skip to main content
10.1145/1076034.1076107acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesirConference Proceedingsconference-collections
Article

Detecting dominant locations from search queries

Authors Info & Claims
Published:15 August 2005Publication History

ABSTRACT

Accurately and effectively detecting the locations where search queries are truly about has huge potential impact on increasing search relevance. In this paper, we define a search query's dominant location (QDL) and propose a solution to correctly detect it. QDL is geographical location(s) associated with a query in collective human knowledge, i.e., one or few prominent locations agreed by majority of people who know the answer to the query. QDL is a subjective and collective attribute of search queries and we are able to detect QDLs from both queries containing geographical location names and queries not containing them. The key challenges to QDL detection include false positive suppression (not all contained location names in queries mean geographical locations), and detecting implied locations by the context of the query. In our solution, a query is recursively broken into atomic tokens according to its most popular web usage for reducing false positives. If we do not find a dominant location in this step, we mine the top search results and/or query logs (with different approaches discussed in this paper) to discover implicit query locations. Our large-scale experiments on recent MSN Search queries show that our query location detection solution has consistent high accuracy for all query frequency ranges.

References

  1. Amitay, E., Har'El, N., Sivan R., and Soffer, A. Web-a-where: geotagging web content. Proc. 27th Annual International Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (SIGIR'04), Jul. 2004, Sheffield, UK, 273--280. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Banko, M., Brill, E., Dumais S., and Lin J. AskMSR: Questing answering using the worldwide web. Proc. 2002 AAAI Spring Symposium on Mining Answers from Texts and Knowledge Bases, Mar 2003, Palo Alto, CA, USA, 7--8.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Bourigault, D. Surface grammatical analysis for extraction of terminological noun phrases. Proc. 14th COLING, 1992, Nantes, France, 977--981. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Church, K.W. A stochastic parts program and noun phrase parser for unrestricted test. Proc. 2nd Conference on Applied Natural Language Processing, Feb. 1988, Austin, Texas, USA, 136--143. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Cucerzan, S., and Yarowsky, D. Language independent NER using a unified model of internal and contextual evidence. Proc. 19th COLING, Aug. 2002, Taipei, Taiwan, 171--175. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Ding, J., Gravano, L., and Shivakumar N. Computing geographical scopes of web resource. Proc. 26th International Conference on Very Large Data Bases (VLDB'00), Sep. 2000, Cairo, Egypt., 545--556. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Geographic Names Information System (GNIS). http://geonames.usgs.gov/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Google local search: http://local.google.comGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Google search. http://www.google.comGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Gravano, L., Hatzivassiloglou, V., and Lichenstein, R. Categorizing Web Queries according to Geographical Locality. Proc. 12th Int'l Conference on Information and knowledge management (CIKM'03), Nov. 2003, New Orleans, LA, USA, 325--333. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Li, H., Srihari, R. K., Niu, C., and Li, W. Location normalization for information extraction. Proc. 19th COLING, Aug. 2002, Taipei, Taiwan. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Li, H., Srihari, R. K., Niu, C., and Li, W. InfoXtract location normalizations: a hybrid approach to geographical references in information extraction. Workshop on the Analysis of Geographic References, May 2003, Edmonton, Canada. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. MSN Search. http://search.msn.com/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. North American Numbering Plan. http://sd.wareonearth.com/~phil/npanxxGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. USPS -- The United States Postal Services. http://www.usps.com/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Van Rijsbergen, C.J. Information Retrieval. Butterworths, London, Second Edition, 1979. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Yahoo! local search. http://local.yahoo.com/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Zhou G., and Su, J. Named entity tagging using an HMM-based chunk tagger. Proc. 40th Annual Meeting of the ACL, July 2002, Philadelphia, PA, USA, 209--219. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Detecting dominant locations from search queries

          Recommendations

          Comments

          Login options

          Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

          Sign in
          • Published in

            cover image ACM Conferences
            SIGIR '05: Proceedings of the 28th annual international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval
            August 2005
            708 pages
            ISBN:1595930345
            DOI:10.1145/1076034

            Copyright © 2005 ACM

            Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

            Publisher

            Association for Computing Machinery

            New York, NY, United States

            Publication History

            • Published: 15 August 2005

            Permissions

            Request permissions about this article.

            Request Permissions

            Check for updates

            Qualifiers

            • Article

            Acceptance Rates

            Overall Acceptance Rate792of3,983submissions,20%

          PDF Format

          View or Download as a PDF file.

          PDF

          eReader

          View online with eReader.

          eReader