Google
2. An Engineering Leader and Former Google Principal Engineer now at Uber, who worked on Geographic Maps and indoor maps at Google
3. A System Design/Systems engineer who worked on Street View and Google Art Project
4. A Senior Industrial Designer at Google who has developed a photography app for iPhones named Pic and Click in 2013

Camera bracelet
Inventors: Rachael Elizabeth Roberts, Mohammed Waleed Kadous, Romain Clement, and Xi Chen
Assigned to: Google Inc.
US Patent D764,339
Granted August 23, 2016
Filed: September 8, 2014

Camera Bracelet
Picture from Google Patent

Copyright © 2016 SEO by the Sea. This Feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this material in your news aggregator, the site you are looking at may be guilty of copyright infringement. Please contact SEO by the Sea, so we can take appropriate action immediately.
Plugin by Taragana

The post Google Granted Design Patent on Camera Bracelet appeared first on SEO by the Sea.





Source link

Share Button

Meeting the Demands of a Faster Mobile-Based Web


Apple has a new patent aimed at accelerating mobile Web pages. We’ve heard that from others elsewhere on the Web, and it’s beginning to look like a trend. Who wants faster web pages on their phones?

Probably everybody.

Apple Accerated Pages

It’s become increasingly obvious to people doing Search Engine Optimization that improving the quality of websites has meant making pages of a site faster and mobile-device friendly as more people started accessing the internet through phones and tablets as their primary connection to the Web.

Both Google and Yahoo helped site owners by releasing tools that could be used to check upon how fast sites were. Google introduced the online tool Pagespeed for Insights, which details steps that a site owner could take to improve the speed of a site. Yahoo published a browser extension called YSlow that runs a site through a number of tests or Heuristics that measure things that could be changed or improved on a site to make it faster.

These tools were available before there was as much emphasis as there is today on preparing sites for mobile devices. Site speed was the first step, and Google used site speed as a carrot to help rankings, telling us in an official Google Webmasters blog post that they were using site speed in web search rankings. I noticed in 2014 a patent granted to Google that backed that blog post up – Google’s Patent On Site Speed As A Ranking Signal

Google has also gone through two updates, where they have given site owners a lot of warning, that they would increase rankings of sites that were mobile friendly and decrease rankings of site that weren’t. Google provided a Mobile Friendly Test that people could use to make sure that their sites were mobile friendly.

We’ve also seen steps by Facebook and Google to improve the speed of pages on their sites for mobile devices. First Facebook introduced Instant Articles and then Google brought us the Accelerated Mobile Pages Project. Some more recent articles have taken deeper looks at these efforts to provide faster web pages:

You may notice that the focus of those was primarily upon Google’s AMP pages, and how quickly they could get people back to search results and paid search advertisement in those results. However, Apple appears to have an interest in speeding up the Web as well.

Today Apple was granted a patent aimed at making mobile web pages faster. This patent was filed back in 2009, so it likely wasn’t influenced by Facebook’s Instant Articles or Googles’ Accelerated Mobile Pages. Google and Facebook are both attempting to show faster pages so that internet browsers can spend less time on Web pages, and return to advertisements more quickly. Apple seems to be working upon making visiting the Web an overall better experience. The patent does address a problem that was clearly visible back when it was filed, as the patent starts out by describing the problem it was meant to address:

With increasing use of computers to deliver content such as information and entertainment, web pages designed to display such content have become increasingly complicated over time, containing not only text but also animation and videos. Goals of web developers may be to present this content in visually appealing and timely fashion. Accordingly, developers may consider how to create and manage display of such content when designing web pages.

The patent focuses upon using cascading style sheets and browsers that use hardware acceleration of animated page content.

The patent is:

Acceleration of rendering of web-based content
Inventors: Simon Fraser
Assigned to: Apple Inc.
US Patent 9,418,171
Granted: August 16, 2016
Filed: March 3, 2009

Abstract

Systems and methods for hardware accelerated presentation of web pages on mobile computing devices are presented. A plurality of web pages may be received by a computing device capable of processing and displaying web pages using layout engines, hardware accelerated graphics application programming interfaces (APIs).

Upon receipt of the web pages, the web pages may be divided into a plurality of rendering layers, based upon stylesheets of the web pages. An algorithm walks through rendering layers so as to select a plurality of layers that may receive compositing layers so as to take advantage of hardware acceleration when rendered.

The web pages may be subsequently presented on a display of the mobile computing devices using remaining rendering layers and compositing layers. In this manner, visual representation of web content remains intact even when content which may not have been originally designed for use with layout engine may be displayed.

The patent does provide details on how CSS and APIs that focus upon hardware acceleration can speed up web pages, and have them render more quickly. The technology behind what Apple describes in their new patent may be different than the processes behind Facebook and Google’s approaches. but the idea of making web browser a quick and painless experience is similar in all three.

How fast is your Website on a phone?


Copyright © 2016 SEO by the Sea. This Feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this material in your news aggregator, the site you are looking at may be guilty of copyright infringement. Please contact SEO by the Sea, so we can take appropriate action immediately.
Plugin by Taragana

The post Meeting the Demands of a Faster Mobile-Based Web appeared first on SEO by the Sea.





Source link

Share Button

Twitter Poll – How Does Google Index Content on the Web?


Google Indexes by Websites, Pages, or URLs

I thought this was an interesting question to ask people because I think it’s often misunderstood. Google treats content found at different URLs as if it is different content, even though it might be the same, such as in the following examples:

http://www.example.com
https://www.example.com
http://example.com
http://example.com/index.htm
http://example.com/Index.htm
http://example.com/default.asp

One of the most interesting papers I’ve come across on this topic is this one (One of the authors joined Google shortly after this was released – Ziv Bar-Yossef):

Do Not Crawl in the DUST: Different URLs with Similar Text

What do you think?


Copyright © 2016 SEO by the Sea. This Feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this material in your news aggregator, the site you are looking at may be guilty of copyright infringement. Please contact SEO by the Sea, so we can take appropriate action immediately.
Plugin by Taragana

The post Twitter Poll – How Does Google Index Content on the Web? appeared first on SEO by the Sea.





Source link

Share Button

How Google May Respond to Reverse Engineering of Spam Detection



The ultimate goal of any spam detection system is to penalize “spammy” content.

~ Reverse engineering circumvention of spam detection algorithms (Linked to below)

Four years ago, I wrote a post about a Google patent titled, The Google Rank-Modifying Spammers Patent. It told us that Google might be keeping an eye out for someone attempting to manipulate search results by spaming pages, and Google may delay responding to someone’s manipulative actions to make them think that whatever actions they were taking didn’t have an impact upon search results. That patent focused upon organic search results, and Google’s Head of Web Spam Matt Cutts responded to my post with a video in which he insisted that just because Google produced a patent on something doesn’t mean that they were going to use it. The video is titled, “What’s the latest SEO misconception that you would like to put to rest? ” Matt’s response is as follows:

I’m not sure how effective the process in that patent was, but there is a now a similar patent from Google that focuses upon rankings of local search SEO results. The patent describes this spam problem in this way:

The business listing search results, or data identifying a business, its contact information, web site address, and other associated content, may be displayed to a user such that the most relevant businesses may be easily identified. In an attempt to generate more customers, some businesses may employ methods to include multiple different listings to identify the same business. For example, a business may contribute a large number of listings for nonexistent business locations to a search engine, and each listing is provided with a contact telephone number that is associated with the actual business location. The customer may be defrauded by contacting or visiting an entity believed to be at a particular location only to learn that the business is actually operating from a completely different location. Such fraudulent marketing tactics are commonly referred to as “fake business spam”.

The patent tells us that search engines will sometimes modify how they rank businesses to keep fake businesses from showing, and they want to stop people from spamming local earch results. The patent developed in response to fake spam business listings Is:

Reverse engineering circumvention of spam detection algorithms
Inventors: Douglas Richard Grundman
Assigned to: Google
Patent 9,372,896
Granted June 21, 2016
Filed: November 26, 2013

Abstract

A spam score is assigned to a business listing when the listing is received at a search entity. A noise function is added to the spam score such that the spam score is varied. In the event that the spam score is greater than a first threshold, the listing is identified as fraudulent and the listing is not included in (or is removed from) the group of searchable business listings. In the event that the spam score is greater than a second threshold that is less than the first threshold, the listing may be flagged for inspection. The addition of the noise to the spam scores prevents potential spammers from reverse engineering the spam detecting algorithm such that more listings that are submitted to the search entity may be identified as fraudulent and not included in the group of searchable listings.

A Webmasterworld thread discussed the older patent I mentioned , and provides some interesting commentary on it that is worth reading through: Google’s Rank Modifying Patent for Spam Detection

The patent describes how it might not show any positive results in response to fake business spam to throw off people spamming results and to make it more difficult for people to reverse engineer spam detection patterns. I wasn’t convinced that being aware of this patent would help make it easier for people to spam local search results,

It may sometimes not demote a business after fake business spam has been submitted on behalf of a business, if a spam score added to a score for the listing doesn’t rise beyond a certain amount, as shown in this flowchart from the patent:

spam score

It’s difficult to say whether Google is using the process described in this patent or not (or in the pstent I wrote about 4 years ago.)


Copyright © 2016 SEO by the Sea. This Feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this material in your news aggregator, the site you are looking at may be guilty of copyright infringement. Please contact SEO by the Sea, so we can take appropriate action immediately.
Plugin by Taragana

The post How Google May Respond to Reverse Engineering of Spam Detection appeared first on SEO by the Sea.





Source link

Share Button

The US is Asking for Help Understanding the Impacts of Artificial Intelligence



Artificial Intelligence, by Global Panorama. Some Rights Reserved
Artificial Intelligence, by Global Panorama. Some Rights Reserved

As we approach the celebration of the 4th of July, I thought it might be interesting to share a request for information made to the US Federal Register and a post on the Whitehouse blog. The US government is interested in what Artificial Intelligence might mean to the people of the United States, and how we could learn about it more. To find out, they are asking for comments by July 22, 2016.

Ed Felton, Deputy U.S. Chief Technology Officer wrote the following blog post about what the government would like to learn: How to Prepare for the Future of Artificial Intelligence. He tells us that the reason for the request for public input is to learn from a wide range of people about what we can do to become ready:

Broadly, OSTP is interested in developing a view of AI across all sectors for the purpose of recommending directions for research and determining challenges and opportunities in this field. The views of the American people, including stakeholders such as consumers, academic and industry researchers, private companies, and charitable foundations, are critical to informing an understanding of current and future needs for AI in diverse fields.

The request for information can be found on the Federal Register here:
Request for Information on Artificial Intelligence

The Office of Science and Technology Policy is asking for comments that tell them about:

  1. The legal and governance implications of AI;
  2. The use of AI for public good;
  3. The safety and control issues for AI;
  4. The social and economic implications of AI;
  5. The most pressing, fundamental questions in AI research, common to most or all scientific fields;
  6. The most important research gaps in AI that must be addressed to advance this field and benefit the public;
  7. The scientific and technical training that will be needed to take advantage of harnessing the potential of AI technology, and the challenges faced by institutions of higher education in retaining faculty and responding to explosive growth in student enrollment in AI-related courses and courses of study;
  8. The specific steps that could be taken by the federal government, research institutes, universities, and philanthropies to encourage multi-disciplinary AI research;
  9. Specific training data sets that can accelerate the development of AI and its application;
  10. The role that “market shaping” approaches such as incentive prizes and Advanced Market Commitments can play in accelerating the development of applications of AI to address societal needs, such as accelerated training for low and moderate income workers (see https://www.usaid.gov/cii/market-shaping-primer); and
  11. Any additional information related to AI research or policymaking, not requested above, that you believe OSTP should consider.

If you would like to submit comments, you can do so by Fax, or Mail, or online at:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/webform/rfi-preparing-future-artificial-intelligence

On July 7th, a workshop and presentation will be livestreamed on near term impacts of AI titled, The Social and Economic Implications of Artificial Intelligence Technologies in the Near-Term at 5:30pm (est). There are program committee members from Microsoft and Google, the Whitehouse, and New York University School of Law, Harvard, and Washington University. This presentation looks like it may be really interesting.


Copyright © 2016 SEO by the Sea. This Feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this material in your news aggregator, the site you are looking at may be guilty of copyright infringement. Please contact SEO by the Sea, so we can take appropriate action immediately.
Plugin by Taragana

The post The US is Asking for Help Understanding the Impacts of Artificial Intelligence appeared first on SEO by the Sea.





Source link

Share Button

Machine Learning Inside Google



By OSX - Own work, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=12890983
By OSX – Own work, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=12890983

Understanding Systems

When I was in high school, one of the required classes I had to take was a shop class. I had been taking mostly what the school called “enriched” courses, or what were mostly academic classes that featured primarily reading, writing, and arithmetic. A shop class had more of a trade focus. I was surprised when the first lesson on the first day of my shop class was a richer academic experience than any of the enriched classes I had taken.

The instructor started talking about systems, and how many manufacturing processes involved breaking products down into different systems. We were going to start off by building an electric motor for this shop class, which was an important part of electrical systems within automobiles. This idea of looking at the internal functions of vehicles and classifiying their parts, and understanding how they fit together was an exciting and interesting perspective. I’m reminded of that approach to understanding systems with a newly granted Google Patent that uses a machine learning algorithm to classify and understand how support pages might fit together.

Google Refocusing Upon Machine Learning

Steven Levy, author of In The Plex, which reveals stuff about the earliest days of Google has been sharing more with us, including a look at how Google has started relying upon machine learning approaches, and he tells us about that in a recent post, titled How Google is remaking itself as a machine learning first company.

I thought the machine learning article was interesting after reading a recently granted Google patent that attempts to understand what pages on the Web are about using a classification approach. The patent had me asking myself, “is Google going to say good bye to PageRank for a new way of ranking Webpages that doesn’t rely upon links from other sites?” They have used PageRank to rank pages from their earliest days.

This new patent focuses upon a way of classifying data that uses an approach based upon ” a hierarchical taxonomy of clustered data.”

The patent starts off by using an example of how information for a support center works. The patent tells us that keywords might be extracted from documents about providing support to users in a way that generates clusters of documents with similar keywords.

A classification algorithm might be used where classifications are based upon a taxonomy and documents are classified with a confidence level.

This is an interesting way of looking at the Web, and understanding its different parts and how they fit together.

The Patent

It wasn’t until I looked at the LinkIn profile for Nadav Benbarak that I gained a sense of why this patent came about. In his experiences at Google, we are told about one project he worked upon:

Product manager for new product development effort. Managed product vision, roadmap, design, and implementation. Led 15-person team of engineers and operations specialists.

• Created a new project to develop a suite of tools and data sources for reporting on the quality and effectiveness of Google’s customer service. Secured buy-in from senior management and garnered funding for 10 engineers.

• Launched a new machine learning algorithm for summarizing customer feedback from millions of users. This information drove significant product and operations improvements for the AdWords business.

• Core member of internal consulting team advising Google’s President of Sales on customer service strategy. Drove thought leadership for analysis plan. Team’s recommendations led to a reorganization of Google’s service team and a new initiative to increase customer satisfaction

This project that he was a project manager on appears to have been the inspiration behind this patent, and how it worked:

Methods and systems for classifying data using a hierarchical taxonomy
Inventors: Glenn M. Lewis, Kirill Buryak, Aner Ben-Artzi, Jun Peng, Nadav Benbarak
Assignee: Google
US Patent 9,367,814
Granted June 14, 2016
Filed: June 22, 2012

Abstract

A method and system for classifying documents is provided. A set of document classifiers is generated by applying a classification algorithm to a trusted corpus that includes a set of training documents representing a taxonomy. One or more of the generated document classifiers are executed against a plurality of input documents to create a plurality of classified documents. Each classified document is associated with a classification within the taxonomy and a classification confidence level. One or more classified documents that are associated with a classification confidence level below a predetermined threshold value are selected to create a set of low-confidence documents. The low-confidence documents are disassociated from each of the associated classifications. A user is prompted to enter a classification within the taxonomy for at least one low-confidence document. The low-confidence document is associated with the entered classification and with a predetermined confidence level to create a newly classified document.

Take Aways

We have an idea of how the process described in this patent was used at Google, to help build a customer support taxonomy. It focused upon classifying customer support issues involving things such as “account management, billing, campaign management, performance, policy, etc.”

The patent tells us how useful collecting and making available information to customer support representatives would be by exploring the details of topics such as billing, to include things such as “payment processing, credits, refunds, etc.”

For instance, the patent tells us that in the subcategory of payment processing, there are issues such as:

1) Customer has questions on activation fee;
2) Customer’s account is marked delinquent;
3) Customer has questions on account cancellation; and
4) Customer has questions on forms of payment and/or invoicing.

The patent provides a rich look at how this taxonomy may have been helpful when having to supply information to advertising customers.

The patent shows us information about how the classification algorithm it uses might work to cluster documents and organize them in a hierarchical manner, like this:

In the above example, the clustering module may define a cluster that contains documents (or references to documents) having both the words “inbox” and “capacity” in their text. Another cluster may include documents having both the words “drop” and “call,” and so on. In some implementations, one or more rules can specify, e.g., what words may be used for clustering, the frequency of such words, and the like. For example, the clustering module can be configured to group together documents where a given word or synonyms of the given word are present more than five times. In another example, the clustering module can be configured to group together documents where any of a pre-defined set of words is present at least once.

Google has started using machine learning processes to solve problems like customer support. This approach aims at making it easier for people inside of Google to help solve customer problems by better understanding those problems and organizing information about how to solve them.

As an SEO, it had me a little excited to see a section that described how Google may rank solutions to problems. This doesn’t appear to be a replacement for PageRank; at least not quite yet. But the roots of organizing a web full of information may be found by starting with solving smaller tasks. This is the passage about ranking documents from the patent. It feels like (to me) there are some hints in there as to how documents might be ranked on the Web to use to respond to queries from searchers:

In some implementations, the document clusters may be ranked using the ranking module, which may also be executed on the server.

In some implementations, the ranking module ranks document clusters according to one or more metrics. For example, the ranking module may rank the clusters according to the quantity of documents in each cluster, as a cluster with many documents may represent a relatively significant topic (e.g., product issue).

As another example, the ranking module may rank the clusters according to an estimated time to resolution of an issue represented by the cluster (e.g., issues represented by a cluster “software update” may typically be resolved faster than issues represented by a cluster “hardware malfunction”), a label assigned to the cluster, a number of documents in a cluster, a designated importance of subject matter associated with a cluster, identities of authors of documents in a cluster, or a number of people who viewed documents in a cluster, etc.

In an example, a cluster representing an issue that historically has taken a longer time to resolve may be ranked higher than a cluster representing an issue with a shorter historical time to resolution.

In another example, several metrics are weighted and factored to rank the clusters. The ranking module can be configured to output the rankings to a storage device (e.g., in the form of a list or other construct).

We’ve heard about a machine learning approach from Google used on Web pages called Rankbrain, which appears to be focused upon rewriting queries in a way that seems helpful in producing relevant search results for those queries. We’ve been told by Google that There is no Rankbrain score and you don’t optimize for it.

What role may machine learning play in how information on the Web might be returned in response to queries? We don’t know at this point, and it’s possible that there’s a lot of learning about machine learning going on at Google these days; like in the building of the automated customer support taxonomy algorithm described in this patent. It appears to have helped solve some problems they were experiencing. We’ll see if it helps solve their mission to “organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful.”


Copyright © 2016 SEO by the Sea. This Feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this material in your news aggregator, the site you are looking at may be guilty of copyright infringement. Please contact SEO by the Sea, so we can take appropriate action immediately.
Plugin by Taragana

The post Machine Learning Inside Google appeared first on SEO by the Sea.





Source link

Share Button

How Google May Map a Query to an Entity for Suggestions



Search predictions come from:

– The terms you’re typing.

– What other people are searching for, including trending searches. Trending searches are popular stories in your area that change throughout the day. Trending searches aren’t related to your search history.

– Relevant searches you’ve done in the past (if you’re signed in to your Google Account and have Web & App Activity turned on).

Note: Search predictions aren’t the answer to your search, and they’re not statements by other people or Google about your search terms.

~ Search on Google using autocomplete

A website by the name of SourceFed produced a video that claimed that Google was intentionally manipulating search results to make Hillary Clinton look good, because it wasn’t showing results tied to her name that SourceFed insisted Google should be showing.

SEO Consultant Rhea Drysdale posted a response on Medium that shot holes in their argument. Rhea started off with:

SourceFed believes Google is manipulating search results in favor of Hillary Clinton, because “Hillary Clinton cri-” did not return “Hillary Clinton criminal charges” and “Hillary Clinton in-” did not return “Hillary Clinton indictment.”

I thought it was interesting that Google was just granted a new patent that describes one way they might be generating suggestions and autocomplete responses to queries on May 31, and thought it was worth looking at. I also thought it was interesting because it was trying to address how entity information might be used with autocomplete suggestions. The patent is:

Associating an entity with a search query
Inventors: Olivier Jean Andre Bousquet, Oskar Sandberg, Sylvain Gelly, Randolph Gregory Brown
Assignee: Google
US Patent 9,355,140
Granted: May 31, 2016
Filed: March 13, 2013

Abstract

Methods and apparatus for associating an entity with at least one search query. Some implementations are directed to methods and apparatus for identifying multiple queries associated with an entity and identifying one or more of the queries as an entity search query that provides desired search results for the entity. Some implementations are directed to methods and apparatus for identifying a particular entity and, in response to identifying the particular entity, identifying an entity search query corresponding to the particular entity.

The process described in this patent provides search suggestions to searchers using a query to entity mapping intended to show off new aspects of entities and queries to provide improved search results to searchers. This is a fairly complicated process, and is worth looking at to get a better sense of what is going on behind the curtains when Google does what it does, so that we don’t make assumptions that might not be very good, when it doesn’t do what we expect it to be doing.

When we search for Hillary Clinton in a Google Search Box, we see a number of query terms that Google is presenting as autosuggestions.

Hillary Clinton Auto Suggestions

When we choose one of those, like the term “email,” we see some additional words added to that query term:

Hillary Clinton email query suggestions

If we follow the suggestion [hillary Clinton email charges], we see a story that is about the possibility of criminal charges being filed against the candidate:

Hillary Clinton email query charges results

Google’s algorithm chose to map a query to the entity “Hillary Clinton” that used the terms “email charges” rather than “criminal charges” as SourceFed was guessing should be how Google would map the topic of that query. Sourcefed didn’t map out the query the way that Google did, but Google did have autosuggestions that covered that topic. If we compare Google trends information for both terms added to the entity “Hillary Clinton”, those terms seem to be close to each other in regards to how much interest searches appear to have shown for each of those queries:

Email Charges vs. Criminal Charges trends

Take Aways

I was left wondering why this patent doesn’t discuss trends, and if I would have to look for another that did (I chose to do that.)

This patent doesn’t mention the use of Google Trends in the identification of queries to map to entities, but we do know that Google Trends have used the Machine Identification numbers that would be assigned to entities at FreeBase.

This patent does tells us that properties associated with some entities may be identified at online encyclopedias such as Freebase, and entities may be assigned unique entity Identifiers.

This patent does focus upon how it might be helpful in telling one entity apart from another using properties associated with different entities, and uses the Entity “Sting” as an example, since there is a well known musician and a well known professional wrestler who both use that name, and they are different people:

Also, for example, in some implementations, the query suggestion system 135 may identify one or more entities associated with a received query via the query to entity association database 125. The query suggestion system 135 may provide one or more query suggestions based on the identified entities, with each of the query suggestions being particularly formulated to focus on a particular entity. For example, the musician Gordon Matthew Thomas Sumner and the wrestler Steve Borden may be associated with the query “sting” in the query to entity association database 125. In response to a received query “sting”, the query suggestion system 135 may identify the musician Gordon Matthew Thomas Sumner as the dominant entity from the query to entity association database 125 and suggest an alternative query suggestion to the user, with the alternative query suggestion being particularly formulated for the musician Gordon Matthew Thomas Sumner (e.g., “sting musician”).

The query to entity mapping described in this patent based upon terms describing properties found in a knowledge base such as Freebase that can help tell that one is a musician and one is an athlete. Using an autosuggest based upon using properties about those entities to find query terms to use to map to the entity shows how query terms may be selected carefully.

Since that patent focuses upon queries that might fit best with different entities, I looked at other patents that involved autocomplete to see what they said about using trend information. This one showed how trend information and personalized search histories could be used to generate suggestions using autocomplete:

Providing customized autocomplete data
Inventors: Nicholas B. Weininger and Radu C. Cornea
Assigned to: Google
US Patent 8,868,592
Granted: October 21, 2014
Filed: May 18, 2012

Abstract

Methods, systems, and apparatus, including computer programs encoded on a computer storage medium, for providing customized autocomplete suggestions. First profile data is obtained for a first user. Second profile data is obtained for second users that submitted search queries, where the second users are different from the first user. Based on the first profile data and the second profile data, similarity scores are determined. The similarity scores are each indicative of a degree of similarity between the first user and at least one of the second users. A proper subset of the search queries is selected based on the similarity scores, and an update for an autocomplete cache of a computing device associated with the first user is generated using the selected subset of search queries. The update is provided to the computing device associated with the first user.

This patent is telling us that autocomplete suggestions may be customized or personalized, but could use trends in word usage when they offer suggestions:

Autocomplete suggestions can be customized for the interests, attributes, and behavior of a particular user or a group of users. Using an autocomplete cache, personalized autocomplete suggestions can be generated when a network connection is unavailable. Using the autocomplete cache, personalized autocomplete suggestions can be presented in a manner that limits network latencies. The autocomplete cache can be updated to reflect current topics and trends in word usage, especially topics and trends among users with similarities to a particular user.

So, the “trend” information used in autocomplete for most people may not quite be the same that is shown in Google Trends, but may be customized for
each searcher performing a search.

Regardless of which autocomplete process Google is following; Rather than charging Google with showing a bias, it may be best to see what query suggestions Google provides, and see what range of topics and concepts that those cover, instead of expecting certain words to show up, like in this instance where “email charges” was a suggestion and “criminal charges” wasn’t, but Google appeared to be covering very similar concepts with those suggestions.

Google wasn’t purposefully avoiding a topic; it was just using words it preferred to use to offer as a query suggestion.


Copyright © 2016 SEO by the Sea. This Feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this material in your news aggregator, the site you are looking at may be guilty of copyright infringement. Please contact SEO by the Sea, so we can take appropriate action immediately.
Plugin by Taragana

The post How Google May Map a Query to an Entity for Suggestions appeared first on SEO by the Sea.





Source link

Share Button

How Google May Map a Query to an Entity for Suggestions



Search predictions come from:

– The terms you’re typing.

– What other people are searching for, including trending searches. Trending searches are popular stories in your area that change throughout the day. Trending searches aren’t related to your search history.

– Relevant searches you’ve done in the past (if you’re signed in to your Google Account and have Web & App Activity turned on).

Note: Search predictions aren’t the answer to your search, and they’re not statements by other people or Google about your search terms.

~ Search on Google using autocomplete

A website by the name of SourceFed produced a video that claimed that Google was intentionally manipulating search results to make Hillary Clinton look good, because it wasn’t showing results tied to her name that SourceFed insisted Google should be showing.

SEO Consultant Rhea Drysdale posted a response on Medium that shot holes in their argument. Rhea started off with:

SourceFed believes Google is manipulating search results in favor of Hillary Clinton, because “Hillary Clinton cri-” did not return “Hillary Clinton criminal charges” and “Hillary Clinton in-” did not return “Hillary Clinton indictment.”

I thought it was interesting that Google was just granted a new patent that describes one way they might be generating suggestions and autocomplete responses to queries on May 31, and thought it was worth looking at. I also thought it was interesting because it was trying to address how entity information might be used with autocomplete suggestions. The patent is:

Associating an entity with a search query
Inventors: Olivier Jean Andre Bousquet, Oskar Sandberg, Sylvain Gelly, Randolph Gregory Brown
Assignee: Google
US Patent 9,355,140
Granted: May 31, 2016
Filed: March 13, 2013

Abstract

Methods and apparatus for associating an entity with at least one search query. Some implementations are directed to methods and apparatus for identifying multiple queries associated with an entity and identifying one or more of the queries as an entity search query that provides desired search results for the entity. Some implementations are directed to methods and apparatus for identifying a particular entity and, in response to identifying the particular entity, identifying an entity search query corresponding to the particular entity.

The process described in this patent provides search suggestions to searchers using a query to entity mapping intended to show off new aspects of entities and queries to provide improved search results to searchers. This is a fairly complicated process, and is worth looking at to get a better sense of what is going on behind the curtains when Google does what it does, so that we don’t make assumptions that might not be very good, when it doesn’t do what we expect it to be doing.

When we search for Hillary Clinton in a Google Search Box, we see a number of query terms that Google is presenting as autosuggestions.

Hillary Clinton Auto Suggestions

When we choose one of those, like the term “email,” we see some additional words added to that query term:

Hillary Clinton email query suggestions

If we follow the suggestion [hillary Clinton email charges], we see a story that is about the possibility of criminal charges being filed against the candidate:

Hillary Clinton email query charges results

Google’s algorithm chose to map a query to the entity “Hillary Clinton” that used the terms “email charges” rather than “criminal charges” as SourceFed was guessing should be how Google would map the topic of that query. Sourcefed didn’t map out the query the way that Google did, but Google did have autosuggestions that covered that topic. If we compare Google trends information for both terms added to the entity “Hillary Clinton”, those terms seem to be close to each other in regards to how much interest searches appear to have shown for each of those queries:

Email Charges vs. Criminal Charges trends

Take Aways

I was left wondering why this patent doesn’t discuss trends, and if I would have to look for another that did (I chose to do that.)

This patent doesn’t mention the use of Google Trends in the identification of queries to map to entities, but we do know that Google Trends have used the Machine Identification numbers that would be assigned to entities at FreeBase.

This patent does tells us that properties associated with some entities may be identified at online encyclopedias such as Freebase, and entities may be assigned unique entity Identifiers.

This patent does focus upon how it might be helpful in telling one entity apart from another using properties associated with different entities, and uses the Entity “Sting” as an example, since there is a well known musician and a well known professional wrestler who both use that name, and they are different people:

Also, for example, in some implementations, the query suggestion system 135 may identify one or more entities associated with a received query via the query to entity association database 125. The query suggestion system 135 may provide one or more query suggestions based on the identified entities, with each of the query suggestions being particularly formulated to focus on a particular entity. For example, the musician Gordon Matthew Thomas Sumner and the wrestler Steve Borden may be associated with the query “sting” in the query to entity association database 125. In response to a received query “sting”, the query suggestion system 135 may identify the musician Gordon Matthew Thomas Sumner as the dominant entity from the query to entity association database 125 and suggest an alternative query suggestion to the user, with the alternative query suggestion being particularly formulated for the musician Gordon Matthew Thomas Sumner (e.g., “sting musician”).

The query to entity mapping described in this patent based upon terms describing properties found in a knowledge base such as Freebase that can help tell that one is a musician and one is an athlete. Using an autosuggest based upon using properties about those entities to find query terms to use to map to the entity shows how query terms may be selected carefully.

Since that patent focuses upon queries that might fit best with different entities, I looked at other patents that involved autocomplete to see what they said about using trend information. This one showed how trend information and personalized search histories could be used to generate suggestions using autocomplete:

Providing customized autocomplete data
Inventors: Nicholas B. Weininger and Radu C. Cornea
Assigned to: Google
US Patent 8,868,592
Granted: October 21, 2014
Filed: May 18, 2012

Abstract

Methods, systems, and apparatus, including computer programs encoded on a computer storage medium, for providing customized autocomplete suggestions. First profile data is obtained for a first user. Second profile data is obtained for second users that submitted search queries, where the second users are different from the first user. Based on the first profile data and the second profile data, similarity scores are determined. The similarity scores are each indicative of a degree of similarity between the first user and at least one of the second users. A proper subset of the search queries is selected based on the similarity scores, and an update for an autocomplete cache of a computing device associated with the first user is generated using the selected subset of search queries. The update is provided to the computing device associated with the first user.

This patent is telling us that autocomplete suggestions may be customized or personalized, but could use trends in word usage when they offer suggestions:

Autocomplete suggestions can be customized for the interests, attributes, and behavior of a particular user or a group of users. Using an autocomplete cache, personalized autocomplete suggestions can be generated when a network connection is unavailable. Using the autocomplete cache, personalized autocomplete suggestions can be presented in a manner that limits network latencies. The autocomplete cache can be updated to reflect current topics and trends in word usage, especially topics and trends among users with similarities to a particular user.

So, the “trend” information used in autocomplete for most people may not quite be the same that is shown in Google Trends, but may be customized for
each searcher performing a search.

Regardless of which autocomplete process Google is following; Rather than charging Google with showing a bias, it may be best to see what query suggestions Google provides, and see what range of topics and concepts that those cover, instead of expecting certain words to show up, like in this instance where “email charges” was a suggestion and “criminal charges” wasn’t, but Google appeared to be covering very similar concepts with those suggestions.

Google wasn’t purposefully avoiding a topic; it was just using words it preferred to use to offer as a query suggestion.


Copyright © 2016 SEO by the Sea. This Feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this material in your news aggregator, the site you are looking at may be guilty of copyright infringement. Please contact SEO by the Sea, so we can take appropriate action immediately.
Plugin by Taragana

The post How Google May Map a Query to an Entity for Suggestions appeared first on SEO by the Sea.





Source link

Share Button

Yahoo Assigns 2648 Patents to Mystery Excalibur IP, LLC Group


Google is possibly most well known for the patenting of an algorithm that sorted and ordered search results based upon a metric known as PageRank, named after Google Co-Founder Lawrence Page, while he was a student at Stanford University. Yahoo started off as a Web Directory, which became a Search Engine, and the patent it might be most well known for is one that it purchased from Overture (Originally Goto.com), and successfully sued Google with (winning a settlement out of the litigation) which describes paid search. That patent appears to have been assigned by Yahoo, along with a number of other patents last month.

A couple of weeks ago, an article on Yahoo’s patent portfolio ran, and provided some insights into what value those patents might hold. The article, Yahoo Has a Strong Patent Portfolio, But Reported Valuation is Too High gives us some ideas regarding how much the Search Engine’s patents might be worth (4 Billion?), and what they’ve been doing with them. Has Yahoo sold a good amount of those patents not much less than a week after that article? We don’t know for certain. It’s possible that they may have to one of the remaining bidders for the company: Exclusive: Yahoo’s bidder shortlist points to cash deal -sources.

On April 18th, 2016 an assignment was recorded at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) on a transaction that appears to have been executed on April 18th, 2016 involving the assignment of 2648 patents from Yahoo! Inc. to Excalibur IP, LLC. It’s possible that name is made up to hold the patents temporarily. The address that the assignment indicates is Excalibur’s is “701 FIRST AVENUE SUNNYVALE, CALIFORNIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 94089”. A search for that address points to the the headquarters of Yahoo! as we see in the knowledge panel below, so the actual purchaser appears unknown.

Yahoo knowledge panel

The transaction includes a patent that was at the heart of litigation between Yahoo! and Google, after Yahoo! had purchased Overture, which had patented Paid search, and Yahoo! sued Google for adopting a paid search model that was said to be similar. In August of 2004, Yahoo! and Google settled the case between them. In the article Yahoo! and Google Resolve Disputes, we are told about the settlement between the two companies:

“Under the terms of the settlement agreement, Google will take a license to U.S. Patent No. 6,269,361 and several related patents, held by Yahoo!’s wholly-owned subsidiary, Overture, and Yahoo! dismissed its patent lawsuit against Google. The two parties have also resolved a dispute regarding shares issuable to Yahoo! pursuant to a warrant to purchase Google shares in connection with a 2000 services agreement.”

The patent is:

System and Method For Influencing a Position on a Search Result List Generated by a Computer Network Search Engine
Inventors: Thomas A. Soulanille, James B. Gallinatti JR., DARREN J. DAVIS, MATTHEW DERER, JOHANN GARCIA, LARRY GRECO, TOD E. KURT, THOMAS KWONG, JONATHAN C. LEE, KA LUK LEE, PRESTON PFARNER, STEVE SKOVRAN
US Patent 6269361
Filed: May 28, 1999
Granted: Jul 31, 2001

We don’t know what the financial terms of this transaction might be, or whom the ultimate parties may be as well. The USPTO site search tells us that there are 2179 granted Yahoo! patents listed there and there are 3151 pending Yahoo! patent applications. In the assignment, in addition to a number of patents involving paid search, there are also a number that involve web search, semantic search, image search, and a wide range of software applications. Have they been transferred to a new owner already, or are they now being held by a holding company? The patent behind paid search is included in that patent portfolio. We will see who it ends up going to.


Copyright © 2016 SEO by the Sea. This Feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this material in your news aggregator, the site you are looking at may be guilty of copyright infringement. Please contact SEO by the Sea, so we can take appropriate action immediately.
Plugin by Taragana

The post Yahoo Assigns 2648 Patents to Mystery Excalibur IP, LLC Group appeared first on SEO by the Sea.





Source link

Share Button