The Word In, Really Changes Things
Started by kevs, Feb 12 2008 10:53 AM
13 replies to this topic
#2
Posted 12 February 2008 - 11:04 AM
Do we know if " in " is a stop word or not?
If it's making a difference in the results... maybe not?
What hapens for the following;
myfield city
myfield in city
myfield + in city
myfield in + city
"myfield in city"
???
Do you get different results... and if so, how different?
(I thought that the + wasn't necessary - or so people keep telling me... I still use them all the time
)
If it's making a difference in the results... maybe not?
What hapens for the following;
myfield city
myfield in city
myfield + in city
myfield in + city
"myfield in city"
???
Do you get different results... and if so, how different?
(I thought that the + wasn't necessary - or so people keep telling me... I still use them all the time
#3
Posted 12 February 2008 - 11:20 AM
Dan Thies asks: Stop Words Are Dead! Did I Miss Another Memo?
And Bill Slawski explains why: New Google Approach to Indexing and Stopwords
And Bill Slawski explains why: New Google Approach to Indexing and Stopwords
#8
Posted 13 February 2008 - 02:38 AM
Kevs -
Did you read Bill's post? (Hey, I can't believe Bill hasn't shown up on this thread!) It's rather big news that Google is attempting to deal with stop words now. As I see it, that means you can optimize for 'in' if you need to, now, and Google will notice it rather than ignoring it.
Miriam
Did you read Bill's post? (Hey, I can't believe Bill hasn't shown up on this thread!) It's rather big news that Google is attempting to deal with stop words now. As I see it, that means you can optimize for 'in' if you need to, now, and Google will notice it rather than ignoring it.
Miriam
#10
Posted 13 February 2008 - 10:08 AM
Did you read Bill's post? (Hey, I can't believe Bill hasn't shown up on this thread!) It's rather big news that Google is attempting to deal with stop words now. As I see it, that means you can optimize for 'in' if you need to, now, and Google will notice it rather than ignoring it.
It does look like Google is paying attention to words that they ignored in the past.
But, chances are good that they are doing some other things now too, so that you might see some other phrases showing up more highly if the search engine things they are relevant.
One of those may be query expansion, where the query term is looked at, and terms that might be related may also be considered when looking for results.
But it is nice to see that when you search for "it was the best of times" (without the quotation marks) that you end up with search results primarily for Dicken's Tale of Two Cities.
Definitely, optimize for the phrases if you can. I think that it's a big step forward that Google now includes stop words in looking for query terms in their databases.
#13
Posted 14 February 2008 - 01:06 AM
Google has been indexing 'key phrases' for a long time. Part of 'key phrases' can include 'stop words'.
My guess is that Google uses statistical inferences (Markov Chains?) to determine which 'stop words' to include and which to exclude. Indexing all the 'stop words' would explode the index to something that even Google couldn't afford.
For example searching for a 'kettle of fish' should include the 'of'.
However, 'Of Fish and Men' Google understands that this should be indexed fully as a key-phrase as well as partly without the stop words.
I would take Bill's advice and put keywords into 'key phrases' as much as possible.
Yannis
My guess is that Google uses statistical inferences (Markov Chains?) to determine which 'stop words' to include and which to exclude. Indexing all the 'stop words' would explode the index to something that even Google couldn't afford.
For example searching for a 'kettle of fish' should include the 'of'.
However, 'Of Fish and Men' Google understands that this should be indexed fully as a key-phrase as well as partly without the stop words.
I would take Bill's advice and put keywords into 'key phrases' as much as possible.
Yannis
Reply to this topic

0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users






