tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18157064.post5144536838629796277..comments2024-03-18T02:14:57.204-07:00Comments on Google Operating System: Google Finds Less Search ResultsAlex Chituhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02618542750965508582noreply@blogger.comBlogger17125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18157064.post-47335943221341866932007-12-30T14:04:00.000-08:002007-12-30T14:04:00.000-08:00Try to use a longer keyword, i.e. "health benefits...Try to use a longer keyword, i.e. "health benefits of strawberries", last time I use this keyword on Google (about 2 months ago) it showed me about 1,900,000 results but now its only showing 189,000 results.<BR/><BR/>Btw, before this bug showed up, the results are returning so many relevant content but now the results are a little messy and kind of unrelated.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18157064.post-46488779200219978912007-12-15T14:00:00.000-08:002007-12-15T14:00:00.000-08:00@josh.ma:Read the comment above from Yonatan Zunge...@josh.ma:<BR/>Read the comment above from Yonatan Zunger. The problem has been fixed.Alex Chituhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02618542750965508582noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18157064.post-40333489832181663672007-12-15T13:56:00.000-08:002007-12-15T13:56:00.000-08:00I got 22,900,000 search results for Moby...I got 22,900,000 search results for Moby...Josh.Mahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08348429264960584144noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18157064.post-51901638859924815442007-12-12T12:59:00.000-08:002007-12-12T12:59:00.000-08:00Hi everyone,Just wanted to give you an update on t...Hi everyone,<BR/><BR/>Just wanted to give you an update on this. There was a bug in the serving code that caused result estimates to be low by a factor of up to 40 (depending on the query and the language). This didn't affect the search results at all, just the calculation of the estimate. The fix is rolling out right now, so over the next hour or so the numbers should be back where they're supposed to be. I'll be keeping an eye on this thread in case anyone spots something else.<BR/><BR/>Yonatan (Lead engineer for the system that had the problem)Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08967761812729609699noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18157064.post-6521024039240548102007-12-11T20:50:00.000-08:002007-12-11T20:50:00.000-08:00Google is now shifting its algorithm towards web 2...Google is now shifting its algorithm towards web 2.0 socialization which emphasizes relevancy and consistency of content among its top page results. In other words, they have slimmed down on outdated static web pages which have not been updated in months, years. For instance, abandoned domains. <BR/><BR/>Also, please note that this new algorithm change is a progressive implementation and may vary from server to server for a few days.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18157064.post-28111800063281479882007-12-10T14:31:00.000-08:002007-12-10T14:31:00.000-08:00Ron Michael, I suspect that that was just the nois...Ron Michael, I suspect that that was just the noise from a small sample size.Matt Cuttshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13526072281417654587noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18157064.post-67210925576599651952007-12-10T14:18:00.000-08:002007-12-10T14:18:00.000-08:00Anyone notice the performance times? The December...Anyone notice the performance times? The December search took almost 3 times as long to run as the May search.<BR/><BR/>Granted it's still less than a quarter of a second...Ron Michael Zettlemoyerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05421750524434089237noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18157064.post-91206130838017653122007-12-10T10:34:00.000-08:002007-12-10T10:34:00.000-08:00Wow, that was quick. A member of the team found th...Wow, that was quick. A member of the team found the issue as soon as I pointed this post out to them. We were doing undercounting in<BR/>some cases, and they're fixing it.Matt Cuttshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13526072281417654587noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18157064.post-29277103627789425422007-12-10T10:18:00.000-08:002007-12-10T10:18:00.000-08:00I'll ask about the results estimates; I think it's...I'll ask about the results estimates; I think it's independent of the subdomain/subdirectory change that I discussed. But Philipp is right that the only way to truly compare index size is to do queries that return <1000 results and then count the actual number of results.Matt Cuttshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13526072281417654587noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18157064.post-64715097195409488592007-12-10T09:36:00.000-08:002007-12-10T09:36:00.000-08:00Fewer, please! "Less results" means none at all!<I>Fewer</I>, please! "Less results" means none at all!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18157064.post-80757217872199458742007-12-10T08:44:00.000-08:002007-12-10T08:44:00.000-08:00(Good find Ionut. I'm reposting a comment from the...(Good find Ionut. I'm reposting a comment from the Google Blogoscoped forum thread...)<BR/><BR/>As for the lower results quantity, I also don't think it may be too meaningful necessarily. I wonder if the big difference is due to Google handling permanent or temporary redirects differently? So that Yahoo would see "double" where Google sees only one? A small test shows this could indeed be the case:<BR/><BR/>Google count for blog.outer-court.com (which is now redirecting to blogoscoped.com): ~2<BR/>Google count for blogoscoped.com: ~12,200<BR/><BR/>Yahoo count for blog.outer-court.com: ~15,584<BR/>Yahoo count for blogoscoped.com: ~20,729<BR/><BR/>So, Yahoo counted at least 15,582 more sort of "non-existing" pages than Google. Way to bloat your page count :)<BR/><BR/>Also, maybe Google kicks some spam sites off the index faster (though I think they should merely lower their ranks, not completely stop indexing them, right)?<BR/><BR/>But I guess the real question is: how likely do they actually let you find "exotic" pages? I mean that's the only use-case where you'd really need not just "the best" pages but also a really deep & far index to find even the smallest webpage that may contain info.<BR/>I just formulated a hypothetical research query for instance, which reads [daniel gillespie clowes interview ink pen]. I was imagining that I'm looking for an interview with comic artist Daniel G. Clowes in which he details which tools he uses. I even used his middle name to only get interviews that go really deep about the subject matter:<BR/><BR/>Google: ~129<BR/>Yahoo: ~10Philipp Lenssenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09340991515644165702noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18157064.post-64568901800401910542007-12-10T08:12:00.000-08:002007-12-10T08:12:00.000-08:00I noticed a significant drop in the number of resu...I noticed a significant drop in the number of results for certain phrases I was tracking between September and October of this year -- from 4,300,000 results to 561,000 results in just one month (around the time of a large Page Rank update). That query is now at 217,000 results. I noticed drops in several other queries as well.<BR/><BR/>Other background information:<BR/><BR/>I do not have personalized search enabled.<BR/><BR/>These queries were all made from the same physical location.<BR/><BR/>The queries are all multi-word queries, with phrases in quotes, and the OR operator ("a b c" OR "a bc" OR abc).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18157064.post-10440505840053393832007-12-10T06:48:00.000-08:002007-12-10T06:48:00.000-08:00Here's the thing... if you're logged in to your Go...Here's the thing... if you're logged in to your Google account, you get ~2 million results for 'moby'. If you're not logged in, you get 18 million. Duh, personalized search.Cristian Strenghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06611448996287808677noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18157064.post-43673447928684784102007-12-10T05:24:00.000-08:002007-12-10T05:24:00.000-08:00total no. of results don't matter much, most of th...total no. of results don't matter much, most of the users leave after 40-50 results, it's the quality that mattersSatbirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09269090147984220499noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18157064.post-11208843062744810552007-12-10T04:42:00.000-08:002007-12-10T04:42:00.000-08:00I get the same results like you at Google France o...I get the same results like you at Google France or in other localized versions, but at google.com (the US version accessible at google.com/ncr) the numbers are much smaller. Check this:<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.google.com/search?q=moby&hl=en&gl=us" REL="nofollow">http://www.google.com/search?q=moby&hl=en&gl=us</A><BR/><BR/>Different data centers may show different results.Alex Chituhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02618542750965508582noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18157064.post-40193974486678430412007-12-10T04:34:00.000-08:002007-12-10T04:34:00.000-08:00I just did the test with keyword "moby" and got th...I just did the test with keyword "moby" and got the following result:<BR/><BR/><I>"Résultats 1 - 10 sur un total d'environ 19'100'000 pour moby (0,24 secondes)"</I><BR/><BR/>To me, this post sounds like disinformation.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18157064.post-5502321200234125652007-12-10T04:21:00.000-08:002007-12-10T04:21:00.000-08:00i read something about google deleting "spam-sites...i read something about google deleting "spam-sites" from its index (like e.g. link-farms)and doesn't include pages with malware in its search results.<BR/><BR/>maybe this chance decreases the number of results while improving quality and, of course, our security :)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com