That maybe a true statement, but it's also an ultimately irrelevant one.
The "clean" or "best" or "pure" solution is rarely the one that's the most popular, or most used, etc. Take your same language example -- more software is written in C, C++, and Java than in Lisp or OCAML, at least outside of academia.
I dunno that hardware as the profit stream (with the software bundled) is the way to go, in the long term -- it has certainly worked for Sun in the past, though. Ask yourself who has the better profit margin -- Microsoft, the OS and (some of the) applications provider, or Dell, Gateway, HP, etc. who bundle MS software with their hardware?
"Um, I'm going to have to go ahead and disagree with you there, yeah."
Maybe it's approaching saturation in South Korea, but there's still a LOT of room to grow in the US (which *IS* the locale we're talking about here, right?).
The US is still something like *5th* in the world in per-capita broadband access -- behind South Korea, Japan, Canada (and, if 5th is right, a player to be named later because I can't remember who it is).
Yet ideas can be claimed and protected, through patents, copyright, trademarks, etc.
Um, no. Creative expression can be copyrighted. Brand/company identifiers can be trademarked. Inventions -- methods, devices, etc. -- that implement one or more new, innovative, and non-obvious ideas can be patented.
An abstract idea can only be protected by keeping it secret.
Yes, but one of the other links in the blurb is a News.com story which says that the Eolas patent was also ordered to be re-examined.
The same article also says Eolas is a 'one man software company', which is news to me though not very surprising. "Software Company" is a misspelling of "litigation engine" I guess...
I might agree if they're talking about XP Home Edition -- since that's obviously targeted at users/machines not on a corporate network.
But I'd disagree when it comes to XP Pro (or 2k, 2k server, server 2k3, etc.), since they're targeted at corporate users but have non-trivial numbers of home users as well. It's perfectly reasonable to have the service on by default if you expect most of the product's users to be in a corporate environment where the service was intended to be useful (and reasonably shielded from external attackers like this extorting spam company via firewalls).
It's not clear whether MS is turning it to 'off by default' for Home, Pro, or what, or whether it was already off by default for Home.
On a more general note, consider the possibility of culpability simply because the service doesn't care who pushes messages through it. There are parallels to SMS and (to a lesser extent) Bluetooth.
In general, I'd argue against implementors/providers of these services being culpable for negligence damages, because it would weigh a little too heavily on the 'stifle innovation' side of the spectrum (with 'stifle innovation' on one end and 'protect the consumer from malicious users of a service' on the other).
Well, I was thinking in terms of 6 month/1 year contract positions (for development and testing), not temp agencies for daily and short-term style work.
After the article was posted and I had a chance to re-read it, it sounds like the latter is what this story is about.
K, read the reposted article (since the log was/.'d by the time the article showed up:/), and it sounds like 'merely' a questionable judgement call on the part of MS Security.
As the guy said, he thought he took sufficient steps to make it a 'safe' pic/commentary, but they disagreed.
Still, the details make the headline sensationalist at best.
I think there's more to this story we're not getting told.
Why would MS care if someone talks about MS buying Macs on their weblog?
1) MS *does* still provide software on the Mac -- Office if nothing else. That means they need Mac hardware to test on (yeah yeah, joke about MS and testing, but seriously).
2) Even if they DO care about being seen buying Macs, it's a frickin' weblog. This wasn't a videocap that got shown on CNN or something...
So, I'm betting this *temp* employee (which is actually a rarity at MS to begin with) was fired for some other reason. He obviously has a legitimate wrongful dismissal case if he was *told* he was fired for blogging about some Macs...
I've been waiting for a game to include a better player bounty system.
Obviously, it couldn't be as simple as 'bounty' -- as in, killing the target. But having a game mechanic for players to create 'needs' and for other players to accept the mission(s) to complete them, would be very cool.
A couple games are starting to at least scratch the surface on this as far as crafting goes -- like SWG's bazaar and vendors (I know, they didn't do it first, but it's the most recent first-hand example I'm drawing from). The flip side -- *ordering* specific items -- isn't quite there yet.
Add similar capabilities for finding items, killing creatures, finding/capturing/killing players, maybe have the game generate source material for these in the forms of wandering monsters, etc.
I agree that if there's a solution, player 'driven' if not necessarily 'generated' content is going to be a key part of it. Unfortunately, I don't see much if any such mechanics in the works for the next batch of releases, WoW included.
...as far as I'm concerned, anyway. I'm in the last stages of burning out on SWG big-time. As usual, that's more depressing than surprising, I knew going in that they'd have to really bust ass to keep me interested beyond a month. Considering how many other 39.99 or 49.99 games have only held my attention for a month or two, though, that's not a terrible thing, just another bad game to stack beside the various bad games and bad movies that come and go between the rarer good stuff.
I also share the author's hope that World of Warcraft will actually BE DIFFERENT than the mass-multi's we've seen so far. I sum up my feeling on that as: "If anyone can do it, Blizzard can".
But that still leaves me wondering *if* anyone can. I mean, how can the content creators ever hope to keep up with the powergamers? It takes 10 or even 100 times as long to create a robust, interesting, and distinctive quest or mission as it does for a typical player to complete it (at least, that's the sort of numbers game developers have tossed out when asked). Solutions like EQ epic quests aren't the answer, because they force the player to join enormous guilds in order to access significant amounts of the game's content, forces an amount of play (in terms of per session and per day or week) that is more than many players can afford to give.
So, have the releases thus far been unable to keep it fresh and interesting because of incompetence or poor design choices (as the author claims), or is actually an unsolvable problem?
I didn't say you *can*, just that you *could* implement a client of the WebDAV protocol.
In a more general sense, you can (given sufficient motivation and intelligence) write your own front-end to any web-based mail service. Some are clearly harder than others, and some will (or will SOON if not already) require effort that the service would likely perceive to be reverse engineering -- if they get sufficiently obfuscated in their attempts to replace their web front ends. I've seen at least one business model that offers this capability as a sort of 'mail aggregator' (my term, not theirs). It does the proprietary stuff to get mail from any service you want, and serves it to you via IMAP: http://new.izymail.com/imo_default.aspx
Note that I'm not plugging this service -- 21 bucks a year isn't worth it to me. I wouldn't want to trust business mail through a 3rd party service like this either (though if you're talking business over Hotmail or Yahoo Mail, it's a little late to talk about security). But at least one company believes there's a revenue opportunity in bridging the gap between free email providers and rich email clients.
I guess real question is whether someone has, or will provide, an end user application or service/daemon that provides the same sort of capabilities, or whether email client projects like Thunderbird will eventually incorporate these features themselves. As it stands, the barriers seem to be more legal than technical.
That wouldn't work, because the author is proposing that the paid relayer sign the message before sending it to you. They can fake the source address easily, but spoofing their certificate is much harder -- not impossible, but impractical to do on any significant scale.
That certainly addresses the technical aspects of it, but there's still the bit about "many users do not like to be "watched" as they type, as their typing errors and incomplete thoughts are transmitted before they can be corrected."
Wonders never cease, I decided to continue Reading The Frickin' Article, and found some useful tidbits.
"Unlike telephonic communication, when participants know that a person is speaking, participants in an instant messaging session do not know that somebody is preparing a message for transmission. Without a cue that the other person is transmitting information, it is difficult to have a smooth conversational flow. One mechanism that addresses this problem is employed by a UNIX "talk" program, which performs a character-by-character transmission of an instant message. That is, each time individual types of a single character on the computer keyboard, that character is transmitted to all other participants in the instant messaging session. Because other participants are essentially watching the person type, there are clear cues that a user is "talking."
However, this approach has several limitations. First, character-by-character transmission greatly increases the flow of network traffic because each character requires one or more data packets to be sent to each participant in the instant messaging session. In addition, many users do not like to be "watched" as they type, as their typing errors and incomplete thoughts are transmitted before they can be corrected. Finally, message recipients are often distracted by watching the flickering screen in which characters appear one time as a complete message is formed. Therefore, it can be appreciated that there is a significant need for a system and method that will provide the desired notification of user activity in a computer network. The present invention provides this, and other advantages, as will be apparent from the following detailed description and accompanying figures."
So the claimed innovation here is simplifying real-time, continuous updates by just sending activity updates. Hmm. I'm not sure that really passes the tests for either "obvious" or actually "innovative", but at least they address talk.
As shown in the PTO hyperlink in the article, "This is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/359,337, entitled "System and Method for Activity Monitoring and Reporting in a Computer Network," filed on Jul. 21, 1999 now, U.S. Pat. No. 6,519,639."
On a personal note, there is CLEARLY prior art --as others have said talk/ytalk had this. Heck, a direct modem connection with a friend and seeing each other type exhibits this behavior even though that's hard to lump under the context of "An IM session".
This really feels like a defensive patent, not something they could turn around and sue AOL or Yahoo (or even Trillian or Jabber) over.
Except Google's results DID contain the search terms -- it's just that some of them weren't the literal search phrase. I would think the advanced options include a way to specify you want only the 'exact' terms, but I haven't ever felt the need so I can't say for sure. Have you checked the advanced search page?
The difference seems to be what Google considers a match vs. what AltaVista does (with the default options for both, of course).
This is an example of a search that, for you at least, it wasn't as good as another search engine (alternatively, it wasn't good enough for you -- however you want to characterize it).
So one bad search, and now Google isn't good at searching?
I think you may be over-generalizing just a tad.
As I said (and keep saying) it really REALLY depends on what exactly you're searching for, and how easily that can be translated into a search term or terms for a given engine. IMHO, Google is popular because, for most users, it is very good at finding them meaningful results with fairly basic search terms (and default options, hence the basic search page being little more than the basic input and a go button).
Are you honestly claiming that some other engine (e.g. Altavista) has NOTHING but relevant results, and that you use Google just because it has more (but noisier) results? I find that hard to believe. Like I said, the premise I'm basing my case on is this: You're searching for a single page, or a handful of pages, relating to your search terms. I still submit that Google is generally better at doing this than the other engines out there.
Google's design premise, and one which MOST people like for MOST searches, is that it is NOT just a pattern-matcher, and that it does NOT simply show you the webpages with the most or best match to your search request.
It *also* considers how popular each "hit" page is, in terms of how many other webpages out there link to the page in question. It also does other things that I'm sure they haven't divulged, to (for example) stymie attempts to inflate the page ranking of your own site by creating other dummy sites that link to it, etc.
Google (and really any modern search engine) try to find what you're looking for, which (more often than not) cannot be simply summed up with a few search terms. If you want something less... presumptuous (though 'helpful' is the term I'd use), pick a different search engine.
I don't really know what the obsession with 100% results is.
In my mind, finding one or more results that *gives me what I'm looking for* on the first page is "success", and pretty much anything else is failure.
As I was saying elsewhere in this thread, searching for a phrase merely to see what pages have the phrase isn't something I'd normally do. What I might be doing is searching for the origin of the phrase "to be or not to be" (though hopefully most Westerners out there at least don't need a website for that, you should know it by the time you graduate High School...).
Or I'm trying to find out if something I've seen or heard is legitimate or an urban legend (e.g. "pictures of hurrican isabel" or "man predicts future on stock market!"). If one of the first page's results clearly *answers my question*, that's what I consider important.
I guess a higher percentage of results might help if you're doing academic research, or some other situation where you need many relevant results, not just one or an authoritative one.
See my post above. I never claimed Google would produce 10/10 pages with *the quote* in them, merely that Google was more likely to have more relevant results. The other two pages had the OTHER two search terms that *I* used in my linked search -- check the link.
Your premise, as I understand it, is that the presence of the search phrase in the result is THE most important thing.
I submit that this is generally NOT the case -- that usually, the user is searching for something ABOUT a phrase -- it's origin, whether it's legit or not (e.g. searches that end up on Snopes), things like that.
I guess it really comes down to what you're looking for. IMHO, your criteria of JUST "pages with the phrase" is a peculiar and unusual example, but hey, maybe that's just me. I'd usually include a term or two to give context of WHY i'm searching for a phrase, and for those sorts of searches, Google still does a wonderful job (again, in my personal experience).
Actually, I observed those two, but noticed that 8/10 webpages still had the exact quoted phrase.
I added terms to the search -- phrase and origin; those other two results both contain BOTH of those words, and leave out the rest.
Bug? How do you algorithmically weigh this stuff in a way that can determine which of the search terms is so important that it should be in all of the initial results to the exclusion of the others?
"to be", "or", and "not" are all very very common words in any meaningful index, while "phrase" and "origin" are much less common and thus likely to be more useful in the search.
It's all a game of numbers. I suppose a more complex front-end could let you weigh your interest in your search terms or something, but most people would instead simply leave out the less-important terms. I included them to see if adding them would improve the relevance of the results (I initially assumed the parent poster was interested in in the origin of the phrase, not just its occurrence).
Slashdot Mirror
That maybe a true statement, but it's also an ultimately irrelevant one.
The "clean" or "best" or "pure" solution is rarely the one that's the most popular, or most used, etc. Take your same language example -- more software is written in C, C++, and Java than in Lisp or OCAML, at least outside of academia.
I dunno that hardware as the profit stream (with the software bundled) is the way to go, in the long term -- it has certainly worked for Sun in the past, though. Ask yourself who has the better profit margin -- Microsoft, the OS and (some of the) applications provider, or Dell, Gateway, HP, etc. who bundle MS software with their hardware?
Xentax
Broadband has reached market saturation?
"Um, I'm going to have to go ahead and disagree with you there, yeah."
Maybe it's approaching saturation in South Korea, but there's still a LOT of room to grow in the US (which *IS* the locale we're talking about here, right?).
The US is still something like *5th* in the world in per-capita broadband access -- behind South Korea, Japan, Canada (and, if 5th is right, a player to be named later because I can't remember who it is).
Xentax
Yet ideas can be claimed and protected, through patents, copyright, trademarks, etc.
Um, no. Creative expression can be copyrighted. Brand/company identifiers can be trademarked. Inventions -- methods, devices, etc. -- that implement one or more new, innovative, and non-obvious ideas can be patented.
An abstract idea can only be protected by keeping it secret.
Xentax
Yes, but one of the other links in the blurb is a News.com story which says that the Eolas patent was also ordered to be re-examined.
The same article also says Eolas is a 'one man software company', which is news to me though not very surprising. "Software Company" is a misspelling of "litigation engine" I guess...
Xentax
I might agree if they're talking about XP Home Edition -- since that's obviously targeted at users/machines not on a corporate network.
But I'd disagree when it comes to XP Pro (or 2k, 2k server, server 2k3, etc.), since they're targeted at corporate users but have non-trivial numbers of home users as well. It's perfectly reasonable to have the service on by default if you expect most of the product's users to be in a corporate environment where the service was intended to be useful (and reasonably shielded from external attackers like this extorting spam company via firewalls).
It's not clear whether MS is turning it to 'off by default' for Home, Pro, or what, or whether it was already off by default for Home.
On a more general note, consider the possibility of culpability simply because the service doesn't care who pushes messages through it. There are parallels to SMS and (to a lesser extent) Bluetooth.
In general, I'd argue against implementors/providers of these services being culpable for negligence damages, because it would weigh a little too heavily on the 'stifle innovation' side of the spectrum (with 'stifle innovation' on one end and 'protect the consumer from malicious users of a service' on the other).
Xentax
Well, I was thinking in terms of 6 month/1 year contract positions (for development and testing), not temp agencies for daily and short-term style work.
After the article was posted and I had a chance to re-read it, it sounds like the latter is what this story is about.
K, read the reposted article (since the log was /.'d by the time the article showed up :/), and it sounds like 'merely' a questionable judgement call on the part of MS Security.
As the guy said, he thought he took sufficient steps to make it a 'safe' pic/commentary, but they disagreed.
Still, the details make the headline sensationalist at best.
Xentax
I think there's more to this story we're not getting told.
Why would MS care if someone talks about MS buying Macs on their weblog?
1) MS *does* still provide software on the Mac -- Office if nothing else. That means they need Mac hardware to test on (yeah yeah, joke about MS and testing, but seriously).
2) Even if they DO care about being seen buying Macs, it's a frickin' weblog. This wasn't a videocap that got shown on CNN or something...
So, I'm betting this *temp* employee (which is actually a rarity at MS to begin with) was fired for some other reason. He obviously has a legitimate wrongful dismissal case if he was *told* he was fired for blogging about some Macs...
Xentax
A wacky way of saying "a billion tons".
Or, as they'd say on 'All Things Scottish', FRICKIN' HUGE!
Xentax
I've been waiting for a game to include a better player bounty system.
Obviously, it couldn't be as simple as 'bounty' -- as in, killing the target. But having a game mechanic for players to create 'needs' and for other players to accept the mission(s) to complete them, would be very cool.
A couple games are starting to at least scratch the surface on this as far as crafting goes -- like SWG's bazaar and vendors (I know, they didn't do it first, but it's the most recent first-hand example I'm drawing from). The flip side -- *ordering* specific items -- isn't quite there yet.
Add similar capabilities for finding items, killing creatures, finding/capturing/killing players, maybe have the game generate source material for these in the forms of wandering monsters, etc.
I agree that if there's a solution, player 'driven' if not necessarily 'generated' content is going to be a key part of it. Unfortunately, I don't see much if any such mechanics in the works for the next batch of releases, WoW included.
Xentax
...as far as I'm concerned, anyway. I'm in the last stages of burning out on SWG big-time. As usual, that's more depressing than surprising, I knew going in that they'd have to really bust ass to keep me interested beyond a month. Considering how many other 39.99 or 49.99 games have only held my attention for a month or two, though, that's not a terrible thing, just another bad game to stack beside the various bad games and bad movies that come and go between the rarer good stuff.
I also share the author's hope that World of Warcraft will actually BE DIFFERENT than the mass-multi's we've seen so far. I sum up my feeling on that as: "If anyone can do it, Blizzard can".
But that still leaves me wondering *if* anyone can. I mean, how can the content creators ever hope to keep up with the powergamers? It takes 10 or even 100 times as long to create a robust, interesting, and distinctive quest or mission as it does for a typical player to complete it (at least, that's the sort of numbers game developers have tossed out when asked). Solutions like EQ epic quests aren't the answer, because they force the player to join enormous guilds in order to access significant amounts of the game's content, forces an amount of play (in terms of per session and per day or week) that is more than many players can afford to give.
So, have the releases thus far been unable to keep it fresh and interesting because of incompetence or poor design choices (as the author claims), or is actually an unsolvable problem?
Xentax
I didn't say you *can*, just that you *could* implement a client of the WebDAV protocol.
In a more general sense, you can (given sufficient motivation and intelligence) write your own front-end to any web-based mail service. Some are clearly harder than others, and some will (or will SOON if not already) require effort that the service would likely perceive to be reverse engineering -- if they get sufficiently obfuscated in their attempts to replace their web front ends. I've seen at least one business model that offers this capability as a sort of 'mail aggregator' (my term, not theirs). It does the proprietary stuff to get mail from any service you want, and serves it to you via IMAP: http://new.izymail.com/imo_default.aspx
Note that I'm not plugging this service -- 21 bucks a year isn't worth it to me. I wouldn't want to trust business mail through a 3rd party service like this either (though if you're talking business over Hotmail or Yahoo Mail, it's a little late to talk about security). But at least one company believes there's a revenue opportunity in bridging the gap between free email providers and rich email clients.
I guess real question is whether someone has, or will provide, an end user application or service/daemon that provides the same sort of capabilities, or whether email client projects like Thunderbird will eventually incorporate these features themselves. As it stands, the barriers seem to be more legal than technical.
Xentax
I think he (?) is talking about Hotmail's WebDAV access. It can be reached with Outlook and (according to him at least) Outlook Express.
It's something any application could choose to implement AFAIK, but yes it's definitely NOT pop3 or IMAP.
IMO, it's also part of the reason Hotmail is more prone to being used in spamming, but that's another story.
Xentax
That wouldn't work, because the author is proposing that the paid relayer sign the message before sending it to you. They can fake the source address easily, but spoofing their certificate is much harder -- not impossible, but impractical to do on any significant scale.
Xentax
That certainly addresses the technical aspects of it, but there's still the bit about "many users do not like to be "watched" as they type, as their typing errors and incomplete thoughts are transmitted before they can be corrected."
Xentax
So the claimed innovation here is simplifying real-time, continuous updates by just sending activity updates. Hmm. I'm not sure that really passes the tests for either "obvious" or actually "innovative", but at least they address talk.
Xentax
As shown in the PTO hyperlink in the article, "This is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/359,337, entitled "System and Method for Activity Monitoring and Reporting in a Computer Network," filed on Jul. 21, 1999 now, U.S. Pat. No. 6,519,639."
On a personal note, there is CLEARLY prior art --as others have said talk/ytalk had this. Heck, a direct modem connection with a friend and seeing each other type exhibits this behavior even though that's hard to lump under the context of "An IM session".
This really feels like a defensive patent, not something they could turn around and sue AOL or Yahoo (or even Trillian or Jabber) over.
Xentax
Except Google's results DID contain the search terms -- it's just that some of them weren't the literal search phrase. I would think the advanced options include a way to specify you want only the 'exact' terms, but I haven't ever felt the need so I can't say for sure. Have you checked the advanced search page?
The difference seems to be what Google considers a match vs. what AltaVista does (with the default options for both, of course).
Xentax
"this example has shown it is not very good at"
This is an example of a search that, for you at least, it wasn't as good as another search engine (alternatively, it wasn't good enough for you -- however you want to characterize it).
So one bad search, and now Google isn't good at searching?
I think you may be over-generalizing just a tad.
As I said (and keep saying) it really REALLY depends on what exactly you're searching for, and how easily that can be translated into a search term or terms for a given engine. IMHO, Google is popular because, for most users, it is very good at finding them meaningful results with fairly basic search terms (and default options, hence the basic search page being little more than the basic input and a go button).
Are you honestly claiming that some other engine (e.g. Altavista) has NOTHING but relevant results, and that you use Google just because it has more (but noisier) results? I find that hard to believe. Like I said, the premise I'm basing my case on is this: You're searching for a single page, or a handful of pages, relating to your search terms. I still submit that Google is generally better at doing this than the other engines out there.
Xentax
It's not a bug, it's a feature.
... presumptuous (though 'helpful' is the term I'd use), pick a different search engine.
No, really.
Google's design premise, and one which MOST people like for MOST searches, is that it is NOT just a pattern-matcher, and that it does NOT simply show you the webpages with the most or best match to your search request.
It *also* considers how popular each "hit" page is, in terms of how many other webpages out there link to the page in question. It also does other things that I'm sure they haven't divulged, to (for example) stymie attempts to inflate the page ranking of your own site by creating other dummy sites that link to it, etc.
Google (and really any modern search engine) try to find what you're looking for, which (more often than not) cannot be simply summed up with a few search terms. If you want something less
Xentax
Yeah. Compare a search engine's ability to provide meaningful results with a company's ability to report its own financial situation.
:)
That makes sense.
Maybe your quote of me will show up attributed to Dan Quayle next?
Xentax
Yeah.
I don't really know what the obsession with 100% results is.
In my mind, finding one or more results that *gives me what I'm looking for* on the first page is "success", and pretty much anything else is failure.
As I was saying elsewhere in this thread, searching for a phrase merely to see what pages have the phrase isn't something I'd normally do. What I might be doing is searching for the origin of the phrase "to be or not to be" (though hopefully most Westerners out there at least don't need a website for that, you should know it by the time you graduate High School...).
Or I'm trying to find out if something I've seen or heard is legitimate or an urban legend (e.g. "pictures of hurrican isabel" or "man predicts future on stock market!"). If one of the first page's results clearly *answers my question*, that's what I consider important.
I guess a higher percentage of results might help if you're doing academic research, or some other situation where you need many relevant results, not just one or an authoritative one.
Xentax
See my post above. I never claimed Google would produce 10/10 pages with *the quote* in them, merely that Google was more likely to have more relevant results. The other two pages had the OTHER two search terms that *I* used in my linked search -- check the link.
Xentax
I think you're evading the key issue here.
Your premise, as I understand it, is that the presence of the search phrase in the result is THE most important thing.
I submit that this is generally NOT the case -- that usually, the user is searching for something ABOUT a phrase -- it's origin, whether it's legit or not (e.g. searches that end up on Snopes), things like that.
I just ran your search on altavista, like this.
Compared to Google, here.
I guess it really comes down to what you're looking for. IMHO, your criteria of JUST "pages with the phrase" is a peculiar and unusual example, but hey, maybe that's just me. I'd usually include a term or two to give context of WHY i'm searching for a phrase, and for those sorts of searches, Google still does a wonderful job (again, in my personal experience).
Xentax
Actually, I observed those two, but noticed that 8/10 webpages still had the exact quoted phrase.
I added terms to the search -- phrase and origin; those other two results both contain BOTH of those words, and leave out the rest.
Bug? How do you algorithmically weigh this stuff in a way that can determine which of the search terms is so important that it should be in all of the initial results to the exclusion of the others?
"to be", "or", and "not" are all very very common words in any meaningful index, while "phrase" and "origin" are much less common and thus likely to be more useful in the search.
It's all a game of numbers. I suppose a more complex front-end could let you weigh your interest in your search terms or something, but most people would instead simply leave out the less-important terms. I included them to see if adding them would improve the relevance of the results (I initially assumed the parent poster was interested in in the origin of the phrase, not just its occurrence).
Xentax