| 2:28 pm on Mar 2, 2005 (gmt 0)|
It looks to me that they might be a bit shorter, but I cannot see a significant change..
However even if the algorithm drops 5 to 10% of the description, think about the savings in bandwidth..
just 1 byte. 1 byte * 10 listings ( default ) * 100,000,000 searches a day. That's 1 billion bytes less a day that they need to transfer.
it allows for more searches, without needing to buy more equipment.
I also noticed this trend when they redesigned the serps last year...
| 2:31 pm on Mar 2, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|That's 1 billion bytes less a day that they need to transfer. |
1 Gig of trasfer costs about as much as they earn from 2-3 clicks, in fact for bulk buyers like themselves 0.5 of click should do. I don't think G-men even think in terms of giga- these days.
| 2:35 pm on Mar 2, 2005 (gmt 0)|
whether it's giga, tera, or peta, it's still bandwidth.
why else shorten the descriptions?
| 2:49 pm on Mar 2, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I think you lot are thinking too hard.
It just looks nice and neat. Dont you think?
| 3:08 pm on Mar 2, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Do a search for "site:sitename.com"
notice the very short descriptions.
Note the full title of one of the pages returned, then
do a search for "site:sitename.com TitleOfPage"
The same page now has a longer description.
| 9:40 pm on Mar 2, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Yesterday one site of mine had an alt tag text as the description.
The alt tag was the first text on the page and was for the site logo 3 words long -
"blah blah logo"
Today its back to a 19 word ransom note description.
| 12:16 am on Mar 3, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I suspect that as part of experimenting with meta description or dmoz description that those pages without either will get a pithier ransom note to be more consistent with the meta/dmoz style.