The Google Sandbox Patent

[incrediblehelp]

Google Patent Application

Found it here:

http://www.threadwatch.org/node/2115

<flood6 edit to fix loooooong url>

[DMC_34]

Thanks, good information!

[greeneagle]

Incrediblehelp,

This seems to be a broad based Information Science and Document Management Patent that would favor newer documents. In fact it could be applied different ways.

I read through quickly and followed the links... Did I miss the connection to GOOGLE? Has HARRITY & SNYDER, LLP licensed this technology to GOOGLE or are we looking at grounds for a patent infringement suit if G is using similar technology to sandbox?

None of the 4 Partner "Patent Attorneys" running the firm at http://www.harritysnyder.com/ declare any GOOGLE affiliation nor express any "news Articles" that would indicate any GOOGLE association.

Just looks like a "loaded gun" to me.

IMO - "Prior art" would most likely be a "faster draw" in any "gun slinging" here.

Ken

[incrediblehelp]

ummmm,

Matt Cutts = Google

I cant believe how descriptive this document is in uncovering much of the conjecture about Google algorithm. Of course it doesn't mean they are using all of these techniques. The most interesting part of this reading is the idea that Google is incorporating the "Golden Ratio" or "Golden Rule" into their algorithm.

[greeneagle]

Matt Cutts:
http://www.researchbuzz.org/intervie...tt_cutts.shtml

Matt is into all kinds of stuff and always has been including the DOD (Department of Defense):
http://www.cs.unc.edu/~cutts/

Did he partner with them before moving to GOOGLE?

You would sure think that with a multi-million dollar patent in hand, and on the GOOGLE payroll they could offer more than a little non-descript 3 page Site.

Maybe someone should offer their services!

Ken

[incrediblehelp]

Are you sure that this website http://www.cs.unc.edu/~cutts/ refers to the same Matt Cutts I am talking about?

I am not a Matt Cutts history expert, but he works for Google and this patent was submitted recently by him as the inventor with other Google employees. What conclusion are you to draw here?

More info on the "Golden Ratio" or "Golden Rule":

http://www.guardian.co.uk/online/sci...875198,00.html

http://www.goldenmeangauge.co.uk/fibonacci.htm

http://www.threadwatch.org/node/1452

http://ccins.camosun.bc.ca/~jbritton...bgoldslide.htm

http://students.bath.ac.uk/ma1caab/nature.html

[greeneagle]

Incredible:
"Are you sure that this website http://www.cs.unc.edu/~cutts/ refers to the same Matt Cutts I am talking about?"

Only if his life accomplishments merrit an on-line resume that reads like this:

"I've already got a job--thanks for your interest though!"

Great links on the "Golden Proportion"!

Seriously though, I didn't see anything that declared preferential treatment of documents differentiating on a long or short term basis, and I have seen GOOGLE go both ways.

I am top for "CSS SPam" with a week old document and I just went through a major redesign of my entire Site where half the pages aren't even ranked anymore.

But I have never experienced the "Sandbox" outside of SEO issues and making a Site's presence known either.

Another (2yr old) Site went to PR6 last time with no GOOGLE IBLs.

Ken

[incrediblehelp]

I agree with you somewhat here Eagle. I went through a website re-design with a client and incorporate some minor SEO techniques while we did this. The website went from ranking well for non-competitive keywords in Google to NO WHERE and I mean NO WHERE. They are barely ranking for their own name. We are still waiting to get back into Google from this web site re-design. While we wait we are simple gathering IBL's utilizing varying anchor text like the discussing above recommend to do now for Google.

Can I have your exact definition of "CSS SPAM" for the record?

[greeneagle]

Incredible,

The article is in first place, can't miss it! We increased our traffic 30-50% this month, just in the last half of the month by releasing 5 articles and 1 Press Release.

I have found other methods (channels) much more valuable in delivering "generic" links. Write a couple timely articles with a catchy title and publish it... If it's good, a blog or 2 picks it up or a popular ezine publishes it. It will get syndicated. I could and have spent days link mongering without the same quantity or quality.

Many of the Syndicators are PR4 or above - Haven't found the sanbox over there.

Ken

[incrediblehelp]

I was kidding with the CSS SPAM definition.

Yes I understand how that works and in fact released articles in the past myself for clients and seen #1 results in Google in 2 days. This is where the "sandbox" filters turns itself off somehow. Google recognizes news, press releases, articles in a different formats than regular web pages. Maybe trusting the submitted sources like prweb.com, 24-7pressrelease.com, etc.

[flood6]

You may have already seen it, but WebMasterWorld has a pretty extensive thread on the subject. Of course it has its usual mix of wheat and chaff.

[incrediblehelp]

Yes flood that is the problem with that forum, so many posts that are way off topic to the thread and sorting through all these post is not very fun sometimes.

[incrediblehelp]

Nice analysis:

http://www.socengine.com/seo/guide/g...ta-patent.html

[greeneagle]

Am I missing something very fundamental here?:

"This report has been prepared to help SEOs understand the concepts and practical applications contained in Google's US Patent Application #20050071741 - Information Retrieval Based on Historical Data"

The way I read it; This is not Google's Patent nor their patent application. Where do they get off "perping" that misnomer? Where did that even come from?:

"Correspondence Name and Address:
HARRITY & SNYDER, LLP
11240 WAPLES MILL ROAD
SUITE 300
FAIRFAX
VA
22030
US"

It doesn't matter who the inventors are or were. What matters is ownership! Capital "O" for Ownership! What was and is the relationship between "Owners" and "Inventors"... and I just don't see that we are privey to that info here!

I am an "inventor" on a patent that I have never recieved a single solitary dollar for (no remuneration what-so-ever), so what? The "inventors" are nothing without ownership! That's the way it works.

The owner is; HARRITY & SNYDER, LLP in this case. Let's get it right. Otherwise, let's let's talk about, patent rights, licenses and rumuneration before we deem it a "GOOGLE Patent"!

Without those elements it's simply NOT A "GOOGLE PATENT"!, in any form of the phrase. Nor can they implement any element of the claims therein without substantiable "prior art" claims in disreguard of the patent without risk of a patent infringement suit.

Legal "Prior Art" resolution for any patent infringement suit may include retraction on the granting of the patent with substantial demonstrated "Prior Art" history.

So far I haven't seen anything to indicate this is anything besides a Matt Cutts' resume attraction to GOOGLE, and I don't have time to do the timeline research and we might not even reveal partnership relationships anyway. It sure seems as though patent licensing information would be in the public domain somewhere though.

Ken

[toddieg]

here's another quick summary for those who don't want to read the whole thing. www.tg9.net

[greeneagle]

That's an entertaining summary,
I don't know "tg9", but at least the had the insight to not deem it a "Google Patent" without any substantiation.
Ken

[greeneagle]

IMO - Way too much is being made out of a "Common Sense" Document Management Patent here. The "Test of Time" will determine whether it "holds up" or not. But it is definitely not a "GOOGLE Patent" or a "Sandbox" patent unless those relationships are shown!

As far as I am concerned it is oblique or general enough to be considered a "Fresh Content Patent" --- 180 degrees out from what the "spinners" are playing it for!

Is that why "blog spam" became a problem? Does it really hold up to tagging the "if mofified since" server header? That's been being done for a long time by the SEs!

Why isn't this being deemed the "Content Freshness" Patent. It's worded to be equally applicable.

IMO - It is so vague it is applicable all over "Prior Art". I don't see that it means much at all!

Ken

[incrediblehelp]

I understand your point, but shall we totally ignore this patent application and simple say it is not worthy of any consideration since it was filled under HARRITY & SNYDER, LLP with all inventors working at Google?

More patent overviews:

http://www.threadwatch.org/node/2132

Lastly, I don't know http://www.tg9.net/ either, but Eagle the heading of the page and title is "Google Patent Summary" so I think they as well labeled it from Google.

[incrediblehelp]

Moderators go ahead and change the title of this thread to whatever you want. I might have jumped the gun a little naming it after "sandbox". I think it is much more far reaching that that.

I also understand we are not here to misinform each other, but the fact is this patent application was applied for by current employees at Google, yet in the patent itself they do not refer to Google as "search engine".

Eagle cant we draw our own conclusions?

Maybe this all a fun post-April fools day joke by Google, who knows.

[greeneagle]

Incredible,

They were granted a "loaded gun", but my goodness, do you deny having "prior knowledge" yourself that the SEs have been using the "if modified since" server header any way they deemed necessary and expedient in their algs for a long time now? I must have first noticed it in the GOOGLE Webmaster pages over a year ago!

Let me quote it for anyone unaware:

"Make sure your web server supports the If-Modified-Since HTTP header. This feature allows your web server to tell Google whether your content has changed since we last crawled your site. Supporting this feature saves you bandwidth and overhead."

It can be found here; http://www.google.com/webmasters/guidelines.html under "technical Guidelines". It could be found there almost as long as my memory serves me!

Ken