homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.211.95.201
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Become a Pro Member

Home / Forums Index / Google / Google News Archive
Forum Library, Charter, Moderator: open

Google News Archive Forum

    
Why can't search engines list results by date?
Instead of relevance?
HughMungus




msg:206221
 5:04 pm on Oct 22, 2003 (gmt 0)

If I want to find an article about something but want to find the most-recent article/mention, why can't I order the results based on the date on the web page or the date the page was originally published or something?

 

TheDave




msg:206222
 11:24 pm on Oct 22, 2003 (gmt 0)

How about google news? That lets you sort news articles by date, most recent first. Admittedly, it is only news sites that you get returned.

miles




msg:206223
 11:28 pm on Oct 22, 2003 (gmt 0)

Thats simple. Information 4 years old is more gooder than the information you have on your site or that I have on my site.

There is an intentional grammitical error.

caine




msg:206224
 11:30 pm on Oct 22, 2003 (gmt 0)

> most-recent article/mention

from a educational article point of view i agree. From a commercial point of view - no way!

NFFC




msg:206225
 11:32 pm on Oct 22, 2003 (gmt 0)

Like this?

[google.com...]

caine




msg:206226
 11:34 pm on Oct 22, 2003 (gmt 0)

NFFC,

i like it SIR, it's Stylish, it's Cool, and reminds me a little to think it's Just you!

DaveN




msg:206227
 11:41 pm on Oct 22, 2003 (gmt 0)

I Prefer this

[google.com...]

DaveN

caine




msg:206228
 11:44 pm on Oct 22, 2003 (gmt 0)

Dave,

thats just selling yourselve short. try this:
[google.com...]

1330 posts, does that mean the other 300 posts are a load of rubbish

bakedjake




msg:206229
 11:46 pm on Oct 22, 2003 (gmt 0)

caine -
try this:

ROFL - check out the lone AdWord on that one.

caine




msg:206230
 11:49 pm on Oct 22, 2003 (gmt 0)

68.6 million - now that's a domain that can make someone money!

HughMungus




msg:206231
 12:18 am on Oct 23, 2003 (gmt 0)

Thats simple. Information 4 years old is more gooder than the information you have on your site or that I have on my site.

You'd think that the durability of a page of information would, in fact, make it more relevant. But that's not always the case. Still, I can understand your point.

HughMungus




msg:206232
 12:19 am on Oct 23, 2003 (gmt 0)

Like this?

<aside>Note to self: RTFM.</aside>

caine




msg:206233
 12:20 am on Oct 23, 2003 (gmt 0)

durability is not a case for top ranking, nor is anything - except the page deserving the top rank because it can deliver the searcher what they want!

Chndru




msg:206234
 1:20 am on Oct 23, 2003 (gmt 0)

Like this?
[google.com...]

In the above URL, changing the date to either 3 months or 6 months or a year doesn't produce significant changes is the number of search results found...

Google help says
Date: restrict your results to the past three, six, or twelve months.

i am not exactly sure how to interpret these results.

ogletree




msg:206235
 2:41 am on Oct 23, 2003 (gmt 0)

Return web pages updated in the last 3 months or 6 months or 12 months.

Most pages on WW get changed every day. Every post I have ever made gets changed every time I make a post(post count). Google thinks that that page has been changed. The only pages that don't change are pages that have only posts from people that no longer post. That would explain why 3, 6, or 12 months has about the same amount of posts for WW.

All that feature does is list all the pages that have not had any change whatsoever in the last 3 months. Not sites that have new content. It really is quite worthless for most searches. Completly worthless for WW searches.

Chndru




msg:206236
 1:14 pm on Oct 23, 2003 (gmt 0)

Not sites that have new content.

Oh..i was implicitly assuming that. So, is there anyway to factor in the content change?

HughMungus




msg:206237
 5:22 pm on Oct 23, 2003 (gmt 0)

All that feature does is list all the pages that have not had any change whatsoever in the last 3 months. Not sites that have new content. It really is quite worthless for most searches. Completly worthless for WW searches.

This is what I was wondering about. It would be nice to have some sort of original publish date to be able to sort results by OPD so you can (for example) find the most-recent articles instead of the most-linked-to articles (for the stuff that won't appear in Google News).

dirkz




msg:206238
 7:11 pm on Oct 23, 2003 (gmt 0)

It would also be helpful to see at a glance when the page was indexed, not only sometimes when a fresh tag is given.

Chndru




msg:206239
 7:16 pm on Oct 23, 2003 (gmt 0)

find the most-recent articles instead of the most-linked-to articles

Good point HughMungus. This is supposed to be accomplished by the Date sort in Google. What date would you use to sort the results? How much change is enough to call it updated?

ogletree




msg:206240
 7:45 pm on Oct 23, 2003 (gmt 0)

I really wish WW search could be sorted by first post date.

Chndru




msg:206241
 7:58 pm on Oct 23, 2003 (gmt 0)

first post date.

How will a text analyzer understand the first post date? What about the articles that have no date on them? Also, there are numerous ways to represent date. At the first cut, this looks like a nightmare to me.

HughMungus




msg:206242
 5:46 am on Oct 24, 2003 (gmt 0)

Good point HughMungus. This is supposed to be accomplished by the Date sort in Google. What date would you use to sort the results? How much change is enough to call it updated?

What I mean is, if an article is published on a certain date, say, 5 years ago but the web page itself is updated (say, they change templates or something), I'd love to be able to still sort the articles/sites by the date the article was first published instead of when the web page was published. Maybe there could be a special tag or something. I dunno.

HughMungus




msg:206243
 5:49 am on Oct 24, 2003 (gmt 0)

I really wish WW search could be sorted by first post date.

This is one of the reasons I thought of this desire. Technology changes rapidly and what was best practice last year might have been superceded by something better since and I'd like to know what the latest word on something is rather than have to visit each site to find out how old the information is.

vitaplease




msg:206244
 6:18 am on Oct 24, 2003 (gmt 0)

Was hoping [webmasterworld.com] for the same HughMungus,

I think Google wants to heavily increase its frequent and deep spidering first.

If my PR2 site adds a new page with a new original story, which is copied by a PR8 site adding a new page.

Which page will turn up on a search for that content limited to the last week?

Frequent spidering is the key, which is why they limit it to Google News IMO.
A newspaper can copy original content as well without sourcing, but at least you know your searching within a limited set of specific type pages.

Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / Google / Google News Archive
rss feed

All trademarks and copyrights held by respective owners. Member comments are owned by the poster.
Home ¦ Free Tools ¦ Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About ¦ Library ¦ Newsletter
WebmasterWorld is a Developer Shed Community owned by Jim Boykin.
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved