Forum Moderators: open
There is an intentional grammitical error.
from a educational article point of view i agree. From a commercial point of view - no way!
[google.com...]
i like it SIR, it's Stylish, it's Cool, and reminds me a little to think it's Just you!
thats just selling yourselve short. try this:
[google.com...]
1330 posts, does that mean the other 300 posts are a load of rubbish
try this:
ROFL - check out the lone AdWord on that one.
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.
Like this?
<aside>Note to self: RTFM.</aside>
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.
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.
Not sites that have new content.
Oh..i was implicitly assuming that. So, is there anyway to factor in the content change?
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).
find the most-recent articles instead of the most-linked-to articles
first post date.
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.
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.
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.
