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 Traffic Takes Down Web Site

simoniker posted more than 10 years ago | from the comparisons-inevitable dept.

The Internet 414

bazonkers writes "Searchenginelowdown.com reports that it appears that the Google logo yesterday (honoring Gaston Julia) linked to the Google image search results for the words 'julia fractal'. The resulting traffic generated from clicking on that 'featured logo' incapacitated the servers of the top-listed images, hosted at an Australian university. This more than inconvenienced the owners of that site, who had to move pages and ended up displaying this page instead."

cancel ×

414 comments

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

Yeah (5, Funny)

Dutchy Wutchy (547108) | more than 10 years ago | (#8186069)

Looks like no one has heard of /.

I love it (2, Funny)

RoboProg (515959) | more than 10 years ago | (#8186154)

Upon reading the article heading, my first thought was also "Oh great, now they're gonna get a whooping from slashdot as well!", but, of course, the first N-teen posts are all the same thing. So, "AOL!" to you all!

No fair, guys, April is almost 2 months away....

Re:I love it (4, Funny)

Bombcar (16057) | more than 10 years ago | (#8186278)

I think slashdot is not happy with this. If google becomes the new standard for website destruction, what will slashdot do?

It could be argued that the only value left in slashdot is the ability to destroy entire webservers with a single post......

Re:Yeah (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8186283)

Damn ADHD mods. Just wait a few minutes before you start marking shit up.

Slashdot Effect now (4, Funny)

RoadkillBunny (662203) | more than 10 years ago | (#8186071)

You guys are mean. First they the googled and now they get slashdoted....

Re:Slashdot Effect now (5, Funny)

CeleronXL (726844) | more than 10 years ago | (#8186135)

Yeah, it'll be nice when they make another alt page against Slashdot.. and then it makes Slashdot news again. =)

Mirror (5, Informative)

delta407 (518868) | more than 10 years ago | (#8186148)

The key difference here is that when something gets posted to Slashdot, people often have the ability to grab and post mirrors. Like this one [lerfjhax.com] , for instance.

(You're welcome.)

Insult to Injury (5, Funny)

DarkHelmet (120004) | more than 10 years ago | (#8186072)

Oh beautiful!

Let's add slashdot to our list of sites DDOSing us!

Wow, you Slashdot Editors like kicking people while they're down, huh?

And while we're at it, why not make the file redirect to www.sco.com? Oh wait... that's been done.

Damn (5, Funny)

Raul654 (453029) | more than 10 years ago | (#8186093)

I was just about to point out the same thing. Oh well... I think I'll go and reload the site a couple more times, just to rub it in.

Re:Damn (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8186119)

Oh well... I think I'll go and reload the site a couple more times, just to rub it in.

Reading the article? You're new here, aren't you?

Re:Damn (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8186253)

he said "reload", not "read". Like how you reload /. compulsively to get the early bird karma. So just relax; nobody said they were gonna read the article :-)

Re:Damn (2, Interesting)

corpsiclex (735510) | more than 10 years ago | (#8186260)

umm...i think all major traffic (like images) from the site would be stored in your isp's cache (or your own local cache) after the first time you load the page...so it probably wouldnt have much of an effect on the site's server to sit there reloading the page all day.

Re:Insult to Injury (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8186095)

Exactly!! lol :)

Re:Insult to Injury (5, Interesting)

Dukael_Mikakis (686324) | more than 10 years ago | (#8186143)

I hope /. doesn't lose its rep as the premiere internet stampede as people start referring to the "Google effect".

Much as I enjoy perusing information (and I do follow the links), this does raise a good question. Obviously, it's generally a good thing for a website to get traffic (usually, that's why the website's there), but are there moral implications for overloading a perfectly innocent site (fortunately, this site seems academic, so we aren't hurting business, per se)? Should we have a guilty conscience for bring down servers as wantonly as we do? I think not, as the Internet is open and free and who's going to stop us, but it's an interesting point they raise.

Reminds me of when I served at a restaurant and managers would complain when business was slow, but they'd get equally upset if a couple of buses pulled in and we were slammed with 100+ customers all at once. With so many customers, it was tough for us to give them good service, much less take good care of the customers we already had. I guess the exposure Google (and /.) gives can be, as they say, as much a blessing as a curse.

Re:Insult to Injury (5, Insightful)

00420 (706558) | more than 10 years ago | (#8186221)

Should we have a guilty conscience for bring down servers as wantonly as we do? I think not, as the Internet is open and free and who's going to stop us

The fact that somebody can stop you is not what makes something bad.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying bringing down servers is a horrible thing, I'm just saying your argument sucks.

Re:Insult to Injury (1)

00420 (706558) | more than 10 years ago | (#8186255)

Hey, just so you don't think I'm a troll or something (my last comment came out harsher than expected) I'd like to add that your analogy in the last paragraph is great :)

The Kipper and the Corpse: (5, Funny)

bstadil (7110) | more than 10 years ago | (#8186227)

Reminds me of the scene from Fawlty Towers the The Kipper and the Corpse:

Miss Gatsby: You're very cheerful this morning, Mr Fawlty.

Basil: (cheerfully) Yes, well one of the guests has just died.

(Polly slaps Miss Tibbs, who folds up and falls to the floor)

Basil: (to Polly) Oh, spiffing! Absolutely spiffing. Well done! Two dead, twenty five to go.

Obligatory... (3, Funny)

goldspider (445116) | more than 10 years ago | (#8186076)

...and this sort of thing is news on SLASHDOT???

Re:Obligatory... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8186127)

Just because someone is going to do it, doesn't justify you doing it.

Ahh yes... (2, Insightful)

Raynach (713366) | more than 10 years ago | (#8186082)

... the site hosting the image that good stole has failed, so the backup gets slashdotted instead!

I mean, really, use some common sense here...

I wonder how you abbreviate that (3, Funny)

Daverd (641119) | more than 10 years ago | (#8186085)

So if a Slashdotting is abbreviated as "/.ed", I guess this site was 100000000000000000... well you get the point.

Re:I wonder how you abbreviate that (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8186102)

10^100ed

Oh mighty Google... (5, Informative)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 10 years ago | (#8186089)

Google just proved that they aren't in the content business, just the search business. When Google made a rare and somewhat nonsensical editorial comment in the form of their modified logo, many people clicked the logo to see where it lead, and where it lead to was a Google image search that yeilded interesting results, so people clicked the images in the hope for information about Gaston Julia...

Google should have written their own article explaining why they decided that Gaston Julia was worthy of being honored. Instead, they simply supplied a suggested search query and passed the curious users to sites who weren't expecting the rush... if Google had asked, I'm sure they would have been able to get an academic to write a decent page to satisfy the curious users, but Google seems to have underestimated the power they have...

Just look at Wikipedia (2, Informative)

Raul654 (453029) | more than 10 years ago | (#8186158)

The article on Gaston Julia [wikipedia.org] got a LOT of edits [wikipedia.org] in the last two days.

Re:Oh mighty Google... (1)

No. 24601 (657888) | more than 10 years ago | (#8186201)

but Google seems to have underestimated the power they have...

oh, I'm sure Google is well aware of the power they have and choose to wield it however they see fit.

Hey Rock! (4, Funny)

Atario (673917) | more than 10 years ago | (#8186217)

Watch me pull a fractal outta my hat!

[Servers exploding in Australia]

Oops! Looks like I don't know m'own strenth!

Re:Oh mighty Google... (2, Insightful)

Petrol (18446) | more than 10 years ago | (#8186241)

It has always been my understanding that the *search* site Google in in the search engine business. I have never once seen Google assert that they are in the content business.

FYI, whenever they run a commemorative logo, it only points to a search on that subject (because they're a search engine..., get it?)

Re:Oh mighty Google... (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8186270)

When Google made a rare and somewhat nonsensical editorial comment in the form of their modified logo

Not sure I follow--it was Julia Gaston's birthday, and Google has been known to put up special logos on famous birthdays.

Next I suppose you think Google should write an article honoring each holiday they put up logos for. =] ... And even so, there would have to be a search link or two from that article, which would still in turn "slashdot" the first few query results.

google did it yesterday . .. (2, Funny)

nil5 (538942) | more than 10 years ago | (#8186092)

leave it to slashdot to do it again today with monster truck force!!

Re:google did it yesterday . .. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8186252)

no kidding...so much for the afterglow!

haha...and now slashdot is gonna take it down (0, Redundant)

craqboy (588418) | more than 10 years ago | (#8186094)

nuff' said

Where's Google Cache? (2, Flamebait)

maliabu (665176) | more than 10 years ago | (#8186097)

wonder why Google didn't react in time to link to its own cache instead?

Re:Where's Google Cache? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8186151)

Maybe because the "Google" image was linked to a Google search, not a webpage.

--
What's the hurry posting that you didn't proof read? Trying to get "fp"?

Re:Where's Google Cache? (3, Informative)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 10 years ago | (#8186197)

The Google Cache doesn't contain any images. If you look at the cached version of a page, you get the cached HTML supplying the text, and either the images pulled from the server, or missing image icons in their place.

A force to be reckoned with (-1, Redundant)

aaron_ds (711489) | more than 10 years ago | (#8186098)

Perhaps this is the begining of the 'Google Effect' ;)

Re:A force to be reckoned with (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8186129)

Slashdotted??? We got GOOGLED!

Of course... (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8186099)

The resulting traffic generated from clicking on that 'featured logo' incapacitated the servers of the top-listed images, hosted at an Australian university. This more than inconvenienced the owners of that site...
So, naturally, let's post them on the front page of Slashdot.

Smooth.

Yikes! (0, Funny)

Blue Eagle 26 (683113) | more than 10 years ago | (#8186100)

Yikes! Gives a whole new meaning to the term "google bombing"

/. effect (1)

provocative (725595) | more than 10 years ago | (#8186103)

Now this fake site will get slashdotted so they will have to put up another website explaining that....

oh the irony (-1, Redundant)

xao gypsie (641755) | more than 10 years ago | (#8186109)

now that poor guy's alt site will be /.ed...talkin about insult to injury..

Should Google try to convert its traffic to money? (5, Interesting)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 10 years ago | (#8186115)

Imagine just how much money could Google make if they sold just a small ad on their home page on a 24-hour basis occasionally, maybe even limited to modifying the Google logo in an agreed upon way linked to a page on the sponsoring site. http://www.google.com [google.com] has to be the most hit page on the planet right now, so such an ad would have awesome power and be able to command top dollar.

Google's clearly taking the high road by making their home page an ad-page zone. I wonder how long that's going to last after the IPO and by definition, profit-hungry interests (such as your 401k plan) get control of the company.

Re:Should Google try to convert its traffic to mon (5, Insightful)

MrRTFM (740877) | more than 10 years ago | (#8186202)

No.

Because that would be the first step down the slipperly slope into a full blown portal with weather, news, horoscopes, blah, blah, blah.

Keep it clean and simple, or they will no longer be the number one

Re:Should Google try to convert its traffic to mon (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8186274)

When that happens, is when I stop using Google.

Look at the garbage that comcast [comcast.net] subjects paying customers to.

It can only get worse.

Re:Should Google try to convert its traffic to mon (1)

AvitarX (172628) | more than 10 years ago | (#8186285)

The reason this was such a big deal is that google was doing something they don't normally do.

If this were to happen regularly and be adds none the less it would be totally ignored.

TEHE (2, Funny)

llZENll (545605) | more than 10 years ago | (#8186117)

HAHA, maybe /. and G00GLE can do a tag team on them again. Can you feel that? Huh, Huh?

'click'

Full text (5, Informative)

trickycamel (696375) | more than 10 years ago | (#8186122)

Page already loading slow, here's the full text

Using Google?

Looking for images of quaternion fractals?

On the 3rd of February 2004, this page (or rather the page that was here) was swamped by requests and the server subsequentially failed. The reason was traced to Google introducing a fractal looking logo (see below), which when clicked, performed an image search for "julia" and "fractal". The two most interesting resulting images on the top row of the list were on this page (or rather the page that was here).

[Image used without permission from Google]

In order to get this server functional again, the pages that were here have been moved somewhere else. It shouldn't be too hard to find them if you really want to, do a Google search for "Quaternion fractal" or if you would like to create your own Quaternion fractals try POVRay.

Please note that this is not a criticism of Google but rather an interesting dimension to the power they wield. They have hundreds (thousands?) of servers worldwide that distribute their traffic load. If even a small percentage of that traffic is directed to a single server.....what chance does it have?

Questions: Should Google ask permission before potentially sending huge traffic loads to a single page/server? Should they regulate traffic to individual sites/pages by changing the order of the search results?
Happy searching!

Google giveth
and Google taketh away
Blessed is Google?
[Roger Bagula]

Re:Full text (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8186212)

Whore.

Using my time machine .... (5, Funny)

Dukael_Mikakis (686324) | more than 10 years ago | (#8186237)

Here's the full text from the website tomorrow:

Browsing Slashdot?

Looking for the page complaining about Google?

On the 4rd of February 2004, this page (or rather the page that was here) was swamped by requests and the server subsequentially failed. The reason was traced to Slashdot(see image below) posting an article about a webpage about Google posting an image about fractals, which when clicked accessed our web page. The link went directly to a page about google (or rather the page that was here).

[Image used without permission from Slashdot]

In order to get this server functional again, the page that was here has been moved somewhere else. It shouldn't be too hard to find it if you really want to, do a Google search for "Using google fractal" or if you would like to complain more about google try googlewatch [googlewatch.com] .

Please note that this is not a criticism of Slashdot or nerd but rather an interesting dimension to the power they wield. They have hundreds (thousands?) of members worldwide that distribute their traffic load. If even a small percentage of that traffic is directed to a single server.....what chance does it have?

Questions: Should Slashdot ask permission before potentially sending huge traffic loads to a single page/server? Should they regulate traffic to individual sites/pages by allowing accesses by karma? Why do so few of them have girlfriends?
Happy slashdotting!

Slashdot nerdeth
and Google geeketh away
Blessed is the dork?

One day, just for fun.... (2, Interesting)

rasafras (637995) | more than 10 years ago | (#8186123)

Google should make every link go to Slashdot, and slashdot should make every link go to Google. (Though I fear many googlers that read slashdot would be scarred for life)

Re:One day, just for fun.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8186218)

Google should make every link go to Slashdot, and slashdot should make every link go to Google.
/me looks around at the stinking, burning wreakage of the internet

[heston]You bastards...look what you've done! Look what you've done!!![/heston]

so (0)

mix_master_mike (540678) | more than 10 years ago | (#8186126)

So let's slash them after google had their way with them. It's like a super ddos without the mydoom variation... mydoom.google.slashdot

well... (0)

borgdows (599861) | more than 10 years ago | (#8186134)


Google want to stop the monopoly of Slashdot for the slashdot effect! ./'ers UNITE!! let's slashdot these Google bastards!

International bandwidth crunch? (4, Interesting)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 10 years ago | (#8186139)

The server in question, by domain name at least, seems to indicate that Google's USA homepage was directing viewers on a path that led to a server in Australia. Just wondering... did any of the trans-oceanic network links show any visible spikes in traffic as a result of this event?

What's wrong with that guys nose? (-1, Offtopic)

stratjakt (596332) | more than 10 years ago | (#8186140)

Hes missin a nose and has a nose patch, like a pirate eye patch. WTF?

Did he have syphillis or something?

Re:What's wrong with that guys nose? (3, Informative)

Dreadlord (671979) | more than 10 years ago | (#8186219)

RTFA, he injured his nose in an army operation.

In one operation on a stormy, cold night he had suffered a severe injury and thus lost his nose. After many unsuccessful operations to remedy the situation, he was forced to wear a leather strap around the area where his nose was for the rest of his life.

RTFA (1)

oob (131174) | more than 10 years ago | (#8186233)

Julia had his nose blown off in WWI.

"The Hnorror, the Hnnnorror!

Re:What's wrong with that guys nose? (1)

b3t1 (721894) | more than 10 years ago | (#8186245)

your answer = WW1

Surprising (5, Interesting)

Aneurysm (680045) | more than 10 years ago | (#8186146)

I'm a little surprised that this has never happened before, as they often have featured logos. I guess those fractals must have just looked too alluring, and people had to see them. Then again, i'm quite surprised that so many people click on the featured graphic, perhaps people who aren't familiar with Julia, and were interested in what the graphic meant?

Great Idea (1)

russianspy (523929) | more than 10 years ago | (#8186149)

I'm sure others have already mentioned this, but I have to congratulate everyone. First Google, now slashdot. When will the pain end?

Yet another joke about slashdotting (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8186152)

Dude, like.. first Google does it, now /. will totally, like, slashdot them.

No way!

They pose a good question, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8186155)

Questions: Should Google ask permission before potentially sending huge traffic loads to a single page/server?

Maybe it should read "Slashdot" as opposed to "Google".

Can we set up a competition? Can it be measured? (4, Insightful)

soren42 (700305) | more than 10 years ago | (#8186156)

I wonder who generates more traffic, google or slashdot... Google has far more traffic, I'm certain, but Slashdotters travel very specific links.

What's more dangerous to your bandwidth - top link on a google doodle or a slashdotting?

Re:Can we set up a competition? Can it be measured (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8186294)

I strongly suspect that a good Googledoodling generates vastly more traffic than a Slashdotting ever could. If anyone recalls from a few weeks ago, a NASA guy was talking about server load from Slashdot versus links from major news sites. The comment boiled down to observing that Slashdot was a drop in the bucket compared to links from mainstream news web sites. (I'm sorry that I can't immediately locate that comment -- anyone else remember it or can find it?)

Google gets absolutely spectacularly huge volumes of visitors, even (I suspect) compared to the major media web sites. If only the tiniest fraction clicked on the logo, and then on a linked picture, it could generate really immense traffic.

Still, I'd love to see this quantified.

And in breaking news... (0)

HappyCitizen (742844) | more than 10 years ago | (#8186159)

That website which google knocked down was using illegal unregistered SCO Code. It better pay its fee. I mean thats just immoral, SCO has proof

Slash versus Goog (1)

Denix (125207) | more than 10 years ago | (#8186161)

Well, maybe Google should feature Slashdot and vice versa...

Let's see who wins.


Hokey religions
and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.

So much for Plan B (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8186163)


"This more than inconvenienced the owners of that site, who had to move pages and ended up displaying this page instead."

Which was then of course immediately slashdotted into oblivion by the provided link.

Doh! They must really be hating us Down Under....

New service: Google CachePlus? (5, Interesting)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 10 years ago | (#8186166)

Google clearly has an international network of highly powered servers that have the ability to send out content via HTTP. Maybe Google could open up a side business for those who need a lot of web capacity fast for a short duration, for those who want to keep their websites up despite a major media mention that will quickly subside.

Re:New service: Google CachePlus? (3, Informative)

furchin (240685) | more than 10 years ago | (#8186275)

You mean like this [akamai.com] ?

Time for internet upgrade (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8186167)

Since we're upgrading mail to be more spam-resiliant, we might as well upgrade websites, too. I think it's time that even website files are distributed via a p2p method. Swarmed downloading, and uploading via a tracker a la BitTorrent (but more seamless than how it can be done today) could help distribute load balance over the internet.

Nothing like competition... (1)

3seas (184403) | more than 10 years ago | (#8186170)

Slashdot vs. Google....

thats a tough call... considering google reaches beyond the geeks but Slashdot has higher frequency of slashdottin... uh err google blastin... uh errr...

Well the competition is on....

News flash (4, Funny)

savagedome (742194) | more than 10 years ago | (#8186173)

And while reporting incapacitated australian univ servers on slashdot, Searchenginelowdown.com is being hosted on a new site called Searchenginedown.com

Interesting footnote... (1)

provocative (725595) | more than 10 years ago | (#8186175)

did anyone notice the text below the image: [Image used without permission from Google] Trying to give Google a taste of their own medicine?

Re:Interesting footnote... (1)

CeleronXL (726844) | more than 10 years ago | (#8186256)

Nah, the hosted the image locally on their own server for some reason. You'd think they'd actually try for real revenge and leech it.

Fractals! (1)

WolfieN (654940) | more than 10 years ago | (#8186176)

It's the fractals! They're starting to take over... Judgement day is upon us..

mmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8186185)

I think you mean the rectals.

Google has traffic? Big deal. (1)

JWSmythe (446288) | more than 10 years ago | (#8186186)

This isn't news.

The first few times news.google.com linked http://freeinternetpress.com , the traffic was so overwhelming that the server didn't take it. We had to tweak a few things out, so now we can.

The send lots of traffic to lots of people. We just post news very well, we weren't expecting the number of hits we got when they pick up stories.

No complaints though, we enjoy the fact that lots of people read our stuff.

Could google slashdot slashdot? (2, Interesting)

thopo (315128) | more than 10 years ago | (#8186189)

Let's assume that for an hour google secretely replaces all href's in all results to slashdot.org, could half the internet take down slashdot? That'd be an interesting thing to try.

great! (1)

Trailer Trash (60756) | more than 10 years ago | (#8186190)

This more than inconvenienced the owners of that site, who had to move pages and ended up displaying this page instead.

Which will now be nicely slashdotted....

New Link (0)

RoadkillBunny (662203) | more than 10 years ago | (#8186191)

http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/~pbourke/fractals/qua ternion/
I followed their instruction for what to search google and found their new link. Are we gonna take that down too?

Changing the picture (2, Interesting)

shird (566377) | more than 10 years ago | (#8186205)

Wouldn't it have been more fun to have changed the pictures? I thought google actually stored the thumbnails and served them up.

If not, there are a various protections you can use to prevent the image being shown on another server (using the referrer is one, not particularly robust/compatible method) Many free websites use this method.

If google doesn't store the thumbnail, then it is not the google servers hammering them (as the site claims) but all the users doing the search. Thus it is irrelevant of how many servers google has.

Re:Changing the picture (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8186234)

That should read 'if google _does_ store the thumbnail, then it it is not the google servers hammering...'

Re:Changing the picture (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8186249)

stike that, it was correct as it was. doh

ha! (1)

MrBallistic (88770) | more than 10 years ago | (#8186208)

now he'll have to put up /another/ page talking about the 'power of slashdot'. let's all point at sco or something instead.

oh wait... all of those windows boxes already did :)

t

so... (0)

Steamhead (714353) | more than 10 years ago | (#8186211)

Now lets take down /that/ page, as the honorary /.er should.

pretty cool response they had (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8186213)

By phrasing the issue in a shape of a question rather than just complaining about it they really gained my respect and admiration.

Some people understand that the purpose of a university (or any educator really) is to provoke thought and to impart knowledge and information. But also to let the end user (usually a student) draw their own conclusions.

The way the page is phrased makes me think that the person behind it - even supposing I didn't know he works with fractals - is one cool guy and probably a really awesome professor.

Google business plan... (1)

provocative (725595) | more than 10 years ago | (#8186214)

Google could start bullying companies into paying them, or else Google will make its logo point their servers ;-)

This was partially my fault. (4, Insightful)

Awptimus Prime (695459) | more than 10 years ago | (#8186222)

I spent a good part of my afternoon visiting pages linked to that google logo. The first page of results was so slow, and half the links were timing out.

I wondered why they didn't just return random results from the first 20-30 pages of links. That would have seemed more respectful to the poor bastards running sites off freebie dial-up and university hosting accounts.

*sigh* (1)

schon (31600) | more than 10 years ago | (#8186231)

Should Google ask permission before potentially sending huge traffic loads to a single page/server?

Sweet Jebus, give me a break.

Since this came from a google search, there is a pretty simple way to prevent this from happening, without having Google do anything - use your robots.txt to stop google from indexing your site.

Google is opt-in. If you don't want to be indexed, don't be.

Re:*sigh* (2, Insightful)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 10 years ago | (#8186263)

Yes, but Google gave no warning that the number of searches on the term "juila fractal" was about to suddenly spike because of a hyperlink placed on a Google Doodle. People who wanted a trickle of traffic from Google got a flood.

Re:*sigh* (5, Informative)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 10 years ago | (#8186277)

Since this came from a google search, there is a pretty simple way to prevent this from happening, without having Google do anything - use your robots.txt to stop google from indexing your site.

Google is opt-in. If you don't want to be indexed, don't be.


Ew... that's spammer talk. Google complies with robots.txt, but that's an opt-out signal. Those with no robots.txt are presumed to want to be listed. A true opt-in system would require an affirmative robots.txt before Google spiders a site... which isn't the reality.

Re:*sigh* (2, Interesting)

provocative (725595) | more than 10 years ago | (#8186291)

This is different... Just imagine how many people would be searching for fractals everyday? not many. But if you take that and put it smack in the center of one of the most visted pages on the internet right now, things will be a little different.

Of course, Google is not obliged to warn them because their content is on public domain, but I think it would just be a matter of courtesy..

That brings to mind, should Slashdot start warning people before they are referenced here?

That's messed up. (1, Funny)

lasmith05 (578697) | more than 10 years ago | (#8186239)

First google takes them down, then slashdot. Someone must really not like fractals. :)

Farked too (5, Funny)

zjbs14 (549864) | more than 10 years ago | (#8186240)

The Google page was listed on Fark yesterday. So that site has been: 1. Googled 2. Farked 3. Now /.'ed The unintentional DDoS trifecta!

Here is an idea.... (1)

3seas (184403) | more than 10 years ago | (#8186242)

lets not visit the links in the article....

you know... to be nice....

errr argggg.. eeeeaaahh.... I gotta I gotta...The temptation is just to strong....

For those desperate to find fractals... (2, Informative)

Mieckowski (741243) | more than 10 years ago | (#8186244)

The origional site (I think) can be found at:

http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/~pbourke/fractals/q ua ternion/

but Googles doesn't know Gaston Julia (2, Funny)

Dreadlord (671979) | more than 10 years ago | (#8186248)

Weird, I've tried to see what Google knows [googlism.com] about Gaston Julia, it turned out that Google doesn't actually know him. [googlism.com]

Cough up some money fast or... (3, Funny)

jigyasubalak (308473) | more than 10 years ago | (#8186261)

we feature you as a logo.
Looks like google doesn't need an IPO, after all ;)

Great... (0, Redundant)

sitharus (451656) | more than 10 years ago | (#8186279)

They thought they had it bad getting googled, now they're getting slashdotted as well! Lucky them.

Wrong? no! (1, Interesting)

contrasutra (640313) | more than 10 years ago | (#8186281)

Why do people complain sites like Google or Slashdot shouldnt link to sites, because they get too much traffic?

People put their sites online so other people can see it. You cant then complain when lots of people see it, saying, "I only wanted a couple people seeing it". Its a public site, so expect the public to come. Just make sure you get a plan that doesnt charge when you go over your bandwidth, just shuts you down.

This proves it. (5, Funny)

teamhasnoi (554944) | more than 10 years ago | (#8186289)

Slashdot is a big wuss compared to Google. [googlefight.com]

C'mon you geeks! Take off those pocket protectors and put on the gloves! Google's callin' you out!

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>