Methods, systems, and apparatus, including medium-encoded computer program products, for searching a data set and returning search results organized in a hierarchy of categories are disclosed. A set of categories is provided for organizing a set of search results, wherein each category is associated with one or more search results. The set of search results is organized into a hierarchy of categories, the hierarchy including at least one category from the set of categories. At least a portion of the hierarchy of categories is displayed and a user request to modify the hierarchy of categories is received. The hierarchy of categories is modified in accordance with the user request.

It sounds like a directory concept with controls that users can implement to affect the categorization of search results. It may really mean a more human-edited Wikipedia-like approach to search results, however.

Hat tip to Bill Slawski at SEO By The Sea for pointing out this patent, and providing some insight into what Google could do with it.

“When you perform that search for [jaguar], Google may show you a set of categories that you could click upon to choose a category,” explains Slawski. “If you don’t see one you like, Google may also provide a chance for you to add a category. The category that you add might be a personalized result that only you might see. If enough people add a particular category, it might possibly be added to the categories that others see as well.”

“Each category might be associated with one or more search results,” he explains. “The categories may also be organized into a hierarchy of categories. For example, there might a ‘sports’ category associated with the word [jaguar], and that could include the NFL football team, as well as the racing team, and a large number of other teams with the name Jaguar or Jaguars. There may be lower level ‘sports’ categories such as ‘football,’ ‘racing,’ ‘lacrosse,’ and others. A searcher might not only be able to add categories, but also have the ability to modify this hierarchy of categories.”

Users could associate sites with specific categories, or add/remove categories, and there could be a browser add-on element, which would let users make edits to the system from different sites.

As Slawski points out, there is a wiki-like element to the system. The patent says, “A user can re-sort, filter, or display a set of search results organized into a hierarchy of categories and do so on a category-by-category basis. Indeed, the user can modify and customize the categories as well as expand the body of search results associated with the categories, so as to make the operation of a category-based search engine more robust. In addition, user feedback data can be provided related to the content and function of the search engine, adding a wiki-type element of intelligence and content to a category-based search engine.”

Of course there’s no telling if this patent contains any clues to any strategy that Google is currently working on implementing. It was filed in 2008, and a lot has changed in search since then.

The description in the patent wouldn’t be the first time we’ve seen users control things that appear in their search results.

One user commented on Slawski’s post, saying it reminds them of Google’s SideWiki. This patent was filed before Google released SideWiki, which was discontinued last year.

That did come with a browser-based element, I might add, which let you interact with it from different sites on the web.

I’m also reminded of features Google has launched, such as the ability for users to block domains from their search results.

Here’s a description of Wiki Wiki Web as described on its own Wiki:

This website and the software it runs on were created by WardCunningham for the PortlandPatternRepository. It is home to an InformalHistoryOfProgrammingIdeas as well as a large volume of material recording related discourses and collaboration between its readers.

The content is written by the users – people like you and me. Anyone can change any page or create new pages. Read the TextFormattingRules to find out how, and then go to the WikiWikiSandbox to try it yourself. Please use the WikiWikiSandbox if you want to experiment with how editing works. If you make a page you don’t want to keep, just replace its text with the word “delete”.

There’s no question that wikis have come to be a dominant part of the Internet experience for many, many users. According to the comScore Media Metrix report released this week, Wikimedia Foundation (which runs Wikipedia) Sites rank number 13 in the top 50 web properties, based on unique US visitors alone. That’s more than Apple, the NY Times, and the Huffington Post. It’s just under Demand Media.

Earlier this year, Wikipedia marked its tenth anniversary. Users have essentially increased at the same rate as Internet users in general – very close anyway.

Wikis seem to be winning out in the search engines too. After Google’s Panda algorithm update, wikiHow was one of the winners. DuckDuckGo, which made it a point to block content farms from its search results as it launched, even recently went so far as to include wikiHow content in an instant answer-style box for search results on how-to queries.

“Most people only experience wikis as occasional readers of sites like Wikipedia or wikiHow,” wikiHow Founder Jack Herrick tells WebProNews. “Surprisingly these treasure troves of information are actually just a bi-product of the community collaboration that happens behind those information dense articles. It is this community collaboration that makes wikis so special.”

“Humans have an primal desire to collaborate, connect and build something bigger than themselves. And wikis continue to be one of the best ways to collaborate with others online,” he continues. “I’ve met several wiki contributors who have told me ‘wikis changed my life’ or ‘wikis made me a better person.’ I don’t hear comments like that frequently about most other web sites.”

“So yes, the fantastic information resources that wikis build are wonderful and worth celebrating, but the collaboration they enable among their communities are really what makes wikis so special,” he adds. “So thank you Ward Cunningham for sharing this beautiful gift with us 16 years ago today.”

Herrick recently detailed the quality control process for wikiHow content with us here.

We continue to see innovation inspired by the rich history of the wiki. Take Qwiki, which opened up to the public just in late January, with funding led by Facebook co-founder Eduardo Saverin. It’s not a wiki site exactly, as its name might suggest, but it does utilize info from wiki sites like Wikipedia to pull together information to create an image and video-rich Wikipedia-on-Steriods kind of user experience. It does call upon users to help improve “Qwikis” by suggesting images and videos. It also provides links to more info at Wikipedia after its videos finish playing.

As a matter of fact, Qwiki made Wiki Wiki Web the focus of its daily Qwiki email today. “WikiWikiWeb, the first wiki, launched this day in 1995. Back then, people thought ‘wiki’ was a sport,” it said.

According to CeCe Cheng, Qwiki’s Communications Director, users like the experience that the service offers. While Qwiki has gained a lot media attention, she believes that it is largely a result of the favorable response from users.

“People use Qwiki, and they really like it… we believe that part of the reason is because that this is the way that people want to get their information,” she said.

In summary, Qwiki is an information resource that gives users interactive wiki knowledge through audio/visual presentations. As Cheng explained, Qwiki’s algorithms crawl the Web to assemble the most relevant information on any given topic.

Although some have labeled Qwiki as a search engine, the company says it is not one. Cheng said that while Qwiki does possess some of the same qualities as a search engine, it plans on rolling out more products that will clearly distinguish the two.

For example, the company is expected to release an iPad app in the coming weeks. Cheng hinted that it would be releasing more new features soon as well.

As consumers, do you prefer receiving information through an interactive experience like Qwiki provides, or not?

Bill Slawski, who frequently writes about Google patents, discussed this last summer, talking about how Google might suggest topics for users to write about. It sounds a little like Demand Media’s model doesn’t it?

Patrick Altoft gets credit for bringing this back into the conversation, in light of Google’s Panda update, which came down hard on some sites often referred to as content farms (though not so much on Demand Media’s eHow, interestingly enough). He suggests some ways that Google could go about implementing such a system, including: selling story ideas to publishers, working with partners to get them to write content, giving the data away in their keyword research tool, creating an aggregation system similar to how reviews are pulled into Google Places,  or adding wiki style user contributions sections to search results.

Google has historically not been in the business of creating content, and I wouldn’t expect them to go that route now. The wiki idea is interesting. Wikis seem to have done pretty well against the Panda update. wikiHow was one of the top winners according to some reports.

Google does have the wiki-like Knol, which is still in beta. What if Google started promoting it more aggressively, and integrated the system described in this patent to help push it beyond beta status?

Alternative search engine DuckDuckGo has a feature called the zero-click result, which is similar to some of the instant answer-type results Google gives. DDG recently added wikiHow to the list of sites whose content is displayed in this type of result. What if Google followed suit, but with its own wiki-style results based on topics it suggested itself? Who knows where Google’s gaps are better than Google?

Here’s an interesting quote from Google’s Udi Manber, all the way back in 2007: “A knol on a particular topic is meant to be the first thing someone who searches for this topic for the first time will want to read. The goal is for knols to cover all topics, from scientific concepts, to medical information, from geographical and historical, to entertainment, from product information, to how-to-fix-it instructions. ” (emphasis added)

Manber added, “Google will not serve as an editor in any way, and will not bless any content. All editorial responsibilities and control will rest with the authors. We hope that knols will include the opinions and points of view of the authors who will put their reputation on the line. Anyone will be free to write. For many topics, there will likely be competing knols on the same subject. Competition of ideas is a good thing.”

Currently, anyone can try to edit a knol post, and the changes are sent as suggestions to the post’s author. They can then either be accepted or rejected. It’s a bit different than the traditional wiki, but there are some pretty obvious similarities.

In some people’s eyes, there’s a pretty fine line between wikis and content farms. We’ve spoken with wikiHow founder Jack Herrick (who also ran eHow before selling to Demand Media) about the quality differences between the two types of sites. His analysis is worth reading if you’re interested in that.

If Google implemented such a system, it would no doubt be the target of a great deal of criticism, but that doesn’t necessarily mean they wouldn’t do it.

Who knows what Google’s actual plans are with this patent? Either way,  it’s an interesting topic of discussion. Perhaps the real question is what SHOULD Google do with this? A gap in quality search results is a gap. It’s hard to say that content from a content farm isn’t better than no relevant content whatsoever. How would you like to see the gaps filled?

Herrick has now shared more information with us about the quality control process at wikiHow. We’ll let you be the judge on how effective it is. 

"One of the apparent mysteries of wikis like wikiHow is how they can produce such high quality content while simultaneously allowing anyone at any time to edit almost any page," says Herrick. "You can go to wikiHow or Wikipedia right now, press edit, remove everything and write ‘I like cheese’ and press save and that is what will be published, at least for a short while.

He even invited me to give it a try. So I did, at 10:02am. 

"Why doesn’t ‘I like cheese’ stay on the page for days and days? The answer is twofold," he says. "First of all, there is a group of passionate people working hard day in and day out to make sure that every part of wikiHow is the best that it can be. Secondly, the wiki technology provides them with powerful tools, including a system of checks and balances, which helps them ensure that every edit that stays on wikiHow improves its overall quality."

"The wikiHow community thinks of wikiHow as a second home," Herrick tells us. "Within wikiHow they accomplish tasks, organize, clear lists of things to do, and socialize with like minded people. The people who contribute on our site pride themselves deeply in the work they do. It is hard for some people to imagine why people would dedicate so much time and do so much work when they are not being compensated financially. But, it is often financial compensation that muddies people’s motivations to accomplish goals. (See Daniel Pink’s book ‘Drive’ if you are curious to learn more about how money can pollute motivation.) Each individual in our community completes tasks because it satisfies them on a deep personal level. As an analogy, every individual prides himself on something different –  like taking great care of their dogs, fine tuning their snowboarding skills, learning to play an instrument, or being artistic. The people on wikiHow pride themselves on building and maintaining the best online how to manual they can. As a result, they take quality very seriously."

"The wiki itself is a busy place, sort of like a busy city, where people are all doing different jobs that make the city function," Herrick continues. "There are tons of activities that people can do, some of which are quite social, all which help the wiki become better. Some examples are: categorizing articles, curating images, selecting videos, expanding articles, clearing out lists of articles that need attention, fact checking, answering how-to requests, writing articles, copyediting, formatting, reviewing edits, etc."

"One of these jobs is wikiHow’s first layer of defense against bad edits," he says. "Typically within an hour of an edit being made, a volunteer wikiHow editor reviews the edit in an app called Recent Changes Patrol. Think of Recent Changes Patrol as a social app that helps volunteer editors review edits made by other contributors."

Herrick says volunteers review edits one at a time, and that they take one of the following four actions:

1. Improve an edit: Editors make quick changes to fix grammar errors or polish obtuse text.

2. Rollback vandalism and nonsense. Open editing attracts a fair amount of ludicrous edits. Fortunately, volunteer editors typically revert such nonsense within minutes. This is where the ‘I like cheese’ edit would get addressed.

3. Mark the edit as patrolled without changing it.

4. Leave a message for the editor asking for further improvements or clarifications, or complimenting them on what a great job they did.

Here is what the Recent Patrol Patrol app looks like: 

"In the case of the edit you see here, this edit which smells like link building would almost certainly get rolled back," says Herrick. 

"While wikiHow has 300,000 registered users editing on the site, most of them are not active recent changes patrollers," he says. "This is probably a good thing! Typically on any given week less than 50 very dedicated patrollers will do the majority of the work. The power patrollers do a heck of a lot though: the top patrollers will review thousands of edits each week. They get a lot of satisfaction out of the work they do. And, as you can imagine, wikiHow also has a system to patrol the patrollers to make sure they are doing a good job. If not, they will receive coaching."

There are still more layers of quality control. A second layer, he says is a watchlist system that notifies people via email (and on wikiHow) when an article they are following gets changed. 

"When a person starts an article, they’re given the option to get notified whenever it gets edited," he explains. "On top of that, anyone can watch any page on wikiHow, whether they wrote it or not. So, when a page gets edited poorly, it’s likely that someone subscribing to watchlist emails will fix the page when they check their inbox."

"A third layer of quality control is a system called accuracy patrol," he says. "Like many websites, we ask our readers to flag articles for accuracy. When we get a certain ratio of reader flags, we place the problem articles on a list for further review and improvement from editors."

While plenty of details here given here, Herrick says all of this explanation really only scratches the surface. "There is some mystery and magic to wikis that is difficult to capture in a brief description," he says. 

Do you think the system i working? DuckDuckGo, obviously thinks it works pretty well, considering they’re using wikiHow content as instant answers in their search engines. More on that from DuckDuckGo founder Gabriel Weinberg here.

By the way, at 11:17, as I’m about to click publish on this story, the page I edited still says, "I like Cheese."

Update at 11:45: It’s now back to normal as of sometime in the last few minutes. Under two hours. Not too bad. It’s hard to say with any certainty that this article didn’t play a role, however.

"Each resolution has a ‘work-in-progress’ wiki page that provides basic information, including when it was approved, what it’s about, the status of the resulting implementation actions, and links to additional information," the organization explains. "Each wiki page contains a comment box to allow individuals to share information about the resolution and its implementation."

ICANN is encouraging people to use the wiki and provide feedback in order to make it more useful. Any comments received will be put into an archive, and made publicly available.

ICANN says it will consider and incorporate public comments, as appropriate, in the build-out of the wiki. Currently, the 2009 resolutions are loaded on the wiki, as to generate public feedback that can get it started. Improvements will be made from there.

The wiki should make for a good venue for the public to contribute its input. Of course if the public doesn’t like the wiki, they can let that be known as well.

The "ENGAGEMENTdb study" shows that companies who measured as having "the greatest breadth and depth of social media engagement" grew revenues by 18% over the last year, while the companies that were the least engaged dropped 6% on average.

"This is the first study of this depth on the top global brands and we think the results provide a good guide for corporations and brand marketers in every industry," says Charlene Li, Founder, Altimeter Group. "The success stories we have uncovered provide a blueprint for companies making decisions about how to best apply their marketing and consumer relations resources."

Channels taken into consideration for the study were:

- Blogs
- Facebook
- Twitter
- Wikis
- Discussion Forums

Brands looked at were the 100 most valuable ones as identified by the 2008 BusinessWeek/Interbrand Best Global Brands ranking. In case you were wondering what the top ten brands are according to the ENGAGEMENTdb study, they are as follows:

1. Starbucks
2. Dell
3. eBay
4. Google
5. Microsoft
6. Thomson Reuters
7. Nike
8. Amazon
9. SAP
10. Yahoo!/Intel (Tie)

So what are these brands doing right?

According to Wetpaint and the Altimeter Group, the companies that scored well have dedicated teams (of varying sizes) who are active in the social media channels they utilize. Basically, it shows that it pays (literally) to have a team working full time on engaging with customers via social media. Even if that team consists of one person, it means they will not be distracted by other tasks and can give the social channel the attention required for it to make a significant impact.

As the social web continues to grow (meaning more people joining social networks, more people blogging, and more sites becoming social), there is a growing number of channels that require said attention.

"The ENGAGEMENTdb study goes a long way towards validating the importance of social media for business," says Ben Elowitz, CEO of Wetpaint. "The closer any company is to its customers, the better, and it’s hard to argue with the ability for social media to create such proximity. In this day and age, companies should feel much more comfortable investing in social media — the correlation to results is so clear."

It is in fact that clarity that many companies have had a hard time seeing in the past. Social media is still in its early stages though really. In the grand scheme of things, it’s still a relatively new concept. Keep in mind, that many businesses still do not even have websites, let alone a social media presence.

It is going to take studies like this and concrete data showing the financial benefits for more small businesses to truly get on board and engage. Having dedicated teams is a strategy that will likely become more commonplace as companies realize that half-assing it is just a waste of time.

A couple of other highlights from the study:

- The study found that the most successful teams evangelize social media across the entire organization to pull in a broad range of stakeholders.

- These companies view social media as an indispensable tool to help them achieve results, and their approach is conversational.

Along with the study, the ENGAGEMENTdb site was launched as a tool where companies can measure themselves against the top 100 in terms of the strength of their social media efforts. It’s probably not a bad idea to take a look if you’re serious about those efforts.

Would you focus more effort on social media if you knew it would increase your bottom line? Do you think the study holds water? Please share your thoughts.

For those unfamiliar with PBwiki whose CEO Jim Groff formerly worked for Oracle and Apple, it is a commercial wiki site said to be named after the concept that making a wiki should be as easy as making a peanut butter sandwich.

"Mobile access is the new reality for the enterprise," PBwiki VP of Enterprise Marketing Chris Yeh tells WebProNews. "Whether we like it or not, we’re living in an iPhone and Blackberry world.  Every executive and every young worker has one, and now that they’ve experience the power of ubiquitous access, they expect it from all their mission-critical apps."

"Our customers let us know in no uncertain terms that collaboration shouldn’t stop at the desktop or laptop, and that they needed mobile access to their PBwikis," added Yeh. "PBwiki Mobile Edition empowers them to fully access online collaboration through their wiki anywhere they go, accelerating the speed of business."

The mobile version of PBwiki lets users:

- View existing content
- Search through all pages and files
- Comment on existing pages
- Create new pages and enter text content
- Download files for local use

"We’re always focused on helping teams be more productive and efficient," says Groff. "When our customers started pointing out how a mobile solution would improve employee productivity, creating PBwiki Mobile Edition was a natural next step. Our focus was to take PBwiki’s strengths–speed, elegance, and ease-of-user–and carry them over into the mobile world."

With mobile Internet and app use on the rise, it seems everyone is looking to get in on the smartphone revolution (smartly). Google even added an iPhone views segment to Google Analytics recently. Major computer manufacturers are poised to increase the competition in the smartphone space, and once that takes off, the offering of smartphone-compatible sites will simply be a must.

No special URL or configuration is needed to use PBwiki Mobile Edition. Users need only enter their regular URL. It will automatically recognize that it is being viewed on a smartphone.

Dealipedia is, as its name probably led you to guess, a wiki.  Entries about business arrangements list details like company names, dates, and dollar amounts.  Those oh-so-wordy press releases are even tossed in on occasion to provide another perspective.

As with any new social site, there are some gaps, but users could fill them up over time.  Our main concern is if there’ll be users.

Dealipedia’s founder, Michael Robertson, points out that someone may need to read a lot of news articles to thoroughly research a business deal.  The average person isn’t likely to need (or want) complete knowledge, however, and members of the press can usually use the commercial databases he later mentions.

The one key feature could be Dealipedia’s search engine.  With its ability to sort by just about every category the site tracks, it’s considerably more useful than many of the things we’ve seen elsewhere.  Resounding success may not be in Dealipedia’s future, but it may have found decent footing within this business development niche.