| 12:30 pm on Nov 11, 2004 (gmt 0)|
(fyi, this was posted about 8 billion times in the last 48...lol)
| 3:10 pm on Nov 11, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Look at the Google blog for info on the increased number of indexed pages.
| 3:34 pm on Nov 11, 2004 (gmt 0)|
As I see it, it is only supplemental results that have been added to the index. Comparing searches using
(where commonWord is a word that exists on every single page) I see exactly the same amount of pages returned when using AdSense for search, but nearly double the amount of pages returned a week ago, when using google.com.
| 4:05 pm on Nov 11, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Interesting timing... you don't suppose the Microsoft search engine launch had anything to do with it, do you?
| 4:07 pm on Nov 11, 2004 (gmt 0)|
naaaawwww, pure coincidence Roger. ;-)
Slashdot: Microsoft Releases New Engine
Google: (quietly shuffles up more pages)
Slashdot contingent: But Google's still better! They have twice as many pages!
| 4:14 pm on Nov 11, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|Slashdot contingent: But Google's still better! They have twice as many pages! |
Hehehe... they have probably been waiting for the right moment to do this... hehe
| 4:27 pm on Nov 11, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|As I see it, it is only supplemental results that have been added to the index. |
Don't forget to include the millions (billions?) of URL only entries with no title or description.
| 5:46 pm on Nov 11, 2004 (gmt 0)|
"Google signaled that it is ready for a fight, announcing Wednesday that it would nearly double the amount of Web pages available to search through its site."
| 5:22 pm on Nov 12, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I have posted a new thread "Google is cheating", but it has been denied.
The summary of the thread is this:
At least for my site the increase in the index is artificial.
Google has included a lot of outdated URLs with dynamic parameters '&' '=' '?'. We have eliminated those from our URLs about 4 months ago.
Now these pages appear side by side with regular URLs as 'Supplemental Results'.
Also, they show a whole lot of 'no title no description' URLs.
Why am I complaining - well, with all the increases in the index size for our site - the Google traffic is actually down. Why? Because half the time Google serves a "supplemental result" instead of a regular page. "Supplemental result" pages never rank high.
Also, if Google has 3 different URLs (normal, supplemental with dynamic parameters, and 'no description, no title') all pointing to the same page - it is a toss up which page it will serve. Keep in mind, 'no description, no title' URLs never appear in SERPs.
So, if this "increase" is not cheating, then I do not know what is!
| 8:35 pm on Nov 12, 2004 (gmt 0)|
From the blog of the Google VP of Engineering:
"Comprehensiveness is not the only important factor in evaluating a search engine, but it's invaluable for queries that only return a few results. For example, now when I search for friends who previously generated only a handful of results, I see double that number. ... The same is true for obscure topics, where you're now significantly more likely to find relevant and diverse information about the subjects."
This is very revealing. This explains why the serps have not changed and why, inspite of increases in the number of indexed pages, there are reports that traffic from google is staying pretty much the same.
Looks like google continues to use the technology they introduced with the supplemental index to cover their capacity problems of their main index. they did this with new domains (aka sandbox) and now they're doing it with new pages on old domains. so what they're doing is to stick all new pages from old and new domains into an index (db) separate from the main index. as with the supplemental index, these entries appear in the serps only if the number of results fall below a certain threshold. there are differences, however. looks like google always does a query of the separate index to find out how many additional results to add to the number of results. this way google can claim that they are searching the total (9billion) items even if the items in the separate index do not compete in the serps. this is necessary for marketing reasons.
it used to be that for new pages in old domains, google was able to add them in the main index to replace pages that were removed for one reason or another. now it seems they do not have to wait for pages to disappear from the main index. they simply stick them in the separate index. the implication is that there is now a "sandbox" or "lag effect" for new pages from old domains. bad news for all new pages!
it seems then that google has not exactly solved its main index capacity problems. it has just introduced another band aid. fortunately for google, they've been able to fool people into believing that the "sandbox" was a deliberate algoritm or filter or penalty to deal with spam. so google continues to extend this separate index technology to cover its problems. many people, including smart webmasters from this forum, continue to be fooled by google.
| 10:05 pm on Nov 12, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Renee, - my feelings exactly.
On top of having prior technical issues Google now decided that because of an increased competition they would fool people with the bogus index size increase.
| 10:35 pm on Nov 12, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Google has become the internet explorer of search engines.
Lets just throw another filter (patch) on it.
| 10:50 pm on Nov 12, 2004 (gmt 0)|
renee, please enlighten me.
"as with the supplemental index, these entries appear in the serps only if the number of results fall below a certain threshold"
Would this mean then that it would be even more beneficial for a webmaster to take a topic and divide it up into as many different aspects as possible to catch all the off-the-wall search phrases that many web searchers plug into a search window---but for which there are typically few search results?
| 10:52 pm on Nov 12, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I search for "the" yields only 8,000,000,000 now.
| 11:59 pm on Nov 12, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Yep, all smoke and mirrors.
I lost quite a bit of respect for google with this latest PR stunt.
I gues "Do no evil" has changed to "Don't get caught doing evil."
Where's a good investigative reporter when you need one?
| 10:59 am on Nov 13, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I suppose evil is in the eye of the beholder.
But, I don't see how splitting their index into separate chunks, and segmenting these chunks so that the new results don't compete on an equal footing would be "evil."
Perhaps a better analogy is a foot race in which the competing runners (web pages) have been placed into groups; the oldest age group of runners might be given an advantage -- or the runners who have historically run the fastest are allowed to start running first.
| 12:11 pm on Nov 13, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Massive exploted key-phrases (those that return millions of results in any engine) have messed up... even when some older sites seem to keep their ranks, I feel these SERPs have lost some releancy. :(
Precisse/marginal/minoritary keyphreases (less than 10 000 results anywhere) have improved a lot. I'm now almost able to find everything that comes up to my mind, much easier than before (all searchs related with role-playing have improved a lot). :)
Mid key-phrases seem to be the less afected by the index ampliation. Most of SERPs I've checked have only minor changes (as it already used to happen) and are relatively good. :)
Some people say that this has been a response agains new msn search engine (wich I've not already tested). This migth appear a little aggressive, but is an opinion: ALL MS' enemies are my friends. So, if the rumors are true, this is my response:
Go on, big G! make suffer those who abuse the capitalism!
I hated MS, I hate MS, I'll hate MS
I loved G, I love G, I'll love G :P
| 2:19 pm on Nov 13, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Whatever the exact number, it's probably fair to say that the number of pages indexed now exceeds the World population, which leads me to believe that G is probably sending, on average, about 1 visitor a day per page, and I would guess that 75 percent of the pages indexed don't even get 1 visitor per week from Google.
| 3:17 pm on Nov 13, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|I gues "Do no evil" has changed to "Don't get caught doing evil." |
History is written by the winners, and its them who put labels of "evil" and "not evil". Most people would not care anyway, which is why companies go for things like that -- benefits are just too tempting and the fact that it may insult intelligence of a few means nothing as it pleases the many.
| 3:29 pm on Nov 13, 2004 (gmt 0)|
>>segmenting these chunks so that the new results don't compete on an equal footing would be "evil."
except that when google says that it is presenting you with serps which are ordered most relevant from among 9 billion entries! this is blatant a lie. and a lie is always evil. the other 4 billion entries may contain more relevant results to your query but you never know because they're hidden.
>>History is written by the winners, and its them who put labels of "evil" and "not evil".
true! except this is a very big chink in google's armor which will sooner or later be exploited by a new winner!
| 3:25 pm on Nov 14, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|Most people would not care anyway, which is why companies go for things like that -- benefits are just too tempting and the fact that it may insult intelligence of a few means nothing as it pleases the many. |
True enough. It just always astounds me how so many projects with (seemingly) noble aspirations (i.e. Don;t do Evil) are quickly subjugated to doing whatever is necessary to produce an ever-higher level of profit (to include campaigns of misinformation).
Ah well, that's business.
| 4:12 pm on Nov 14, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|It just always astounds me how so many projects with (seemingly) noble aspirations (i.e. Don;t do Evil) are quickly subjugated to doing whatever is necessary to produce an ever-higher level of profit |
You'd be astounded what a change of mind a few million bucks of personally YOUR revenues would do, in fact I am sure you'd change your mind about the whole "evil" thing if you were in that position ;)
| 4:32 pm on Nov 14, 2004 (gmt 0)|
MacDonald's surpassed 9 billion a long time ago, and they've been in China, Russia, and other places for years before G. Even sushie and calamari served up.
Can G "supersize it" ?
9 billion web pages served... Ha!
G doesn't even have a dollar menu.
(some facts in this post have been manipulated)
| 11:10 pm on Nov 14, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|You'd be astounded what a change of mind a few million bucks of personally YOUR revenues would do, in fact I am sure you'd change your mind about the whole "evil" thing if you were in that position ;) |
It's wrong to assume that every person's ethics can be subverted by greed.
I'm presented everyday with chances to make a "quick buck" by utilizing what are (IMO) "shady" marketing tactics. Hell, just last month I had to drop an affiliate from our program who was using cloaking (among other spammy techniques) to drive traffic to our site. That alone erased a pretty significant amount of revenue (generated by about 4000 visitors per day). No doubt that affiliate simply switched that site to one of our competitors, but frankly I don't care.
There is such a thing as honor among [b]some[/b} who use the internet as a marketing vehicle (although, I admit, it's getting harder and harder to find).
| 7:09 am on Nov 15, 2004 (gmt 0)|
yeah man! i's amazed at the increased competion that has piled up on Google for my set of keywords.
Is it true or hypothetical.
| 11:15 pm on Nov 19, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Just noticed some pages wiped out with the js mousover ban are back. not sure if it is due to Google letting the ban go or because they changed the basic mouseover redirect to an ascii format like so.