Quick answer: To score well on COMP47420, put a tested, dated table of at least twelve Bing operators on page one, add an honest Bing versus Google comparison with two Bing-specific operators, then use the remaining space for a documented, ethical method on the records scenario. Keep to three pages, follow the Moodle file-name rule and cite your sources.
You have a PDF capped at three pages, a table that must hold twelve operators with realistic investigative examples, a 100 to 150-word conclusion, and a second question about tracing public records for a deceased public figure. Page space runs out fast, and most students spend it in the wrong place. This guide explains what markers are likely to look for. The task itself is on our COMP47420 Bing search operators question page, and a worked extract is in our COMP47420 model-answer sample, which is for reference only.
Hire a Irish Assignment Writer to Write your Essay, Thesis & Other Academic Papers
What is the COMP47420 assignment really testing?
It is a UCD Postgraduate Certificate in Fraud and E-Crime Investigation module, at NFQ Level 9. The weighting is 40%. So the marker is not checking whether you can list operators; any cheat sheet does that. They are checking whether you can show investigative judgement: choosing the right operator for a given case type, testing it, and reporting what actually happened.
Three things separate a good answer from an average one.
- Evidence of testing. A dated query and an observed result beat a copied description.
- Realistic examples. Each example should fit a stated scenario such as fraud, cybercrime, missing persons or insider threat.
- Method discipline. Authority, logging, corroboration and data protection should appear without being asked.
Which Bing operators should go in the table?
Start from Microsoft’s own list rather than a blog post. The Bing advanced search keywords page documents contains:, ext:, filetype:, inanchor:, inbody:, intitle:, ip:, language:, loc:, prefer:, site:, feed:, hasfeed: and url:. That is fourteen, so twelve is easy. Add quotation marks, OR and minus as syntax if you have space, but do not count them as your headline operators.
| Operator group | Best investigative use | Risk to flag |
|---|---|---|
| site:, url: | Scope a search to one organisation or check whether a domain is indexed | Index presence does not prove activity |
| filetype:, ext:, contains: | Find exposed documents or pages linking to them | Accessing a document may raise legal questions; note it |
| intitle:, inbody:, inanchor: | Locate where a term sits on or around a page | Results vary by region and index freshness |
| ip: | Map sites sharing a server | Shared hosting produces unrelated sites |
| loc:, language:, prefer: | Narrow by place, language or emphasis | Prefer: ranks, it does not filter |
| feed:, hasfeed: | Find sources suitable for monitoring | Many sites no longer publish feeds |
How do you write examples that sound like real casework?
Name the offence type first, then the string. “Fraud: “invoice fraud” site:.ie” reads like an analyst’s note. “Search for scams” does not. Use generic subjects and example domains, and do not invent victims or suspects. For an IP example, use an address from a documentation range so you are not pointing at a real host.
Avoid examples that only a lucky search would satisfy. A marker will notice when a string is plausible on paper but would return nothing.
What counts as proof that you tested it?
Run each string in Bing and Google on the same day. Record the date, the query, a count of relevant hits on the first page, and any difference. Microsoft notes that no space should follow the colon and that some features may not be available everywhere. Google’s search refinement help lists quotation marks, site:, minus, before:, after: and filetype:. It does not list inbody:, inanchor:, ip: or contains:, so your honest finding may be that these have no documented Google counterpart.
Be candid about unreliability. Operators such as ip: and contains: are sometimes reported as inconsistent, and the Microsoft page carries no deprecation note. Say “tested on [date]; result was X”. That is stronger than a confident claim you cannot support.
Get Help from Native Assignment Writers to Write your Academic Paper
Bing versus Google: how should the concluding paragraph read?
The brief limits you to 100 to 150 words, so every sentence must carry a point. A workable pattern has four moves.
- State the difference: Bing’s documented syntax is wider for structure, link text and hosting.
- Give the advantage: infrastructure and link-context discovery.
- Give the limitation: index size, regional variation, undocumented behaviour changes.
- Close on practice: corroborate and timestamp.
Cite one or two sources. Williams and Blum (2018) set out why open-source collection needs structured definitions and processes; Hassan and Hijazi (2018) provide a practical guide to open-source methods and tools, and Bazzell (2023) is the standard practitioner reference for search technique.
| Weak conclusion | Strong conclusion |
|---|---|
| “Bing is better than Google for investigators.” | “Bing documents more structural operators, which suits infrastructure mapping; Google offers breadth.” |
| No limitations mentioned | Names regional variance and unstable behaviour |
| Over 150 words | Counted and trimmed |
How do you handle Question 2 without turning it into gossip?
The scenario involves a named, deceased public figure and asks for family, burial and residence details. Treat it as an investigative exercise with a method, and be careful with the living. Relatives are private individuals. Report only what your own sources show, label each item with its source, and avoid commentary.
A sensible structure runs in five parts.
- Authority and purpose. Say why the enquiry is made. Mention the GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018, including its law-enforcement provisions in Part 5.
- Record types. Civil registration, cemetery registers, newspaper notices and transcripts. Note limits: the irishgenealogy.ie death indexes are stated as running from 1864 to 1964, so a recent death needs a different source.
- Operator log. One row per search: engine, operator string, date, outcome.
- Corroboration. Two independent sources per fact.
- Restraint. No contact with relatives, no republication of personal data beyond the task.
We do not supply case findings for that scenario, and our sample deliberately shows method only. You need to run the searches yourself so that your log is genuine.
Mark-maximising checklist
- Twelve or more operators, each with description and a realistic example.
- At least two Bing-specific operators highlighted and explained.
- Dated test results for Bing and Google.
- Conclusion between 100 and 150 words.
- Q2 method with legal basis, logging, corroboration and ethics.
- Harvard references, in-text and listed.
- Three pages or fewer, as a PDF.
- File named exactly as the Moodle rule requires; the brief mentions a 10% deduction for the wrong format.
Common mistakes to avoid
- Copying a cheat sheet table with no testing evidence.
- Using real private people in examples.
- Writing a long Bing history and leaving too little space for Question 2.
- Claiming an operator works in Google without testing it.
- Presenting a single source as confirmed fact.
- Exceeding the page limit by shrinking the font; markers notice.
The page limit is the hardest part. A table with fourteen rows and examples will eat most of one page unless you use compact wording. Draft long, then cut.
Where does Dublin context help?
Examples tied to Irish domains (site:.ie), Irish agencies and Irish records make the answer feel local. If you are based in the city and want a subject specialist to look over structure, our Dublin assignment help page explains how support works.
FAQs
How many Bing operators do I need?
The brief asks for at least twelve. Fourteen are listed in Microsoft’s documentation, so choose those you have tested and can illustrate.
Which operators are unique to Bing?
Among those documented, ip:, inanchor:, inbody:, contains:, prefer: and hasfeed: have no entries on Google’s refinement help page. State that and say you tested.
Do ip: and contains: still work?
They can behave inconsistently. Test them, record the date and the result, and say so plainly.
Can I find the Question 2 details in irishgenealogy.ie?
Its death indexes are stated as covering 1864 to 1964, so a recent death would not appear there. Other record types, such as cemetery registers, may apply.
Should I include relatives’ names in my answer?
Only if your own lawful, sourced searches produce them and the task demands it. Treat relatives as private individuals and keep personal data to the minimum.
What happens if I get the file name wrong?
The brief states a 10% deduction for the wrong format, so check the Moodle instructions before uploading.
If you want a structured plan for your own submission, send your brief through the assignment submission page and we will advise on scope.
Buy 100% Plagiarism Free Assignment Papers & Get Good Grades
About the expert
Subject expert for this article: Patrick Walsh, whose profile shows a degree in Information Technology from the National University of Ireland and writing support across topics related to Information Technology.
References
Bazzell, M. (2023) OSINT techniques: resources for uncovering online information. 10th edn. Available at: https://inteltechniques.com/osintbook (Accessed: 28 October 2026).
Google (2026) Refine web searches. Available at: https://support.google.com/websearch/answer/2466433 (Accessed: 28 October 2026).
Government of Ireland (2018) Data Protection Act 2018, Number 7 of 2018. Available at: https://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2018/act/7/enacted/en/html (Accessed: 28 October 2026).
Hassan, N.A. and Hijazi, R. (2018) Open source intelligence methods and tools: a practical guide to online intelligence. Berkeley, CA: Apress. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4842-3213-2 (Accessed: 28 October 2026).
Irish Genealogy (2026) Irish Genealogy: civil records and church records. Available at: https://www.irishgenealogy.ie/en/ (Accessed: 28 October 2026).
Microsoft (2026) Advanced search keywords. Available at: https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/bing/advanced-search-keywords (Accessed: 28 October 2026).
Williams, H.J. and Blum, I. (2018) Defining second generation open source intelligence (OSINT) for the defense enterprise. RR-1964-OSD. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation. Available at: https://doi.org/10.7249/RR1964 (Accessed: 28 October 2026).
