2by4 - 9:46 pm on Oct 3, 2005 (gmt 0)

"That said, nothing in your post above feels necessarily wrong to me. In fact, it may be that what I'm theorizing is a part of a new algo that you are brave enough to wonder aloud about...

The one aspect of the new algo post I disagree with is the conclusion that "beta issues than mature algo tweaks." I believe that that statement is ONE potential view of the problems wer'e seeing."

Yes, I agree, it's entirely possible that what we're seeing are not beta issues, but an algo that is simply much tighter, with many more switches and configuration options, all of which can be tested more easily.

For example, in the case of ALL pages disappearing, that could simply be flipping the 'all pages disappear' switch, see what happens, watch WebmasterWorld feedback, watch search data, click throughs etc.

Keep in mind that also this summer Google implemented a javascript click through tracking that is always present, that used to only be there when cookies were enabled, now it's always on, or was always on this summer anyway. In other words, serious data collection was going on to study affects of actions.

However, how google is handling javascript url fragments and css import fragments is from what I can see new, this does look to me very much like an actual error, since it makes zero logical sense, and actually corrupts the data google is collecting re urls.

If I write a new app, I put everything I've learned in the past into it, and I try to include the greatest possible range of options and switches into it so I don't have to redo it. This would be based on previous experience.

I'd drop it to the very simplest level: how long can you add features and tweaks to a huge app before you need to do a full rewrite? If you look at windows for example, it was 3.x to 9x, then NT to XP. Roughly 7 years between major rewrites that is. Especially when the fundamental architecture for that app was developed with almost no real world experience by two guys in their early twenties. Twenty something programmers always make the same type of mistakes, but at some point those mistakes become unsustainable and the thing has to be redone. Look at Netscape 1-4x versus Firefox for example.

So rather than ask if they have, I'd ask, how could they not do this if long term growth and survival is in question? I'm seeing far too many new switches being turned off and on this year to not see a new machine behind the curtain. And the switches are working very well.

If I look at for example the dupe thing, in the past there was from what I can see basically just one big switch, now I see more subtle gradations, multiple switches that allow fine tuned control. Which is exactly what I would do if I were creating a new app based on past experience.

You've always pushed a very empirical methodology, which I always learn a lot from, but I can't resist seeing if I can make a big picture that can take as much as possible into account...

[edited by: 2by4 at 10:03 pm (utc) on Oct. 3, 2005]