Skip to main content
Fachgebiete
Automobil + Motoren Bauwesen + Immobilien Business IT + Informatik Elektrotechnik + Elektronik Energie + Nachhaltigkeit Finance + Banking Management + Führung Marketing + Vertrieb Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe Versicherung + Risiko
DE
EN
Bücher
Zeitschriften
Themenseiten
Organisationspsychologie Projektmanagement Marketing Smart Manufacturing
Weitere Formate
Podcasts Webinare Technik Webinare Wirtschaft Kongresse Veranstaltungskalender Awards
Jetzt Einzelzugang starten
Zugang für Unternehmen
Referenzkunden
SLX-Digitalkonferenz: Zukunftswerkstatt 2024

Mehr Umsatz mit Top-Kontakten

Am 7. Mai erfahren Sie, wie Vertriebsteams Leadgenerierung, Leadnurturing und Leadstrategien effizient steuern können.
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Discover Computing
Erschienen in: Discover Computing 2/2011

01.04.2011

Time-weighted web authoritative ranking

verfasst von: Bundit Manaskasemsak, Arnon Rungsawang, Hayato Yamana

Erschienen in: Discover Computing | Ausgabe 2/2011

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

We investigate temporal factors in assessing the authoritativeness of web pages. We present three different metrics related to time: age, event, and trend. These metrics measure recentness, special event occurrence, and trend in revisions, respectively. An experimental dataset is created by crawling selected web pages for a period of several months. This data is used to compare page rankings by human users with rankings computed by the standard PageRank algorithm (which does not include temporal factors) and three algorithms that incorporate temporal factors, including the Time-Weighted PageRank (TWPR) algorithm introduced here. Analysis of the rankings shows that all three temporal-aware algorithms produce rankings more like those of human users than does the PageRank algorithm. Of these, the TWPR algorithm produces rankings most similar to human users’, indicating that all three temporal factors are relevant in page ranking. In addition, analysis of parameter values used to weight the three temporal factors reveals that age factor has the most impact on page rankings, while trend and event factors have the second and the least impact. Proper weighting of the three factors in TWPR algorithm provides the best ranking results.
Vorheriger Artikel Learning to rank for why-question answering
Nächster Artikel Discriminative probabilistic models for expert search in heterogeneous information sources

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe




 

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren
Fußnoten
1
The pages with zero out-degree cause the PageRank leak problem (Page et al. 1999).
 
2
The small self-loop cluster, having no connection back to main community, causes the PageRank sink problem (Page et al. 1999).
 
Literatur
Adamic, L. A., & Huberman, B. A. (2001). The web’s hidden order. Communications of the ACM, 44(9), 55–59.CrossRef
Baeza-Yates, R. A., & Ribeiro-Neto, B. A. (1999). Modern information retrieval. New York: ACM Press & Addison Wesley.
Baeza-Yates, R. A., Saint-Jean, F., & Castillo, C. (2002). Web structure, dynamics and page quality. In SPIRE ’02: Proceedings of the 9th international symposium on string processing and information retrieval (pp. 117–130).
Berberich, K., Vazirgiannis, M., & Weikum, G. (2006). Time-aware authority ranking. Internet Mathematics, 2(3), 301–332.CrossRefMathSciNet
Brin, S., & Page, L. (1998). The anatomy of a large-scale hypertextual web search engine. Computer Networks and ISDN Systems, 30(1–7), 107–117.CrossRef
Burges, C., Shaked, T., Renshaw, E., Lazier, A., Deeds, M., Hamilton N., & Hullender, G. (2005). Learning to rank using gradient descent. In ICML ’05: Proceedings of the 22nd international conference on machine learning (pp. 89–96).
Cai, D., Yu, S., Wen, J. R., & Ma, W. Y. (2003a). Extracting content structure for web pages based on visual representation. In APWeb ’03: Proceedings of the 5th Asia Pacific web conference (pp. 406–417).
Cai, D., Yu, S., Wen, J. R., & Ma, W. Y. (2003b). Vips: A vision-based page segmentation algorithm. Technical report, Microsoft Research.
Cai, D., He, X., Wen, J. R., & Ma, W. Y. (2004). Block-level link analysis. In SIGIR ’04: Proceedings of the 27th annual international ACM SIGIR conference on research and development in information retrieval (pp. 440–447).
Cho, J., & Garcia-Molina, H. (2003a). Effective page refresh policies for web crawlers. ACM Transactions on Database Systems, 28(4), 390–426.CrossRef
Cho, J., & Garcia-Molina, H. (2003b). Estimating frequency of change. ACM Transactions on Internet Technology, 3(3), 256–290.CrossRef
Cho, J., & Roy, S. (2004). Impact of search engines on page popularity. In WWW ’04: Proceedings of the 13th international world wide web conference (pp. 20–29).
Cho, J., Roy, S., & Adams, R. E. (2005). Page quality: In search of an unbiased web ranking. In SIGMOD ’05: Proceedings of the 2005 ACM SIGMOD international conference on management of data (pp. 551–562).
Dwork, C., Kumar, R., Naor, M., & Sivakumar, D. (2001). Rank aggregation methods for the web. In WWW ’01: Proceedings of the 10th international world wide web conference (pp. 613–622).
Fan, R. E., Chang, K. W., Hsieh, C. J., Wang, X. R., & Lin, C. J. (2008). Liblinear: A library for large linear classification. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 9, 1871–1874.
Fleiss, J. L. (1971). Measuring nominal scale agreement among many raters. Psychological Bulletin, 76(5), 378–382.CrossRef
Geng, X., Liu, T. Y., Qin, T., Arnold, A., Li, H., & Shum, H. Y. (2008). Query dependent ranking using k-nearest neighbor. In SIGIR ’08: Proceedings of the 31st annual international ACM SIGIR conference on research and development in information retrieval (pp. 115–122).
Golub, G. H., & Loan, C. F. V. (1996). Matrix computations. Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins University Press.MATH
Gonçalves, B., Meiss, M. R., Ramasco, J. J., Flammini, A., & Menczer, F. (2009). Remembering what we like: Toward an agent-based model of web traffic. In WSDM ’09: Proceedings of the 2nd ACM international conference on web search and data mining.
Grimmett, G. R., & Stirzaker, D. R. (2001). Probability and random processes. New York: Oxford University Press.
Haveliwala, T. H. (1999). Efficient computation of pagerank. Technical report, Stanford InfoLab.
Haveliwala, T. H. (2003). Topic-sensitive pagerank: A context-sensitive ranking algorithm for web search. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 15(4), 784–796.CrossRef
Järvelin, K., & Kekäläinen, J. (2000). Ir evaluation methods for retrieving highly relevant documents. In SIGIR ’00: Proceedings of the 23rd annual international ACM SIGIR conference on research and development in information retrieval (pp. 41–48).
Järvelin, K., & Kekäläinen, J. (2002). Cumulated gain-based evaluation of ir techniques. ACM Transactions on Information Systems, 20(4), 422–446.CrossRef
Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33(1), 159–174.CrossRefMathSciNetMATH
Liu, T. Y., Yang, Y., Wan, H., Zhou, Q., Gao, B., Zeng, H. J., Chen, Z., & Ma, W. Y. (2005). An experimental study on large-scale web categorization. In WWW ’05: Special interest tracks and posters of the 14th international world wide web conference (pp. 1106–1107).
Liu, Y., Gao, B., Liu, T. Y., Zhang, Y., Ma, Z., He, S., & Li, H. (2008). Browserank: Letting web users vote for page importance. In SIGIR ’08: Proceedings of the 31st annual international ACM SIGIR conference on research and development in information retrieval (pp. 451–458).
Liu, Y., Liu, T. Y., Gao, B., Ma, Z., & Li, H. (2010). A framework to compute page importance based on user behaviors. Information Retrieval, 13(1), 22–45.CrossRef
Meiss, M. R., Menczer, F., Fortunato, S., Flammini, A., & Vespignani, A. (2008). Ranking web sites with real user traffic. In WSDM ’08: Proceedings of the 1st ACM international conference on web search and data mining (pp. 65–76).
Melucci, M. (2007). On rank correlation in information retrieval evaluation. ACM SIGIR Forum, 41(1), 18–33.CrossRef
Minamide, Y. (2005). Static approximation of dynamically generated web pages. In WWW ’05: Proceedings of the 14th international world wide web conference (pp. 432–441).
Page, L., Brin, S., Motwani, R., & Winograd, T. (1999). The pagerank citation ranking: Bringing order to the web. Technical report, Stanford InfoLab.
Richardson, M., & Domingos, P. (2002). The intelligent surfer: Probabilistic combination of link and content information in pagerank. In T. G. Dietterich, S. Becker, & Z. Ghahramani (Eds.), Advances in neural information processing systems 14 (pp. 1441–1448). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Richardson, M., Prakash, A., & Brill, E. (2006). Beyond pagerank: Machine learning for static ranking. In WWW ’06: Proceedings of the 15th international world wide web conference (pp. 707–715).
Ross, S. M. (2002). Introduction to probability models. San Diego: Academic Press.
Silverstein, C., Marais, H., Henzinger, M., & Moricz, M. (1999). Analysis of a very large web search engine query log. ACM SIGIR Forum, 33(1), 6–12.CrossRef
Tang, L., Rajan, S., & Narayanan, V. K. (2009). Large scale multi-label classification via metalabeler. In WWW ’09: Proceedings of the 18th international world wide web conference (pp. 211–220).
Xu, J., & Li, H. (2007). Adarank: A boosting algorithm for information retrieval. In SIGIR ’07: Proceedings of the 30th annual international ACM SIGIR conference on research and development in information retrieval (pp. 391–398).
Yu, P. S., Li, X., & Liu, B. (2005). Adding the temporal dimension to search—A case study in publication search. In WI ’05: Proceedings of the 2005 IEEE/WIC/ACM international conference on web intelligence (pp. 543–549).
Metadaten
Titel
Time-weighted web authoritative ranking
verfasst von
Bundit Manaskasemsak
Arnon Rungsawang
Hayato Yamana
Publikationsdatum
01.04.2011
Verlag
Springer Netherlands
Erschienen in
Discover Computing / Ausgabe 2/2011
Print ISSN: 2948-2984
Elektronische ISSN: 2948-2992
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10791-010-9138-4

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 2/2011

Discover Computing 2/2011 Zur Ausgabe

OriginalPaper

Discriminative probabilistic models for expert search in heterogeneous information sources

Book Review

Diane Kelly: Methods for evaluating interactive information retrieval systems with users

Book Review

Michael W. Berry and Jacob Kogan (eds.): Text mining: applications and theory

OriginalPaper

Learning to rank for why-question answering

OriginalPaper

Investigating task performance of probabilistic topic models: an empirical study of PLSA and LDA

Premium Partner

    Bildnachweise