+For each suspicious document we prepared all three types of queries during the first phase at once.\r
+Queries were executed stepwise. \r
+After processing each query the results were evaluated (see the following subsection~\ref{resSelection} for more details) and from\r
+all textual similarities between each result and the suspicious document, the suspicious document intervals of those similarities\r
+were marked as 'discovered'. \r
+At first the keywords based queries. All of the keywords based queries were\r
+always executed. \r
+After having all the keywords based queries processed, the intrinsic plagiarism based queries were executed according to \r
+their creation sequence. \r
+Since they carry its position not all of the intrinsic plagiarism based queries were caried out.\r
+During the execution, if any of the query position intersected with any of the 'discovered' interval, the\r
+query was dropped out. In the same way, the last paragraph based queries were processed. \r
+\r
+This search control results in two major properties. Firstly, the source retrieval effort were increased \r
+in parts of the suspicious document, where there have not yet been found any textual similarity.\r
+Especially by the paragraph based queries. And secondly, after detection a similarity for a certain part of the text,\r
+no more intentionally retrieval attempts for that part were effectuated. Meaning that all\r
+discovered search engine results were evaluated, but there were executed no more queries regarding that passage.\r