For information and reference only – not to be submitted as your own work.
This extract shows how a strong answer to the UCD COMP47420 “Exploring Search Operators for Investigations” task can be structured: a Bing operator table with investigative examples, a short comparison with Google, and a method-led approach to an OSINT records scenario. It accompanies the live brief on our COMP47420 Bing search operators question page. For the thinking behind each choice, read the companion article on how to approach the COMP47420 operators assignment in three pages.
One boundary is deliberate. The second question names a real, deceased public figure. This sample does not research that person or any relative and does not reproduce case findings. It shows only the method: which record types exist in Ireland, how to phrase searches, and how to corroborate and document results. You must run your own searches and report your own findings.
What this sample covers
The table maps the task to where it is handled below. Marks and word allocations are not stated in the material we reviewed beyond the 40% weighting and the three-page PDF limit, so the allocation column is a planning suggestion only.
| Task element | Suggested space (illustrative) | Where covered |
|---|---|---|
| Table of at least 12 Bing operators with description and investigative example | About 1 page | Question 1: operator table |
| Testing in Bing and noting differences from Google; at least two Bing-specific operators | About 0.4 page | Question 1: testing notes and unique operators |
| 100 to 150-word concluding paragraph on Bing versus Google for OSINT | 150 words | Question 1: conclusion |
| OSINT records scenario: record sources, operators used, search log | About 1.2 pages | Question 2: method template |
| Legal basis, ethics, referencing | About 0.3 page | Question 2: safeguards and References |
Model-answer extract
Question 1: Bing operators for investigative searching
The operators below follow Microsoft’s published list of advanced search keywords (Microsoft, 2026). Examples use generic subject matter and reserved or generic domains. None refers to a real individual. Every string should be run and its result recorded in your own testing log, because Bing’s behaviour changes without notice.
| Operator | Description | Example (law-enforcement context) |
|---|---|---|
| site: | Restricts results to a domain, top-level domain or directory. | Fraud: “invoice fraud” site:.ie to find Irish-domain warnings and advisories. |
| filetype: | Returns pages created in a stated file type. | Insider threat: “confidential” “customer list” filetype:xlsx site:example.com to test whether a company has exposed spreadsheets. |
| ext: | Returns pages with a given filename extension. | Cybercrime: “phishing kit” ext:zip to locate archives discussed in research write-ups. |
| intitle: | Term must appear in the page title. | Missing persons: intitle:”missing person” appeal site:.ie to locate appeal pages. |
| inbody: | Term must appear in the body text. | Fraud: inbody:”wire transfer” inbody:”urgent” “CEO fraud” to find case descriptions. |
| inanchor: | Term appears in the anchor text of links pointing to a page. | Cybercrime: inanchor:”free download” “crack” to identify pages promoted through suspicious links. |
| contains: | Returns sites that link to files of a stated type. | Insider threat: “project plans” contains:pdf site:example.com to find pages that link to documents. |
| ip: | Finds sites hosted at a given IP address (dotted quad). | Cybercrime: ip:203.0.113.10 (a documentation-range address) to list co-hosted sites during infrastructure mapping. |
| language: | Returns pages in a stated language. | Fraud: “romance scam” language:en to separate English-language warnings from other material. |
| loc: / location: | Returns pages from a stated country or region code. | Missing persons: “search appeal” (loc:IE OR loc:GB). |
| prefer: | Adds emphasis to a term without excluding other results. | Fraud: “investment scheme” prefer:warning. |
| url: | Checks whether a domain or address is in the Bing index. | Cybercrime: url:example.com to confirm whether a suspect domain has been indexed. |
| feed: / hasfeed: | Finds RSS or Atom feeds, or pages carrying a matching feed. | Monitoring: site:example.com hasfeed:”data breach” to find feeds that can be monitored. |
| Quotation marks, OR, minus | Exact phrase, alternatives, and exclusion. | Fraud: “fake invoice” OR “false invoice” -template to remove sample documents. |
Testing notes and Bing-specific operators
Test each string in Bing and in Google, and record the date, the query, the number of useful results in the first page and any failure. The Microsoft page states that no space should follow the colon and that some features may not be available in every country or region (Microsoft, 2026). Google’s help page documents quotation marks, site:, the minus sign, before: and after:, and filetype: (Google, 2026). It does not list inbody:, inanchor:, contains:, ip:, prefer:, hasfeed: or url:, so treat any Google equivalent as something to test rather than assume.
Three Bing-specific operators are worth highlighting. ip: supports infrastructure mapping, which suits cybercrime work. inanchor: exposes how other sites describe a target, which is useful when the page itself is clean. contains: finds pages that point to a file type, which helps when the file itself is not indexed. A note on honesty: operators such as ip: and contains: have been reported to behave inconsistently, and the Microsoft page carries no deprecation notice either way. Record what you actually observe and state that results may vary.
Conclusion: Bing versus Google for OSINT (about 130 words)
Bing’s documented keyword set is broader for structural queries. ip:, inanchor:, inbody:, contains: and loc: let an analyst probe hosting, link context and regional scope in ways Google’s published syntax does not describe. Google usually returns a larger, fresher index and stronger ranking, so it remains the first stop for general retrieval. For OSINT the two are complementary: Bing suits infrastructure and link-based discovery, Google suits breadth. Limitations apply to both. Operators can change without warning, results differ by region and personalisation, and neither engine shows content behind logins. Findings must therefore be reproduced, timestamped and corroborated before they inform any decision (Hassan and Hijazi, 2018; Williams and Blum, 2018).
Hire a Irish Assignment Writer to Write your Essay, Thesis & Other Academic Papers
Question 2: method for an OSINT records scenario
The scenario asks you to establish family, burial and residence details for a deceased individual. A model answer does not open with search strings. It opens with authority, purpose and scope, then moves through record types from most to least authoritative. The steps below are generic and carry no case findings.
Step 1: legal basis, purpose and audit trail
State why the enquiry is being made and under what authority. Personal data of the deceased and of living relatives is still sensitive. In Ireland the relevant framework is the GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018, including Part 5 on processing for law-enforcement purposes (Government of Ireland, 2018). Open the log before the first search: date, analyst, device, query, source URL, capture method.
Step 2: identify the record types that exist
| Record type | What it can show | Limitation to note |
|---|---|---|
| Civil registration indexes (irishgenealogy.ie) | Births, marriages, deaths for the covered years | The site’s death indexes are stated as running from 1864 to 1964, so a recent death will not appear there (Irish Genealogy, 2026a) |
| Cemetery and council burial registers | Grave reference and associated burial details, where the operator offers a search | Operators differ; some searches are pay-per-view and some local authorities offer free databases (Irish Genealogy, 2026b) |
| Newspaper archives and published death notices | Family relationships, funeral arrangements | Secondary sources; may contain errors or omissions |
| Official or court reporting | Context on events surrounding a death | Report only what is published; do not infer |
| Headstone transcript databases | Inscriptions, family groupings | Transcription errors are common |
Step 3: build operator-driven searches
Use templates, then replace the placeholders with the details of your own case. Examples:
- site:<council or cemetery domain> “burial register” to find the operator’s search service.
- “<full name>” intitle:”death notice” site:.ie to locate a published notice.
- “<full name>” “<area>” filetype:pdf (inbody:”interment” OR inbody:”funeral”) for scanned records or reports.
- “<full name>” -<common namesake term> to remove homonyms.
Search for one fact at a time. Keep a separate row in the log for each result, with the operator and the engine.
Step 4: verify and corroborate
Accept a fact only when two independent sources agree, for example a register entry and a contemporaneous notice. Where they conflict, report both and rank them by provenance. Name-sharing is the commonest failure; confirm identity through at least one non-name attribute. The Berkeley Protocol sets out the same discipline of preserving, verifying and documenting digital open-source material (OHCHR, 2022).
Step 5: ethics and proportionality
Collect only what the task requires, avoid contacting living relatives, and do not store or republish data beyond the assignment. State this restraint in your answer; markers reward it.
How to adapt this to your own submission
- Run every operator yourself and replace our examples with strings you have tested, with dates.
- Keep the Question 1 table to one page so Question 2 fits inside the three-page PDF limit.
- Write the 100 to 150-word conclusion last and count the words.
- Report only your own Question 2 findings, each with source and corroboration.
- Check the Moodle file-naming rule before upload, since the brief attaches a penalty to the wrong format.
- If you want support structuring your own work, use the assignment submission page.
Get Help from Native Assignment Writers to Write your Academic Paper
About the expert
Subject expert for this extract: 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
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).
Google (2026) Refine web searches. Available at: https://support.google.com/websearch/answer/2466433 (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 (2026a) Irish Genealogy: civil records and church records. Available at: https://www.irishgenealogy.ie/en/ (Accessed: 28 October 2026).
Irish Genealogy (2026b) Graveyards. Available at: https://IrishGenealogy.ie/en/irish-records-what-is-available/graveyards (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).
OHCHR (2022) Berkeley Protocol on Digital Open Source Investigations. New York and Geneva: United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. Available at: https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/3973652 (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).
