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 Index Doubles

samzenpus posted more than 9 years ago | from the even-more dept.

The Internet 324

geekfiend writes "Today Google updated their website to indicate over eight billion pages crawled, cached and indexed. They've also added an entry to their blog explaining that they still have tons of work to do."

cancel ×

324 comments

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

This is news ? (-1, Troll)

Zork the Almighty (599344) | more than 9 years ago | (#10785953)

I'm sorry, and this is news how ?

Re:This is news ? (1, Funny)

Manip (656104) | more than 9 years ago | (#10785958)

Yes because we at /. love Google..

Google is a constant source of information and a geeks friend - if the index has doubled so has our supply of information. Information rules!

Re:This is news ? (1)

Zork the Almighty (599344) | more than 9 years ago | (#10785967)

In related news, the sun has set for today and will rise again tomorrow. The web is growing. Google is indexing it. It isn't news, it's a factoid.

Re:This is news ? (3, Insightful)

dotmike (829740) | more than 9 years ago | (#10786018)

Yeah, but it'd be news if the sun set twice in one night or rose twice as bright.

It's more the exponential increase in the size of the index rather than the piecemeal addition.

Re:This is news ? (1)

krymsin01 (700838) | more than 9 years ago | (#10786040)

You are damned right that'd be news. It means we slipped out of reality and headed into the twilight zone. (CUE MUSIC)

Re:This is news ? (-1, Redundant)

A beautiful mind (821714) | more than 9 years ago | (#10785965)

1. Double the google index
2. Better Search results
3. More users
4. ???
5. Profit

Sorry couldnt resist ;)

Re:This is news ? (3, Interesting)

PerpetualMotion (550623) | more than 9 years ago | (#10785997)

A bigger index does not equal better search results, however, with the press this will generate, it will equal profits.

Re:This is news ? (2, Interesting)

Ford Prefect (8777) | more than 9 years ago | (#10786074)

A bigger index does not equal better search results, however, with the press this will generate, it will equal profits.

It would be terribly easy to get trillions of pages indexed. For instance, a site I've been working on has a public calendar system, with results fished out of a database. There are very few actual events in it at the moment, but with the 'Previous' and 'Next' links it'll run from 1970 to 2038. A naïve web-crawler would index every single month for every single year, but Google would appear to have crawled over just a few, presumably flagging the pages as too similar to warrant further investigation.

With stuff like public web forums, Slashdot and the like, I can easily imagine comparatively small sites producing thousands of pages apiece. Is there useful information in there? Quite possibly, but it definitely needs treating in a different manner to an old-fashioned, static-pages-only site...

Re:This is news ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10786126)

Dictionary definition of redundant
re.dun.dant adj
1a: exceeding what is necessary or normal: SUPERFLUOUS
b: characterized by or containing an excess; specif: using more words than necessary
c: characterized by similarity or repetition
d chiefly Brit: being out of work: laid off
2: PROFUSE, LAVISH
3: serving as a duplicate for preventing failure of an entire system (as a spacecraft) upon failure of a single component
-- re.dun.dant.ly adv

Learn what does it mean, mods.

Re:This is news ? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10786011)

They doubled the index by counting all the stuff on your hard drive indexed and sent to them by Google Desktop Search.

This IS news! ... (-1, Redundant)

tom17 (659054) | more than 9 years ago | (#10786015)

... when taken in context with the news from MS about its new MSN Search service indexing more pages than any other rival. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4000015.stm [bbc.co.uk] I guess Google had to do this to debunk MS' claims of being the new leader in amount of pages indexed.

Geeks who understand marketing (1)

Mostly a lurker (634878) | more than 9 years ago | (#10786138)

What Google has going for them is that they combine technical know how with marketing smarts. I still use Google as my primary search engine because it produces better results. Google understands though that, in the market at large, they need to play the numbers game. Fine they say. Within hours of the Microsoft announcement, out comes this.

Frankly, I love it any time someone can best Microsoft. The next big thing may well be consumers putting their data on servers provided by the likes of Google, Microsoft and Yahoo -- running their applications there and having PCs that are little more than very easy to use display devices. If so,I would not mind seeing Google with the dominant market share. I trust them with that kind of power a lot more than Microsoft.

MODS ARE STUPID (-1, Troll)

Zork the Almighty (599344) | more than 9 years ago | (#10786028)

Yeah, the first fucking post is redundant - morons. If you want redundant, try the title.

Re:MODS ARE STUPID (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10786075)

Your post *was* redundant (and repetative...and redundant).

Re:MODS ARE STUPID (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10786088)

He was just speaking what the rest of us were thinking. Right now, we're thinking that you don't know how to spell "repetitive".

Re:MODS ARE STUPID (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10786136)

I spelled it write you ass. You should learn how to spell (or how to use a dictionarie sight for that matter)

Yes, seems to be working... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10785956)

The number of results for my favorite query [google.com] just doubled.
--
perl -e '$??s:;s:s;;$?::s;;=]=>%-{

Image Search (4, Funny)

TupperTrenine (803932) | more than 9 years ago | (#10785963)

Have they updated image search yet?

Re:Image Search (-1)

onida (830153) | more than 9 years ago | (#10785987)

Does this mean they have double the pr0n?

Re:Image Search (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10786001)

"mongolian pr0n" gave 0 hits so I guess not. :-(

slashdotting (4, Funny)

Zork the Almighty (599344) | more than 9 years ago | (#10786007)

In case of slashdotting use this mirror [google.ca] .

Re:slashdotting (3, Funny)

juglugs (652924) | more than 9 years ago | (#10786121)

No, no, no... Use this [alltooflat.com] Mirror...

Re:Image Search (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10786095)

Have they updated image search yet?
Let's test... Hmm, yes, they have [google.com] !

In other news... (1)

murraythegreat (780556) | more than 9 years ago | (#10785968)

google reports 7,999,999,980 pages cashed and unaccesible from china

More pages v.s more relevant pages (5, Insightful)

xiando (770382) | more than 9 years ago | (#10785970)

Personally I find that the lack of relevant pages if the biggest problem with search engines, not the lack of pages with information. It seems I always find what I'm looking for eventually, what I need improved is the time I spend looking though spam-bomb pages before I find a page with the correct information.

These spam-pages seem to be increasing; I mean those pages with just a buch of keywords or the output of some search system.

It is not the size of it.... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10786044)

It is not the size that is important, it is what you do with it!

Re:More pages v.s more relevant pages (5, Insightful)

Kithraya (34530) | more than 9 years ago | (#10786142)

I'm especially irritated by the increasing number of highly-ranked pages that are nothing more than another search engine's results. If Google could find some way to identify and remove these from my result set, Google's usefulness to me would increase 10 times over.

I'm all alone (4, Funny)

tcdk (173945) | more than 9 years ago | (#10785971)

8 billion pages and not a single link to my blog [google.com] .

Can't figure of I should just shoot my self or maybe just open a subscription to /.

Re:I'm all alone (4, Funny)

Zork the Almighty (599344) | more than 9 years ago | (#10785995)

If you shoot yourself, will your blog readers know ? I mean, it's kindof like the tree in the forest thing.

Re:I'm all alone (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10786022)

If you quit, can I have your stuff?

Re:I'm all alone (1)

dotmike (829740) | more than 9 years ago | (#10786031)

Warning! [geekculture.com]

Re:I'm all alone (1)

pAnkRat (639452) | more than 9 years ago | (#10786063)

Try using:

site:blog.tc.dk

as a search.

It lists 4 hits. I think your search show that nobody links to you page, but hey, that's life (for a geek)

Re:I'm all alone (3, Informative)

tadmas (770287) | more than 9 years ago | (#10786114)

8 billion pages and not a single link to my blog.

Perhaps you should just tell them where it is [google.com] .

Re:I'm all alone (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10786132)

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=site%3Ablog.t c.dk&btnG=Google+Search

Do this affect how fresh their index will be? (3, Insightful)

Jugalator (259273) | more than 9 years ago | (#10785973)

I wonder if it'll take longer to index twice as many pages? Or if they, along with this change, improved their spider and/or added hardware. Otherwise I'm not sure this change is for the better, unless you like to search for really obscure topics.

Re:Do this affect how fresh their index will be? (1)

andres32a (448314) | more than 9 years ago | (#10786110)

Actually no. Better search results means fewer necessary searches, which in turn will make the entire process most time effective. And anyway, you can`t just stop indexing webpages just because it might take longer to index them. You just need to improve on hardware or the technology itself.

Google Schmoogle (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10785974)

You heard me!

Re:Google Schmoogle (2, Funny)

seanyboy (587819) | more than 9 years ago | (#10786002)

They already have. [google.com]

What is new about this. (3, Interesting)

hanssprudel (323035) | more than 9 years ago | (#10785977)


What the article does not point out is why this something important. For just about forever google's store has been coverging on 2**32 documents. Some people have speculated that Google simply could not update their 100,000+ servers with a new system that allowed more. Apparently they have now done the necessary architecture changes to allow for identifying documents by 64 bit (or more identifiers) and back in the business of making their search for comprehensive.

Good timing to conincide with MSN attempt to start a new searchengine too!

Re:What is new about this. (3, Interesting)

Jugalator (259273) | more than 9 years ago | (#10786010)

Good timing to conincide with MSN attempt to start a new searchengine too!

Yes, they'd better fight back, as they now have a serious competitor in MSN.
It's giving very accurate results [msn.com] .

Doesn't anyone find it strange that Google gave the same top result there a while back?

MSN must be using a very similar algorithm.

Maybe a bit too similar...?

*tinfoil hat on*

Re:What is new about this. (1)

Zork the Almighty (599344) | more than 9 years ago | (#10786157)

Ha! Google itself is #4 on MSN's results.

Re:What is new about this. (1)

pchan- (118053) | more than 9 years ago | (#10786165)

heh, bedope.com. i haven't seen that site since Be Inc went under. the were the site to introduce the most numerically advanced version of linux, ever! [bedope.com]

"You'll note that other versions of Linux are languishing at version 6.3 or even 2.2 - only Be Dope Linux Version 27.1 with AVN (Advanced Version Numbering) brings you a version of Linux numbered at 27.1".

Re:What is new about this. (2, Insightful)

slavemowgli (585321) | more than 9 years ago | (#10786041)

I don't quite believe that Google would've limited themselves that way (using 32 bit identifiers for documents) - that would've been incredibly short-sighted.

It's even worse than that! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10786163)

I don't quite believe that Google would've limited themselves that way (using 32 bit identifiers for documents) - that would've been incredibly short-sighted.

What was even more short sighted was their use of two digits to store the year value for the file dates. Something about the amount of space saved by not using those extra two bytes (four for unicode).

Re:What is new about this. (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10786082)

For just about forever google's store has been coverging on 2**32 documents. Some people have speculated that Google simply could not update their 100,000+ servers with a new system that allowed more. Apparently they have now done the necessary architecture changes to allow for identifying documents by 64 bit (or more identifiers) and back in the business of making their search for comprehensive.
As someone who routinely follows these things, I couldn't agree more with your statement. My company operates a number of sites, and over the past 6 months, we've seen an obvious trend. Sites with, say, 5000+ pages, which used to be entirely indexed in Google, gradually had pages lost from Google. A search for site:somesite.com would return 5000 results 6 months ago. 3 or 4 months ago, the same search gave maybe 1000 results. This month maybe 500 or 600. We were definitely of the opinion that Google's index was "maxxed out" and was dropping large portions of indexed sites in favor of attempting to index new sites.

Now after seeing this story, I did a search and found literally all 5000+ pages are indexed once again. This is a huge step forward for webmasters everywhere. If your site had been slowly edged out of Google's index it's most likely back in its entirety now.

Thanks G.

no update on the images (3, Informative)

bvdbos (724595) | more than 9 years ago | (#10785980)

Unfortunately they didn't update [slashdot.org] the image-search [google.com] yet.

Re:no update on the images (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10786087)

You really got the hots for Lyndie England huh?

Yay... (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10785981)

more pr0n!

flap flap flap

Google makes minor change to website - news at 11! (3, Insightful)

Sanity (1431) | more than 9 years ago | (#10785986)

Does every minor Google or Apple related thing deserve a slashdot story? Can slashdot create a "Fanboy" section for insignificant stories advocating Google (with their software patent) and Apple (with their iTunes DRM)? That way I could filter them out more easily.

Re:Google makes minor change to website - news at (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10785993)

Nothing beats Apple. It is superior and makes people instant geeks without knowing shiat.

Re:Google makes minor change to website - news at (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10786051)

Gentoy and this weeks kiddies favourite Umbongo Linux come pretty close.

Re:Google makes minor change to website - news at (-1, Redundant)

Zork the Almighty (599344) | more than 9 years ago | (#10786036)

I beat you by 7 minutes, with first post, and was modded redundant for essentially the same comment.

Re:Google makes minor change to website - news at (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10786047)

I guess its all in the wording

Re:Google makes minor change to website - news at (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10786070)

Dude, fucking get over it, I've been reading your posts for the last three minutes and imagining how much of a whiny fucktard you must be...

goddamn you a fucking bitch. Oh wait, your login is "Zork the Almighty"....hehehe...do you plan on EVER getting laid you fucking nerd?

Re:Google makes minor change to website - news at (-1, Redundant)

Zork the Almighty (599344) | more than 9 years ago | (#10786078)

It's not like there's a story here worth commenting on. I'm killing time. And don't talk to me about getting laid, because you don't know shit.

Re:Google makes minor change to website - news at (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10786096)

No, you don't know shit infinity.

Re:Google makes minor change to website - news at (1)

timdorr (213400) | more than 9 years ago | (#10786045)

Maybe it's just me, but I'd call the doubling of information available for me to search a pretty significant improvement. Especially when the last update was only a 1b increase ("only" is a relative term, of course...).

Re:Google makes minor change to website - news at (1)

Zork the Almighty (599344) | more than 9 years ago | (#10786057)

The extra 3 billion pages are probably link farms.

Re:Google makes minor change to website - news at (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10786086)

It's just that Rain Man guy. He hacked google by dialing up their secret modem bank and emulated a dialup connection with nothing but his mouth!

Then he added 3 billion entries into google's database for "Silverware Drawer" and "Tom Cruise is a tool, definately a TOOL"

Re:Google makes minor change to website - news at (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10786115)

OMG You suck so hard at the interwebs n00b, I call you hoover!!!!11!!11!!!1

Re:Google makes minor change to website - news at (2, Funny)

dotmike (829740) | more than 9 years ago | (#10786058)

At the same time, can Slashdot create a "Curmudgeon" section for those who like to gripe about the less than monumental significance of some story topics?

Ofcourse ... (1)

El_Muerte_TDS (592157) | more than 9 years ago | (#10785988)

I made my internet mirror world reable.

Quality - not quantity (3, Insightful)

seanyboy (587819) | more than 9 years ago | (#10785991)

Google needs to stop obsessing about the number of indexed pages, and start concentrating on the quality. Since pagerank was switched off, 2 out of 5 searches now seem to be jammed with pages full of nothing but random words and adverts. It's even more galling when the adverts are Google Ads. Much as I love Google, they're becoming increasingly less effective as a tool.

Re:Quality - not quantity (3, Funny)

Ingolfke (515826) | more than 9 years ago | (#10786016)

I agree search engines are so 1990. I rely exlusively on word of mouth to find websites. If Firefox would add a button to the toolbar that said 'Cool Sites', maybe with an icon of a pair of glasses, and have the button link to a webpage with links to the latest cool sites on the net, that would certainly be the end of Google and their 8 billion pages. Pah!

Re:Quality - not quantity (1)

INT 21h (7143) | more than 9 years ago | (#10786159)

Tried Stumbleupon? It has a plugin for firefix iirc.

Re:Quality - not quantity (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10786168)

He was referencing the old Netscape default setup, I believe.

Re:Quality - not quantity (2, Insightful)

Onionesque (455220) | more than 9 years ago | (#10786032)

To paraphrase Churchill, Google is the worst system devised by the wit of man, except for all the others. Where else would you go? Yahoo? Hey, how about AltaVista?

The problems faced by Google in their battle against the scumbags who would game the system are faced by every other search engine. Google, IMHO, handles them better.

Re:Quality - not quantity (1)

seanyboy (587819) | more than 9 years ago | (#10786064)

Agreed, they still need to know when people are being frustrated by the search results they're being given. And I'm finding it increasingly difficult to find what I want with Google.

Re:Quality - not quantity (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10786100)

No, this is a good thing. It's taken them longer and longer to get pages in the damn index.

Re:Quality - not quantity (3, Informative)

dabadab (126782) | more than 9 years ago | (#10786134)

"[i]Since pagerank was switched off[/i]"

Since when is Pagerank switched off?

And I for one welcome... (2, Funny)

mu22le (766735) | more than 9 years ago | (#10785992)

No, wait, they are our internet search overlords since, like, 1999?

Mhm to anonymous coward or not to anonymous coward?
Will moderators smack my karma below zero?

Nonsense. (2, Funny)

MadFarmAnimalz (460972) | more than 9 years ago | (#10786023)

over eight billion pages crawled

You don't just go from 4 billion to 8 billion overnight.

They are probably just crawling the same 4 billion twice.

RTFA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10786104)

They are probably just crawling the same 4 billion twice

From the article: These are not just copies of the same pages, but truly diverse results that give more information.

Makes you wonder... (5, Insightful)

manmanic (662850) | more than 9 years ago | (#10786029)

Does this mean that I've been missing a huge amount of important information until now? I'd just assumed that Google covered the entire relevant web but now it seems to cover the whole same amount again. My Google alerts [googlealert.com] also seem to have started producing a lot more results which suggest that a lot of these new pages are rated quite highly. Who knows how much more quality content on the web we're just not seeing?

Re:Makes you wonder... (1)

krymsin01 (700838) | more than 9 years ago | (#10786059)

Yes, you missed all the good info. By now, all the new pages Google is indexing are out of date and irrelevant.

Re:Makes you wonder... (5, Interesting)

jlar (584848) | more than 9 years ago | (#10786061)

"Does this mean that I've been missing a huge amount of important information until now?"

Maybe the steep increase is due to all the new file formats they are indexing now. That might be useful for some people (although I sometimes find it kind of annoying that a search returns MS-Word documents).

So this means... (0, Redundant)

unknown51a (741797) | more than 9 years ago | (#10786030)

More pr0n links?

Google needs your cookie badly (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10786053)

Until today you could save your google settings [google-watch.org] without loosing your privacy [google-watch.org] . You can still save those settings but google refuses to use them when you block their cookie. In my case I get 10 search results although I like to receive 100. Seems that they are making many dollars on a user's cookie, and now they are a public company my privacy is less important than "stock holders' interests".

Re:Google needs your cookie badly (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10786151)

You can still save those settings but google refuses to use them when you block their cookie. In my case I get 10 search results although I like to receive 100.

Create a keyword bookmark [mozilla.org] with the URL

Give it the keyword 100, then type 100 search_term in the address bar to use it.

Re:Google needs your cookie badly (1)

marc252 (658303) | more than 9 years ago | (#10786155)

well, If you consider all your privacy goes away because a cookie from google, you better stop using cellular phones, regular telephone lines, credit cards, internet connections from private places, snail mail, bank accounts, and ahh! don't you go walking through city streets, there are cameras monitoring your activity....
Once you've done all this you will find yourself living alone in a forest, then you can surely shout out loud "I'm free!!!" but,
be careful don't shout to loud, threre might be some satellite monitoring forests for people who try to live aside from the system! Good luck

Think of all the extra pr0n (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10786056)

yum yum.

Somewhat offtopic (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10786067)

Nice marketing move of Google to get this right on Microsofts announcement, but:

Why isn't there a "Yaser Arafat has died" or something story in the Politics section? Or is the section only for USA politics? Looking at Google news, it is hard to deny it's an important political story.

Posted anonymous because there is no way that this will be moderated above -1.

Google domination. (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10786069)

Local tabloid Aftonbladet is running a poll on search engine use:

Google (81.4 %)
Yahoo (2.2 %)
MSN (3.8 %)
Other (11.4 %)
Don't know (1.2 %)

61730 votes so far.

I'm a little surprised, either the masses who use the "default" (MSN?) aren't bothering to answer, or google is simply very very dominant and those "default using masses" do not exist [in this country].

If I kept eating so much spam... (3, Funny)

dos_dude (521098) | more than 9 years ago | (#10786072)

... my weight would probably double, too.

Google thieves my bandwidth (-1, Troll)

SimianOverlord (727643) | more than 9 years ago | (#10786073)

I'm the webmaster for a small, select website, and I've been having various problems with Google bots crawling all over it. I object to this: they are stealing from me in a very material way, which they have no right to do. Unless I adhere to their own arbitrary rules, then they index my pages and copy my images (many of which are original and created, copyrighted by myself) without right of reply or respect for my rights of freedom of expression. I simply do not want the average surfer to be able to visit my site, I am not interested in serving my pages to them, they simply would not appreciate or understand what it is I am showing. I have informed Google of this, but corresponding with google is like talking to a mute, they simply do not care. Their motto may as well be "Don't be blatantly evil (merely confine your evilness to various small scale unsavoury attacks on Net denizens)"

The problem is really search engines in general, they act like road hogs of the Internet bandwidth, and I have to waste valuable time to prevent them from bothering my own, special webspace. I am not compensated for this time. There is an Internet crime EVERY DAY.

Re:Google thieves my bandwidth (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10786089)

Google respects the robots.txt file. Use it.

robots.txt (3, Informative)

ReKleSS (749007) | more than 9 years ago | (#10786148)

Yes, this is probably a troll, but anyway... I take it you've never heard of the robots.txt file? You sound like you might want to read up on it. It's designed to help control the spidering of your pages for whatever reason, particularly cases like yours or situations where a spider would get confused and end up doing something stupid (recursive stuff, etc).
-ReK

Re:Google thieves my bandwidth (1)

MobiusClark (728561) | more than 9 years ago | (#10786153)

Erm... Have you considered putting a robots.txt file on your webserver?

The Googlebot is quite well designed and should honour any instructions you put in it.

Take a look http://www.google.com/search?q=robots.txt [google.com]

Well (1, Redundant)

pmc255 (828453) | more than 9 years ago | (#10786085)

Well, for those who are wondering how it went from 4 billion to 8 billion overnight, it probably didn't. The index, as I understand it, is built repetitively and incrementally. The size of the index has probably been accumulating for who knows how long, and they just decided to announce the milestone 8 billion mark today.

Microsoft (4, Interesting)

Cookeisparanoid (178680) | more than 9 years ago | (#10786099)

A lot of people have been asking what the point of the artical is, why does it matter, well possibly because Microsoft announced the launch of their search engine http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4000015.stm and are claiming more pages index than google (5 billion) so google have responded by effectivly doubling their pages indexed.

8 billions.... (1, Funny)

DrYak (748999) | more than 9 years ago | (#10786102)

Of which 80% is V1AGR@ advertising,
and 19% is pr0n.
There's debate if the remaining 1% contains pirated music and movie or plans for DIY nukes.

Mine is bigger than yours!!! (4, Informative)

ayjay29 (144994) | more than 9 years ago | (#10786124)

From BBC News here [bbc.co.uk] .

In a statement Microsoft said its search engine returned results from five billion web pages - more than any other search engine.

But this quickly won a response from Google which announced that its index has now grown to more than 8 billion pages.

Prior to the Microsoft announcement, Google was only indexing 4,285,199,774 web pages.

Steve Ballmer is soon to announce that his daddy is one hundrad years old, and kan kick your daddy's ass...

Re:Mine is bigger than yours!!! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10786149)

If his daddy's that old, he won't be able to lift his foot.

Grrrrr (4, Funny)

squoozer (730327) | more than 9 years ago | (#10786128)

Now it's going to be even harder to get my name in the top spot. Why was I cursed with the surname Smith!

Searching LiveJournal.com (4, Informative)

hackrobat (467625) | more than 9 years ago | (#10786135)

Looks like they've added a gazillion LiveJournal [livejournal.com] pages to their index. I used to have a Google search box on my LJ that didn't throw up relevant results until last week or so. Now it works perfectly, just like builtin search (like what you see in MT and WordPress).

Doubled? Wait a minute... (5, Funny)

't is DjiM (801555) | more than 9 years ago | (#10786140)

From 4 to 8 billion pages... I guess they just indexed the google cache...

Re:Doubled? Wait a minute... (1)

fronti (678492) | more than 9 years ago | (#10786164)

rotf... perhaps it's a bug in de indexer.. But when I take a look in my logfiles, there is a real "fight" googlebot vs. new-msnbot vs. ast jewes.. and all the 3 index the hole transcode, mplayer, xvid mailinglist archive ( http://www.itdp.de ) tonns of small files :) (ok I know about robots.txt)

Competing with Microsoft's 5bn? (4, Informative)

Richard W.M. Jones (591125) | more than 9 years ago | (#10786143)

On the same day that this story hits the BBC [bbc.co.uk] . In that story Microsoft claim that they have 5 billion pages indexed, more than the 4.2 billion pages indexed (at that point) by Google. The BBC have just updated the story with the 8bn figure.

I smell competition!

Rich.

Does this mean...? (3, Insightful)

jimicus (737525) | more than 9 years ago | (#10786147)

Does this mean twice as many pages with "Search for 'printer problem linux' on Kelkoo"?

meta-no-archive (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10786154)

apparently my sites will never get a good ranking on google because I don't want the search engine to cache the site. So I'm using meta no-archive tags. That's the only thing I can figure out why the sites rank so poorly on google, when they come up in the top 10-20 hits on yahoo and other search engines. The keywords for the searches are valid, the sites are relevant to the keyword searches, yet the sites don't show in the top 100-300 on google.

I've avoided all the usual spam type of tags (auto refreshing, hidden text, cloaking, etc.) and the sites are legitimate and on the up and up, and yet the only page or two that google is spidering are the one or few that appear to be without the no-archive tags and possibly the revisit/expire tags.

Is google's policy, allows us to cache your site, or get penalized? Anyone else run into a similar problem or can shed some light on this? The only other thing I can think of is the robots text file, that keeps googlebot, and then other spiders through a *, from entering images directories. The spiders, including googlebot, aren't restricted from entering any other directories, they are given free reign.

Anyone else with problems with no-cache, no archive, tight revisit/expire times, or similar non-spam tags that result in penalties in google ranking?

I've been using google exclusively for a few years now. But the poor page ranking of sites on my server got me wondering about other sites that may be relevant to my own searches which may be exluded or penalized by google. So I've started using Yahoo search again, as much as I hate Yahoo (what they do with advertising to Yahoo groups and Yahoo mail is a shame). It appears that Yahoo is including better results because other sites show up with higher ranking that actually are relevant. So I've learned that Google isn't as perfect as I thought it was, which was disappointing in itself. It was easy using one search site. Now I have to use two to make sure I'm getting good results. Anyone know if there is a plugin for Firefox with both Google and Yahoo search boxes on the toolbar?
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>