__/ [ John Bokma ] on Saturday 17 June 2006 18:16 \__
> Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> __/ [ John Bokma ] on Saturday 17 June 2006 02:47 \__
>>
>>> Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I would love to find out if the number of indexed pages aligns with
>>>> the estimated numbers above. From experience, it should.
>>>
>>> But it doesn't:
>>>
>>> Results 1 - 10 of about 9,880 from johnbokma.com
>>>
>>> I don't have 9,880 pages in Google. My site has about 1,000 pages,
>>> probably less.
>>
>> At some stage, and for quite a while as a matter of fact, Google's
>> "site:" indicated that my site had over 10,000 pages, rather than the
>> real number which is 10,000-20,000.
>
> That's a range, not a number ;-)
Oops. This should read "indicated that my site had over 100,000 pages".
Missing 0 left place for misinterpretation.
>>>> The above confirms that something has gone gone totally wrong and
>>>> the disappearance of the thread suggests that someone out there has
>>>> a good reason to hide the evidence.
>>>
>>> As has been reported for quite some time: the site: operator doesn't
>>> work anymore as expected.
>>
>> True. *smile* But this does not change the fact that pages are
>> dropping out of the index. One of the earliest stories (the one from
>> The Register) starts to appear more realistic. Perhaps Google is
>> choking on SPAM,
>
> spam, I doubt if anyone eats SPAM @ Google, and how that makes an entire
> company choke.
>
>> such as these 4.something billion pages.
>
> Question is: are there 4.something billion pages, or are there just a
> few million.
I tend to (or want to *wink*) believe that the space has been wasted on
actually storing and indexing junk content.
>>> It's really funny to make up stories based on that,
>>> but it's not going to help. Thought you had an academic background?
>>
>> Hey, play easy with me, man. *smile* I am also regressing, as far as
>> AISE is concerned, due to academia.
>
> Good, no more MS bashing then?
No, I promise. I know it annoys you.
> Like I wrote in the other reply: site: is not core business. And like MS
> didn't (doesn't) care about signatures on Usenet when using OE, Google
> doesn't have time to care about site: at the moment. And you will notice
> this more and more the more Google grows. All large companies have the
> same problem: there work x people, and they all are busy.
Maybe they should employ us to increase the value of /x/. We can develop
sites for them to crawl and serve to people. And we can even work _for
them_, sometimes. *smile*
Best wishes,
Roy
--
Roy S. Schestowitz | GPL'd Reversi: http://othellomaster.com
http://Schestowitz.com | GNU/Linux ¦ PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
6:25pm up 50 days 23:39, 12 users, load average: 1.25, 1.10, 0.99
http://iuron.com - next generation of search paradigms
|
|
