Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Google URL Index Hits 1 Trillion

Soulskill posted more than 6 years ago | from the orders-of-magnitude dept.

Google 249

mytrip points out news that Google's index of unique URLs has reached a milestone: one trillion. Google's blog provides some more information, noting, "The first Google index in 1998 already had 26 million pages, and by 2000 the Google index reached the one billion mark. Over the last eight years, we've seen a lot of big numbers about how much content is really out there. To keep up with this volume of information, our systems have come a long way since the first set of web data Google processed to answer queries. Back then, we did everything in batches: one workstation could compute the PageRank graph on 26 million pages in a couple of hours, and that set of pages would be used as Google's index for a fixed period of time. Today, Google downloads the web continuously, collecting updated page information and re-processing the entire web-link graph several times per day."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Screenshot. (5, Funny)

Shaitan Apistos (1104613) | more than 6 years ago | (#24345505)

Or it didn't happen.

Re:Screenshot. (1)

ocularDeathRay (760450) | more than 6 years ago | (#24345533)

you are just the best first poster ever. quick, funny, and in no way relevant. Honestly sir, you are the reason why I come to /. thanks, and keep up the good work

Re:Screenshot. (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24345803)

Seriously, you just want to get into his/her pants...

Re:Screenshot. (5, Funny)

Shaitan Apistos (1104613) | more than 6 years ago | (#24346195)

That can be arranged.

Odd (0, Redundant)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 6 years ago | (#24345543)

So unless there is a screenshot showing the 1,000,000,000,000 site count, Google's index didn't reach that milestone? Even if it now shows 1,000,000,000,001?

Re:Odd (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24345649)

So unless there is a screenshot showing the 1,000,000,000,000 site count, Google's index didn't reach that milestone? Even if it now shows 1,000,000,000,001?

The 1,000,000,000,000th page had only one word on it:

"woosh"

Re:Odd (1)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 6 years ago | (#24345791)

I seriously debated whether I should indicate that a woosh was unnecessary.

Re:Screenshot. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24345811)

"We don't index every one of those trillion pages -- many of them are similar to each other, or represent auto-generated content similar to the calendar example that isn't very useful to searchers. But we're proud to have the most comprehensive index of any search engine, and our goal always has been to index all the world's data."

Thus their index doesn't hit 1 Trillion its simply that they have found "1 trillion (as in 1,000,000,000,000) unique URLs on the web at once!" But they do not index it all.

Re:Screenshot. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24345979)

It's 1,000,000,000,001 now, Google indexes Slashdot very quickly.

Re:Screenshot. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24346071)

1,000,000,000 GET!

Re:Screenshot. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24346329)

1,000,000th spoke claimed on behalf of the beautiful Mercatur

First Post (0, Redundant)

txoof (553270) | more than 6 years ago | (#24345519)

And about 600,000,000 of those are, "FrIST P0ST!"

Re:First Post (3, Interesting)

Vectronic (1221470) | more than 6 years ago | (#24345983)

-1 Redundant sure...

But that's sort of along the lines I was/am thinking... take txoof's post alone (or mine, or whoever may reply) there are 3 separate URLS for each Slashdot comment

The Header:
http://search.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=626647&cid=24345519 [slashdot.org]

The User:
http://slashdot.org/~txoof [slashdot.org]

The Score:
http://search.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/07/26/0036245# [slashdot.org]

How many Slashdot comments are there? It's probably in the high millions, (rhetorical, but I'm interested to know none-the-less) There's like an average of about 250 comments per article, about 25 articles a day, thats about 2 million a year, so 6 million links, then take into consideration stuff like Facebook, which bounces URLs (http://www.facebook.com/link=###/etc) or sites that generate a random identifier every few minutes, making those "unique", gets unexciting quite quickly, Although billions is still fairly high.

Re:First Post (3, Funny)

repvik (96666) | more than 6 years ago | (#24346281)

Considering your comment is #24345983, I'd say about 24.3 million comments. Also, I believe there's about 1.5 million different users.

How long till.. (5, Funny)

loconet (415875) | more than 6 years ago | (#24345527)

Once the index reaches a google (or rather a googol), the universe explodes.

Re:How long till.. (4, Funny)

txoof (553270) | more than 6 years ago | (#24345551)

Is that the modern equivalent of the Mayan calendar running out of days?

Re:How long till.. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24345575)

Won't happen since the universe's max integer is significantly smaller than a googol or a 'google'.

Re:How long till.. (5, Insightful)

rho (6063) | more than 6 years ago | (#24345917)

I'm more interested in when Google starts returning relevant results to my queries.

I can't believe that I'm the only one that finds Google's quality of service somewhat below par. I guess they're better than randomly stabbing in the dark, and there certainly isn't any alternative that's obviously better, but Google sure isn't everything they think they are.

I know--stop trying to compete with Wikipedia and cut out Experts-Exchange.com from your search results since their pages don't actually return the information you think they do.

Re:How long till.. (5, Informative)

onedotzero (926558) | more than 6 years ago | (#24346013)

... and cut out Experts-Exchange.com from your search results since their pages don't actually return the information you think they do.

Perhaps you should try scrolling to the bottom of the page... :)

Re:How long till.. (4, Informative)

cdrudge (68377) | more than 6 years ago | (#24346015)

It took me a while to realize it, but if you scroll clear to the bottom of an expert exchange post, you'll find the comments unhidden and relevant.

Re:How long till.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24346223)

took me a while to figure that out to, someone needs to make a good userscript to so straight to the bottom

Re:How long till.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24346297)

Uhm, no.

Re:How long till.. (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24346021)

...and cut out Experts-Exchange.com from your search results since their pages don't actually return the information you think they do.

If you block cookies from experts-exchange.com you can actually see the answers on any e-e page - after you visit the first time, it normally sets a cookie to not show results next visit, which is how they get Google to index their pages anyway. With cookies from them blocked, you can then see the answers - you just have to scroll 7/8s of the way down the page past all the fake "Please sign up to see this result" boxes.
(First AC post in years... tee hee. :)

Re:How long till.. (0, Offtopic)

ModernGeek (601932) | more than 6 years ago | (#24346077)

I don't know about you, but I really think that potato chips don't have to be a by yourself food.

I mean, imagine, you can have a bag of chips in the middle of the table during a football game get together event

Going to a party and asked to bring something? A bag of potato chips does well. It's cheap, and you don't look like a mooch by coming in empty handed.

I really fail to see how your argument in that potato chips are a food for by yourself.

Re:How long till.. (4, Interesting)

blahplusplus (757119) | more than 6 years ago | (#24346097)

"I'm more interested in when Google starts returning relevant results to my queries.

I can't believe that I'm the only one that finds Google's quality of service somewhat below par."

You're not the only one, but for the most part it is better then most other search engines out there. The real problem is spammers and paid advertising, I think spammers have really made search frustrating for a lot of companies. And ad companies pay other people to promote their sites for them (digg, slashdot, etc). I've noticed the increase in spam-vertised websites in search results for a lot of things.

Personally I think the idea of sharding and search being more specific for what you're looking for is needed. I'd like to see a google with 'tags' and a delicious interface, things like educational institutions and universities get lumped into their own search engine space for instance, this would help narrow down what one is looking for, although it would take time and feedback to design something well for other areas. The fact is that search results get diluted as you put more and more stuff online (numbers and geometric scale).

For fun, I've noticed stumble upon and del.ico.us are not bad alternatives when looking for new and interesting sites without having to use search

Re:How long till.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24346203)

The Experts-Exchange site should be de-listed off of Google for the simple reason that they show different content to the crawler, as opposed to if you actually view it.
Google's terms of service prohibit sites from showing different content based on if it's a browser, or the crawler.

Re:How long till.. (1)

hardlyleet (1293492) | more than 6 years ago | (#24346259)

"I know--stop trying to compete with Wikipedia" Their algorithms are favoured towards Wikipedia...Not very competitive I must add.

Wow! Five of those are mine! Mine I tells you! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24345537)

Wow! Five of those are mine! Mine I tells you!

I'm rich! I'm famous!

Don't you fuck with me, man! I am in Google! and I will rip you new ones!

Re:Wow! Five of those are mine! Mine I tells you! (1)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 6 years ago | (#24345567)

Wow! Five of those are mine! Mine I tells you!

Only if Google has indexed your sites.

Re:Wow! Five of those are mine! Mine I tells you! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24345857)

I can tell you without reservation that more than half those "unique URLs" are dead pages. Over the course of my 12+ years, which pre-dates Google, 99% of all my "uniqie URLs" are dead and buried. I've done 1000s of pages, the bulk being online manuals. I know, I know. This is an oddity among readers here, but manuals are essential parts of software products, even those that are only around for a few years. It's not a product if it doesn't have a real, honest-to-goodness manual.

Amazing (2, Interesting)

SoupIsGoodFood_42 (521389) | more than 6 years ago | (#24345541)

As someone who is partially engineering/analytically minded (but not a great programmer) it amazes me how Google has manged to index so much data, yet at the same time, serve up results in a fraction of a second to so many people.

Re:Amazing (5, Insightful)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 6 years ago | (#24345581)

i wish they would work on weeding out the crap. anything you google now is infested with cheesy search sites that list other websites and try plaster you with ads. they contribute zero to the web.

Re:Amazing (5, Informative)

Freaky Spook (811861) | more than 6 years ago | (#24345691)

I couldn't agree more.

Many of the clients I support are constantly asking me "Is there a program that does this? or Can you find me a program to do this" etc etc.

I used to be able to just use google to help me get started but these days the top level searches are all those bloody link farms peddling "free" software, even when typing in the word review you come up with link farms that offer no reviews.

Re:Amazing (4, Informative)

arotenbe (1203922) | more than 6 years ago | (#24345877)

Many of the clients I support are constantly asking me "Is there a program that does this? or Can you find me a program to do this" etc etc.

I used to be able to just use google to help me get started but these days the top level searches are all those bloody link farms peddling "free" software

Have you tried SourceForge [sourceforge.net] ? That's what it's there for, you know.

Re:Amazing (2, Interesting)

SoupIsGoodFood_42 (521389) | more than 6 years ago | (#24345931)

Yeah, that's a problem. I'm sure they'll work it out. I don't find it to be a problem most of the time though, just on certain searches in certain places. They have a real spam problem if you search for info on pharmaceuticals in their groups search last time I checked (about a month ago). The problem wasn't the Usenet groups, but their own special groups, and the worse thing is you can't filter out their groups and just search Usenet ones.

I tried to contact them about it and discovered that they could also really do with making their site more accessible to general enquirers and feedback -- Apple make it easy to give feedback. Yeah, they probably ignore most of the stuff sent through there, but at least you can feel as if there is some possibility of them knowing about a certain issues, unlike when you can't find a way to seed feedback and just get end up with sales and PR contacts (who probably delete anything not related to their department) after 10 mins of browsing -- not good for customer relations.

Try "Live" search (3, Interesting)

symbolset (646467) | more than 6 years ago | (#24345953)

And you'll be back faster than a Google search result. Weeding out the crap?

Just for a sample, try this one: getfirefox [live.com] . If the first link on that search goes to a Mozilla mirror you will win one Internet. Try Linux [live.com] . Hey, this is fun. Spoiler: the first link there is always "www.Microsoft.com/Windows : Special Offers from Windows Vista® w/ the Purchase of Select Laptops." The first time I tried this I was looking for Open Office and wound up misdirected to a members only site where you had to register to download a probably spyware infested Open Office [live.com] and signing up for unlimited pharma spam. The scary part is that the text of the link misled me to believe I was headed for "OpenOffice.org". Try it and see. Let's find more horrifically inappropriate ad placements and query results, shall we? I'll bet you could come up with a really funny one.

Note: Please don't go to any of the sites linked to those search results through live.com. Bad things might happen to your Windows box and there's nothing there of interest for your powerbook.

Yeah, that's a good search result ad, don't you think? No wonder Google is becoming a verb.

Re:Try "Live" search (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24346047)

The first result for 'getfirefox' is http://www.getfirefox.net/ [getfirefox.net] which seems to be correct to me.
The first result for 'Linux' is http://www.linux.org/ [linux.org] not some Microsoft website.
The first result for 'Open Office' is http://www.openoffice.org/ [openoffice.org] and not some Microsoft website.

You lie?

Re:Try "Live" search (1)

symbolset (646467) | more than 6 years ago | (#24346133)

The "tell" for this lie is that people will try it. Did you think of that, Mr astroturf man? And what do you think they will find besides proof? You shouldn't submit this one for credit if you want to keep your job.

Re:Try "Live" search (1)

cammoblammo (774120) | more than 6 years ago | (#24346141)

You lie?

Perhaps, perhaps not. I've experienced odd things like this inthe past.

A few years ago I tried to get to the FSF site by typing the URL into the address bar in Firefox or Phoenix or whatever it was then. For some reason it took me to the Microsoft site.

It turned out I'd mistyped the URL. In that situation the browser automatically does a Google 'I feel lucky' search on the term you type, apparently hoping to get to where you hoped to go.

In my case, I mistyped the '://' after the protocol signifier. Consequently, the search term used was 'http'. For some reason, the number one search for 'http' was Microsoft. I tried it in other search engines and they took me to more obvious places, like w3c and so on. Google went to Microsoft.

This odd behaviour was only corrected recently. It did concern me, though, that many people would mistype the first part of a URL. How many, I wonder, have ended up at MS?

Re:Amazing (1)

ILuvRamen (1026668) | more than 6 years ago | (#24345945)

They rub the servers with cheetah blood. Anyway, the real magic is how is their index that big when there's not that many websites? I thought I just saw an estimate like a half a year ago saying that there's about 4 billion or 10 billion or whatever domain names registered and they estimate xxx number of total web pages and it wasn't even close to 1 trillion. Did all those stupid web 2.0 pages screw with it that much?

Re:Amazing (1)

SoupIsGoodFood_42 (521389) | more than 6 years ago | (#24346007)

I imagine that certain sites, such as sites the size of Slashdot (in terms of dynamically generated pages), make a difference. After all, the index talks in pages, not domains. I bet there's also a lot of junk and redundancy in there, but still, it's quite an achievement to be able to deal with that much data.

Re:Amazing (3, Funny)

cammoblammo (774120) | more than 6 years ago | (#24346147)

I imagine that certain sites, such as sites the size of Slashdot (in terms of dynamically generated pages), make a difference. After all, the index talks in pages, not domains. I bet there's also a lot of junk and redundancy in there, but still, it's quite an achievement to be able to deal with that much data.

Surely you're not saying that Slashdot's full of junk and redundancy and redundancy?

Re:Amazing (1)

gingerTabs (532664) | more than 6 years ago | (#24346093)

Anyway, the real magic is how is their index that big when there's not that many websites?

If you look at this page in slashdot, and find someone who's replied more than once, then you'll see more than one link to their profile - each link goes to the same page so more links than content - even in this simple example

Re:Amazing (1)

KillerCow (213458) | more than 6 years ago | (#24346165)

As someone who is partially engineering/analytically minded (but not a great programmer) it amazes me how Google has manged to index so much data, yet at the same time, serve up results in a fraction of a second to so many people.

See "map reduce"

Re:Amazing (1)

tuomoks (246421) | more than 6 years ago | (#24346295)

Thanks - I was going to reply but you got there first. Map reduce and big table, etc - old technologies found again. A must when you have to match arbitrary queries - SQL (actually relational databases but in many minds same?) just doesn't do it, something what was know, forgotten and slowly acknowledged again.

Wow, that's a lot of porn. (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24345559)

Seriously, since the web is something like 42% porn. (Yes, that is the ultimate answer.) So that's on average, 60-70 pages of each person in the world naked.

Re:Wow, that's a lot of porn. (4, Interesting)

sweet_petunias_full_ (1091547) | more than 6 years ago | (#24345959)

"the web is something like 42% porn"

That probably stopped being the case after namespace speculators started buying up expired domains in large numbers just to put up a mildly useless index on *each* and *every* site to collect ad revenue or marketing statistics off of unwary visitors. I would also include typosquatters in that category, and maybe someone else can name a few other examples of utter namespace hogging uselessness.

Whatever it is, you can rest assured that it's mostly repetitive trash... no need to stand in awe of it.

1 trillion url's (5, Funny)

jollyreaper (513215) | more than 6 years ago | (#24345561)

How many of those are automatically generated rank-spoofers, 80%?

My favorite spoof pages were the ones that randomly substituted search terms into porno stories.

"Yes!" she screamed as he thrust his SAMSUNG CD PLAYER deep into her. "I want you balls-deep in my CHEAP HARD DRIVES!" The smell of DISCOUNT SOFTWARE filled the room.

Re:1 trillion url's (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24345675)

"Yes!" she screamed as he thrust his SAMSUNG CD PLAYER deep into her.

Given the nature of some sites, that may not be a spoof. Besides spoofing never works.





horny, girl, girls, wet, juicy, breasts, bouncy, elf porn, porn, pr0n, sex, sexy, CD insertion, warcraft sex, CD Player insertion, double insertion, slashdot, natalie portman, adult toy black orgy girls smoking milf seeker amateur facial black shemale hairy twins gangbang black in blondes mommy got boobs orgy teen mother naked college coeds nurse bondage hentai busty asian maturebig black girls fetish sex lesbian sex taboo big black tits filthy sluts lesbian spanking taboo charming mother big brother first anal lesbian strap on teachers big girls in bondage first timers lesbian teens teen big natural tits first time anal lesbian threesome teen facial foot fetish lesbian videos teen lesbian at school fucking machines massage orgy gangbang mature latin thick black ass round ass anal mature lesbian tight teens round asses sex mature sex medical fetish water big wet butt girls gone wild messy white cotton panties next door

Re:1 trillion url's (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24345697)

That's amazing! I've got the same combination on my luggage!

No concern for the foreign readers? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24345571)

Trillion can mean 1E+12 or 1E+18 depending on which country you are in.

Re:No concern for the foreign readers? (1)

Shaitan Apistos (1104613) | more than 6 years ago | (#24345603)

Trillion can mean 1E+12 or 1E+18 depending on which country you are in.

I'm inclined to go with whatever Japan & China say.

Re:No concern for the foreign readers? (4, Funny)

kclittle (625128) | more than 6 years ago | (#24345735)

Google is headquartered in Mountain View, CA -- I know, 'cause I googled it. Now, California is rather inclined to think of itself as it own country (some would say, universe), but it is indeed part of the United States of America (again, I checked with Google). And in the US, "trillion" == 1E12 (again, Google).

Re:No concern for the foreign readers? (1)

Samantha Wright (1324923) | more than 6 years ago | (#24345821)

The UK is the only English-speaking country where a significant portion of the population still uses the long scale system. I don't htink it's all that much of a concern.

And I rest in peace.. (3, Funny)

consonant (896763) | more than 6 years ago | (#24345613)

..knowing that the vast amounts of porn just keep getting vaster. And more searchable. Amen. *sheds a tear or two*

Hi, tech support? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24345617)

End-user: "I want to download the internet. Will I need a bigger hard drive?"
Google: "Yes"
End-user: "I didn't even tell you how big my hard drive is!"

Some numbers (5, Interesting)

Reality Master 101 (179095) | more than 6 years ago | (#24345661)

Counts of words:

the: 18.3 billion pages
a: 23.9B
0: 12.7B
1: 25.4B
in: 17.1B
I: 10.2B

I know these numbers aren't exact, but you'd think one of them would be over 100B if Google is really indexing a trillion pages. What's on them? Anyone find any keywords that produce more?

Re:Some numbers (1)

ooburns (1254768) | more than 6 years ago | (#24345717)

The only one I've managed to find is "www", which produces 27 billion. Still a long way from a trillion...

Re:Some numbers (4, Funny)

Shaitan Apistos (1104613) | more than 6 years ago | (#24345721)

My hobby:

Getting the fewest possible google results above 0 with a quoted string.

"interspecies gangbang": 6
"hot topic meets disney world": 2
"died in a blogging accident": 15,300
"can boys make babies": 4
"why does it hurt when I read": 1

Re:Some numbers (1)

Reality Master 101 (179095) | more than 6 years ago | (#24345753)

Hmm. This probably means something statistically, but I'm not sure what... I started adding digits to a number until I hit one result. I had to get to nine digits:

123512553
215323703
684354537

I also found a few with 0 to 3 results. Interestingly, I couldn't find any eight digit numbers that scored zero hits.

Re:Some numbers (1)

txoof (553270) | more than 6 years ago | (#24345875)

I couldn't find any eight digit numbers that scored zero hits.

That's really interesting. Perhaps 8 digit numbers are common for serial numbers and dates. Today's date is 20080723. I can't even begin to think of all the logs and file names that I've generated that contain a similar string.

Anyone else have any ideas why 8 digit numbers are so common?

Re:Some numbers (1)

WithLove (1150737) | more than 6 years ago | (#24346061)

I just want to know who has time to Google all 1E8 eight digit numbers....

Re:Some numbers (1)

chillax137 (612431) | more than 6 years ago | (#24345819)

The only way to save your accomplishments is to not post them on the internet

Re:Some numbers (1)

arotenbe (1203922) | more than 6 years ago | (#24345899)

Indeed. Google already has two hits for the phrase "why does it hurt when I read": the actual (and rather disturbing, but amusing) page the quote was found on, and this page. Scary, isn't it?

Re:Some numbers (3, Insightful)

miraboo (1164359) | more than 6 years ago | (#24345901)

My hobby:

Getting the fewest possible google results above 0 with a quoted string.

"interspecies gangbang": 6
"hot topic meets disney world": 2
"died in a blogging accident": 15,300
"can boys make babies": 4
"why does it hurt when I read": 1

My Hobby

Attributing my sources: http://xkcd.com/369/ [xkcd.com]

Re:Some numbers (5, Interesting)

Shaitan Apistos (1104613) | more than 6 years ago | (#24346151)

My Hobby

Attributing my sources: http://xkcd.com/369/ [xkcd.com]

In [xkcd.com] , my [xkcd.com] humble [xkcd.com] opinion [xkcd.com] my [xkcd.com] usage [xkcd.com] of [xkcd.com] "My [xkcd.com] Hobby" [xkcd.com] was [xkcd.com] sufficient [xkcd.com] attribution [xkcd.com] , all [xkcd.com] by [xkcd.com] itself. [xkcd.com]

Re:Some numbers (1)

SevenSpirits (1266138) | more than 6 years ago | (#24345951)

That's odd. I get:

"interspecies gangbang": 7
"hot topic meets disney world": 3
"died in a blogging accident": 15,400
"can boys make babies": 5
"why does it hurt when I read": 2

Huh.

Re:Some numbers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24345987)

"Getting the fewest possible google results above 0 with a quoted string"

Results 1 - 1 of 1 for "Getting the fewest possible google results above 0 with a quoted string". (0.09 seconds)

Googlewhacking (1)

symbolset (646467) | more than 6 years ago | (#24346051)

It's harder to do now. If you can find two words unquoted that result in one result it's a googlewhack [googlewhack.com] like this one was [google.com] before Google found "eltiguan parainaugurarme" on this page and made it the second result.

BTW, my first google search was "war" and it returned something equivalent to "Your search term is too common to return a meanignful result. Narrow your search." Today it returns about 974 million results. It was long ago...

Re:Some numbers (1)

Aelix (687985) | more than 6 years ago | (#24346201)

Bump all those strings up by one, google has it already lol.

Re:Some numbers (1)

dword (735428) | more than 6 years ago | (#24346273)

They just increased by 1, all of them... This page is in Google's index :)

Re:Some numbers (2, Informative)

Ihmhi (1206036) | more than 6 years ago | (#24346313)

You mean Googlewhacking [wikipedia.org] , except not nearly as hard?

Re:Some numbers (1)

bigplrbear (1179259) | more than 6 years ago | (#24345919)

maybe a majority of Googles indexed websites are blank

Re:Some numbers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24345967)

People speak different languages in different parts of the world, and some of them have webpages? Who'd have thought!

Re:Some numbers (1)

antifoidulus (807088) | more than 6 years ago | (#24345969)

Or maybe a lot of those pages are in non-Latin script. According to the Chinese government there are more Chinese online than Americans, and they don't use the latin alphabet....

Re:Some numbers (1)

crenshawsgc (1228894) | more than 6 years ago | (#24346085)

Chinese people overwhelmingly use arabic numerals in everyday use, just like everywhere else in the world...

Re:Some numbers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24346171)

but sense that are from china, it is far less likely that they will be creating content, lacking freedom of speech and all that.

Re:Some numbers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24346145)

I know these numbers aren't exact, but you'd think one of them would be over 100B if Google is really indexing a trillion pages. What's on them?

Foreign languages? (I admit it doesn't completely explain the lack of 0s or 1s, though.)

What's going on with the founders' studies? (4, Interesting)

bogaboga (793279) | more than 6 years ago | (#24345663)

This might be off-topic but I wonder what's going on with Sergey Brin and Larry Page's [PhD] education? Just wondering...did they give up?

Re:What's going on with the founders' studies? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24345765)

you are fucking kidding right?

Re:What's going on with the founders' studies? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24346153)

You do realise that a lot of money doesn't make you innovative, and that the best way for Google to improve their index would be to not rest on their laurels, right? Indexing algorithms are such that "indexed one trillion" over "indexed one billion" is not an impressive conceptual or technical feat, and this news is mere marketing wowspeak (misleading marketing wowspeak, considering the number of fluff pages that exist purely to generate AdWord revenue - thanks for that, Google).

N.B. It doesn't matter how many PhDs you employ as glorified code monkeys underneath you, because the direction of the company is your decision, and you need to stay enlightened to make an enlightened decision. See Microsoft and the replacement of Gates with Ballmer.

Give up? No. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24346155)

They grew up.

So, how's it compared (1)

Korbeau (913903) | more than 6 years ago | (#24345667)

to the increment of garbage in American landfill since 1998? ;)

Clowns Masturbating Jesus Goat Worship ALF Dad (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24345783)

pickle

http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=goatwarship [youtube.com]

jerkin off

http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=goatwarship [youtube.com]

pickle jerkin off
pickle jerkin off
pickle jerkin off

http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=goatwarship [youtube.com]

looks like i'm jerkin
but i don't think he is

http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=goatwarship [youtube.com]

looks like a gherkin
but i don't think it is

http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=goatwarship [youtube.com]

pickle jerkin off
pickle jerkin off
pickle jerkin off
pickle jerkin off

looks like a gherkin
but i don't think it is

I'd be more impressed if... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24345801)

the first couple hundred results for every search didn't consist of useless price comparison sites, a Target ad, youtube videos of dubious quality, link farms and experts exchange crap.

No wonder I cringe every time I need to start doing research on the web.

Try "Live" search (1)

symbolset (646467) | more than 6 years ago | (#24346067)

You'll be back faster than a Google search result.

No, it didn't. (5, Informative)

aiken_d (127097) | more than 6 years ago | (#24345809)

They have identified that there are 1T pages out there, somewhere. They have indexed 40 billion pages. Read the entire Google post. It says it right there.

Bad on Google for the misleading post. Bad on the submitter for not reading the misleading post. Bad on Slashdot for further descending into mindless repetition of mindless submissions of mindless PR announcements.

Bandwidth (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24345843)

I wonder how much bandwidth the daily/continuous Google index process takes.

Re:Bandwidth (1)

WeblionX (675030) | more than 6 years ago | (#24345999)

All the search engines kept causing database errors on my forums until I blocked most of the forum via robots.txt. Then it was only Google causing problems. Of course, I finally switched hosts and it doesn't seem to be causing problems so far.

So, in short, too much.

Re:Bandwidth... too much (2, Interesting)

Doug52392 (1094585) | more than 6 years ago | (#24346119)

On my home Web server, I accidentally left a copy of the PHP manual in a browsable folder, which was linked to the homepage. So when Google indexed my homepage, guess what it also checked for? Every single page the homepage linked to! Including that manual... and damn the PHP manual has a LOT of pages.

So when I got back on the server and pulled up the logs (it was running strangely slow) I found Googlebot accessing page after page after page of the PHP manual. Thousands of pages. Lagging the server and Internet to hell.

And most of them are webspam (3, Insightful)

Animats (122034) | more than 6 years ago | (#24345867)

But how many of those trillion pages have unique, useful content? E-mail is over 95% spam, and the web is getting there.

There were about 153 million registered domains at the beginning of the year. The ones from the spam-friendly registrars [knujon.com] are mostly junk. Tim Bernars-Lee said in 2006 that web junk was becoming a major problem, and it's become worse since then.

If you throw out all the anonymous but commercial domains (we call them "bottom-feeders"), as we do with SiteTruth [sitetruth.com] , the Web looks a lot better. Search engines are getting stricter about this. You don't see that many "landing pages" in Google any more. Bad news [fool.com] for companies like Marchex [yahoo.com] , the publicly traded web spammer that cranks out all those junk "What you need, when you need it" sites.

"The mass trials are going well. There will be fewer Russians, but better ones." - Greta Garbo in Ninotchka.

A trillion URLs... (1)

Chester K (145560) | more than 6 years ago | (#24345933)

A trillion URLs, and still no sign of clownpenis.fart in the index anywhere!

At this rate it really will be the last one to go.

Re:A trillion URLs... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24346333)

Don't worry, there will be there now.

Re:A trillion URLs... (1)

repvik (96666) | more than 6 years ago | (#24346341)

Huh? I just *had* to google that one...
Results 1 - 10 of about 8,580 for clownpenis.fart

How many sites are REAL websites? (1)

Doug52392 (1094585) | more than 6 years ago | (#24346049)

And not just those stupid "parked by GoDaddy" or "domain farms"? Like those ones where when you Google something, and you get a promising result, so you click on it, and it turns out to be nothing more than a page full of ads.

What I want to know is in Google somewhere... (1)

symbolset (646467) | more than 6 years ago | (#24346123)

Specifically which page was the trillionth?

SAT reading comprehension for slashdot. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24346243)

According to the googleblog post, which of the following is not true?

A. The initial google had 26 million pages.
B. Google has seen 1 trillion unique urls.
C. Google indexes every one of those trillion pages.
D. The web is infinite.

We all know what they are too (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24346275)

Now what isn't said here is that 999,999,998,000 of those pages are porn.

google's search becoming steadily useless. (3, Insightful)

blind biker (1066130) | more than 6 years ago | (#24346391)

I think google.com's search engine achieved its peak usefuleness about 5 years ago. Now, for the most part when I google for a certain electronic component I get some crappy webstore front (and by crappy I mean I can't actually order the component but must "contact by phone" first) or if I search for an electronic device, be it pro or just home electronics, I get those "Read reviews and compare prices"-sites. Which I hate with a passion. WTF google, you have the world's most talented programmers, can't you weed out this crap from your search? At least so it doesn't come up as top hits?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?