Javascript is required for this site to function, please enable.
SurveyMonkey.com - because knowledge is everything Logged in as "sc00000000"  Log Off 
You have a basic account. To remove the limits of a basic account and get unlimited questions, upgrade now!   
 
survey title:
Web Search API Survey  Edit Title
 current report: Add Report
chart  Response Summary 
Total Started Survey: 
10
Total Completed Survey: 
10  (100%)
Page: Default Section
1. Are you a regular user of search APIs?
 answered question10
 
skipped question
0
 Response
Percent
Response
Count
A few times
10.0%1
Semi-regularly, for research
40.0%4
Regularly, as part of my business
50.0%5
2. How many different search APIs have you used?
 answered question10
 
skipped question
0
 Response
Percent
Response
Count
Zero 0.0%0
One 0.0%0
More than one
100.0%10
3. Do you feel the need for the following features?
 answered question10
 
skipped question
0
 NeverRarelySometimesOftenResponse
Count
Express an unambiguous entity ID directly in your query, as against strings representing the entity, with a possibility of aliasing.20.0% (2)30.0% (3)30.0% (3)20.0% (2)10
Express a generic entity type (such as holiday destination, camera, organization, date, mileage, weight price) in the query that should be instantiated to an answer, rather than strings that encourage the answer entity to be present on a response page?0.0% (0)40.0% (4)60.0% (6)0.0% (0)10
Express a relation twig in the query, involving free variables, as in, $x is-a type:camera and money:300USD lt price($x) lt money:500USD.10.0% (1)40.0% (4)20.0% (2)30.0% (3)10
Implicit joins of entities across multiple pages, e.g., entity:Einstein is-a type:Physicist one one page vs. entity:Einstein played entity:Violin on another.0.0% (0)50.0% (5)40.0% (4)10.0% (1)10
Return entities, attributes, quantities, types etc. (from a suitable ID catalog) directly rather than full page URLs.10.0% (1)10.0% (1)40.0% (4)40.0% (4)10
Aggregate evidence from multiple pages to rank facts, associations, attribute values and relationships.0.0% (0)33.3% (3)33.3% (3)33.3% (3)9
Switch off the search engine's ranking function and sample results uniformly or in some specified biased manner.20.0% (2)10.0% (1)30.0% (3)40.0% (4)10
Get better access to match snippets with entity and metadata annotations.0.0% (0)10.0% (1)20.0% (2)70.0% (7)10
Enable sandboxed ranking functions that use scoring primitives from the search API provider.10.0% (1)20.0% (2)30.0% (3)40.0% (4)10
Enable sandboxed or shared annotation indexing architecture that enables you to inject annotations into the token stream that the search provider indexes.10.0% (1)20.0% (2)40.0% (4)30.0% (3)10
4. If you feel search APIs should be integrated with entity and type catalogs, which source/s would you find most practical to use?
 answered question10
 
skipped question
0
 Response
Percent
Response
Count
Wikipedia
80.0%8
CYC/OpenCYC 0.0%0
Some other catalog
10.0%1
Not applicable
10.0%1
5. What is your estimate of the disruption to the existing services and additional system investment needed to support all the features listed above (not just your choices)?
 answered question10
 
skipped question
0
 Response
Percent
Response
Count
Complete rewiring from the ground up.
10.0%1
Substantial additional code, but will not disturb current architecture.
60.0%6
Simple additional access path to features already mostly implemented.
20.0%2
Cannot estimate the impact.
10.0%1
6. Do your end applications justify the added complexity and cost of supporting the features you voted for? In other words, would you pay?
 answered question10
 
skipped question
0
 Response
Percent
Response
Count
No, but these are useful features if free.
20.0%2
Might pay through ad impressions only.
20.0%2
Might agree to profit sharing.
30.0%3
Yes, in cash.
30.0%3
Anti-Spam Policy Terms of Use Privacy Statement Opt Out/Opt In Contact Us We're Hiring!
Copyright ©1999-2009 SurveyMonkey.com.  All Rights Reserved.  No portion of this site may be copied without the express written consent of SurveyMonkey.com.  35
spacer