Document scoring based on document content update

• US 8,527,524 B2
• Filed: 06/30/2011
• Issued: 09/03/2013
• Est. Priority Date: 09/30/2003
• Status: Active Grant

• Current Assignee: Google LLC (Alphabet Inc.)
• Original Assignee: Google Inc. (Alphabet Inc.)
• Inventors: Lawrence, Steve, Pfleger, Karl, Tong, Simon, Acharya, Anurag, Dean, Jeffrey, Haahr, Paul, Henzinger, Monika
• Primary Examiner(s): Vy, Hung T
• Application Number:
  US13/174,304
• Publication Number:
  US 20110264671A1
• Time in Patent Office: 796 Days
• Field of Search: 707/706, 707/723, 707/725, 707/736, 707/749, 707/750, 707/751
• US Class Current: 707/749
• CPC Class Codes: G06F 16/951 Indexing; Web crawling techniques
• CPC Class Codes: G06Q 30/0246 Traffic
• CPC Class Codes: Y10S 707/99933 Query processing, i.e. searching

Abstract

A system may determine a measure of how a content of a document changes over time, generate a score for the document based, at least in part, on the measure of how the content of the document changes over time, and rank the document with regard to at least one other document based, at least in part, on the score.

Claims

1. A system comprising:

one or more devices to;

determine, at a first time, a first set of topics relating to content within a document;

determine, at a second time, a second set of topics relating to the content within the document, the second time being different than the first time;

identify a change in a quantity of topics between the first set of topics and the second set of topics;

generate a score for the document based on the change in the quantity of topics; and

rank the document with regard to at least one other document based on the score.

2. The system of claim 1, where the one or more devices are further to:

identify a spike in the quantity of topics between the first set of topics and the second set of topics; and

classify the document as spam upon identifying the spike in the quantity of topics.

3. The system of claim 2, where the score is further based on classifying the document as spam.

4. The system of claim 1, where,, when determining the first set of topics relating to the content within the document and determining the second set of topics relating to the content within the document, the one or more devices are to use at least one of:

a categorization of the document,

a Universal Resource Locator (URL) analysis of the document,

an analysis of the content of the document,

a clustering of the document, or

a summarization of the document.

5. The system of claim 1, where the one or more devices are further to:

detect a topic that is in the first set of topics and is not in the second set of topics; and

classify the document as spam upon detecting that the topic that is in the first set of topics and is not in the second set of topics, the score being further based on classifying the document as spam.

6. The system of claim 1, where the generated score is a first score and the one or more devices are further to:

generate a second score, for the document, that is based on a relevance of the document to a search query; and

combine the first and second scores to generate an overall score,

where, when ranking the document, the one or more devices are to rank the document with regard to the at least one other document based on the overall score.

7. The system of claim 6, where,, when combining the first and second scores, the one or more devices are to:

adjust the second score by an amount that is based on the first score.

8. A method performed by one or more devices, the method comprising:

determining, at a first time and by at least one of the one or more devices, a first set of topics relating to content of a document;

determining, at a second time and by at least one of the one or more devices, a second set of topics relating to the content of the document, the second time being different than the first time;

identifying, by at least one of the one or more devices a change in a quantity of topics between the first set of topics and the second set of topics;

generating, by at least one of the one or more devices, a score for the document based on the change in the quantity of topics; and

ranking, by at least one of the one or more devices, the document with regard to at least one other document based on the score.

9. The method of claim 8, further comprising:

identifying a spike in the quantity of topics; and

classifying the document as spam upon identifying the spike in the quantity of topics.

10. The method of claim 9, where the score is further based on classifying the document as spam.

11. The method of claim 8, where determining the first set of topics relating to the content of the document and determining the second set of topics relating to the content of the document are based on at least one of:

a categorization of the document,

a Universal Resource Locator (URL) analysis of the document,

an analysis of the content of the document,

a clustering of the document, or

a summarization of the document.

12. The method of claim 8, further comprising:

detecting a topic that is in the first set of topics and is not in the second set of topics; and

classifying the document as spam upon detecting that the topic that is in the first set of topics and is not in the second set of topics, the score being further based on classifying the document as spam.

13. The method of claim 8, where the generated score is a first score, the method further comprising:

generating a second score, for the document, that is based on a relevance of the document to a search query; and

combining the first and second scores to generate an overall score,

where ranking the document includes ranking the document with regard to the at least one other document based on the overall score.

14. The method of claim 13, where combining the first and second scores includes:

adjusting the second score by an amount that is based on the first score.

15. A non-transitory computer-readable memory device comprising:

one or more instructions which, when executed by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to;

determine, at a first time, a first set of topics relating to content within a document;

determine, at a second time, a second set of topics relating to the content within the document, the second time being different than the first time;

identify a change in a quantity of topics between the first set of topics and the second set of topics;

generate a score for the document based on the change in the quantity of topics; and

rank the document with regard to at least one other document based on the score.

16. The computer-readable memory device of claim 15, where the one or more instructions further cause the at least one processor to:

identify a spike in the quantity of topics; and

classify the document as spam upon identifying the spike in the quantity of topics.

17. The computer-readable memory device of claim 16, where the score is further based on classifying the document as spam.

18. The computer-readable memory device of claim 15, where the one or more instructions to determine the first set of topics relating to the content within the document further cause the at least one processor to determine the first set of topics based on:

a categorization of the document,

a Universal Resource Locator (URL) analysis of the document,

an analysis of the content of the document,

a clustering of the document, or

a summarization of the document.

19. The computer-readable memory device of claim 15, where the one or more instructions further cause the at least one processor to:

detect a removal of a topic that is in the first set of topics and is not in the second set of topics; and

classify the document as spam upon detecting that the topic that is in the first set of topics and is not in the second set of topics, the score being further based on classifying the document as spam.

20. The computer-readable memory device of claim 15, where the generated score is a first score and the one or more instructions further cause the at least one processor to:

generate a second score, for the document, that is based on a relevance of the document to a search query; and

combine the first and second scores to generate an overall score,

where the one or more instructions to rank the document further cause the at least one processor to;

rank the document with regard to the at least one other document based on the overall score.

21. The computer-readable memory device of claim 20, where the one or more instructions to combine the first and second scores further cause the at least one processor to:

adjust the second score by an amount that is based on the first score.