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!

Yahoo Passes Google in Total Items Searched

timothy posted more than 9 years ago | from the it-depends-what-you're-looking-for dept.

The Internet 434

tonyquan writes "Yahoo announced today that its search engine passed Google's for overall capacity, with 20 billion documents and images indexed versus 11.3 billion for Google. Observers had previously pegged Yahoo's index at just 8 billion items. The growth is due to a recent expansion effort. More info can be found on the Yahoo! Search blog and at CNet."

cancel ×

434 comments

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

Slashdotters (0, Redundant)

Mac Weinberg (544324) | more than 9 years ago | (#13275352)

What will the Google loyal slashdotters think of this? FP?!

Ask and ye shall receive... (1)

Mr. Underbridge (666784) | more than 9 years ago | (#13275375)

What will the Google loyal slashdotters think of this? FP?!

Check the post right below yours.

fantastic (3, Interesting)

abrotman (323016) | more than 9 years ago | (#13275358)

My google-fu isn't bad, but I sometimes have trouble finding relevant results. I figure adding 9 billion more possible results should complicate things quite nicely.

Re:fantastic (4, Insightful)

ciroknight (601098) | more than 9 years ago | (#13275393)

I always wonder about that. How many of those billions of additions to the engine pages that retroactively generate pages according to what is searched for?

I *hate* those pages the most, as they usually have every word in mankind listed in six or more languages, and just so happen to grab the one you're looking for just to suck you in to their million popups.

I guess quality verses quantity will be an afterthought; we're about to see quite the cache expansion if my gut feeling is right.

Re:fantastic (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13275554)

Oh boy, Yahoo is indexing even more useless Torrent Hurricane search engine doorway pages than Google is. That's something to (NOT) be proud of!

Next up: Yahoo touts boolean queries as being the best way to achieve optimal search results (a la Altavista, circa 1997)

Re:fantastic (4, Informative)

fembots (753724) | more than 9 years ago | (#13275567)

While 9 billion additional pages are pretty useless to an individual, it can however mean each topic will have an additional 30 pages, or a search on Ferrari images gives another 25 pictures.

Re:fantastic (4, Informative)

b0r1s (170449) | more than 9 years ago | (#13275585)

Google's index should be growing faster in the coming months. With more and more webmasters implementing Google's sitemap helpers, a lot of unlinked/dynamic pages should start showing up very, very soon.

Interesting (2, Interesting)

Rupy (782781) | more than 9 years ago | (#13275359)

Provided it is correct... I don't suppose there is any third party organisation that was allowed limited access to the data to confirm it?

Re:Interesting (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13275378)

Whatever, who can prove g00gle's index is that correct (or even relevant, what with all the ecommerce links it turns up these days).

Re:Interesting (2, Insightful)

Rosco P. Coltrane (209368) | more than 9 years ago | (#13275408)

Just go there [yahoo.com] and see for yourself: a search on the word "a" (letter "a", whatever) yield 11.5bn results. If you admit there may be twice as many pages without "a" in it (say, all non-latin webpages, files, jpgs and such), that's pretty close to their 20bn entries.

Of course, now if you still doubt, you're welcome to count all 11.5bn results and make sure none of them are dupes :-)

Re:Interesting (1)

Eightyford (893696) | more than 9 years ago | (#13275468)

That is a hell of a lot of information. It's wierd though, that sometimes I feel as if I've already "read the internet" and I can't find anything new. But, then again, I'm the kind of guy who will go on wikipedia to look up someone's birth place and then start reading about the Crusades and somehow end up reading about emperor penguins 6 hours later...

Re:Interesting (2, Funny)

matt21811 (830841) | more than 9 years ago | (#13275495)

"Of course, now if you still doubt, you're welcome to count all 11.5bn results and make sure none of them are dupes :-)"

Thats easy to do, just submit all 11.5bn pages as stories on slashdot and the dups will automatically appear on the front page!

My own - albeit anecdotal - experience... (5, Interesting)

mosel-saar-ruwer (732341) | more than 9 years ago | (#13275582)


I've spent the last few days doing some very important searching - we're thinking about launching a new product in a rather arcane field, and I wanted to be absolutely certain who the potential competition might be - hence I decided to search both Google & Yahoo!.

Guess what? Yahoo! search beats Google search, hands down. Not even close.

Two thoughts:

1) While everybody was oohing and ahhing about Google's IPO, Yahoo! very quietly went about purchasing some excellent search engine/caching outfits, like Inktomi and AllTheWeb, and, owing to the great dot-com bust, paid only pennies on the dollar in acquiring some outstanding talent and intellectual property.

2) I think Google's been reading too many of their own press releases, and has been resting on their laurels for a few years now. And it doesn't help matters that their CEO, Eric Schmidt [cnn.com] , is the same fella who damn near drove Novell to bankruptcy.

Yeah well... (0)

Kwelstr (114389) | more than 9 years ago | (#13275360)

who's counting? :-/

Re:Yeah well... (1)

Mad Merlin (837387) | more than 9 years ago | (#13275416)

--


~~~~ The MD5 checksum of this sig is ~~~~
af7118a625c2526851cc963963ed6068
That's the MD5 of your sig, including the newline, but wouldn't it make more sense to not include it?

neil@t40-n ~ $ echo -n "~~~~ The MD5 checksum of this sig is ~~~~" | md5sum
cd2dde55e58ec2a74f8a06698b30152a -
neil@t40-n ~ $ echo "~~~~ The MD5 checksum of this sig is ~~~~" | md5sum
af7118a625c2526851cc963963ed6068 -

Re:Yeah well... (1)

Kwelstr (114389) | more than 9 years ago | (#13275451)

heh, that depends on your point of view... my sig includes de checksum otherwise you couldn't read it. :-O

Re:Yeah well... (1)

pengRate (882797) | more than 9 years ago | (#13275548)

What would be really impressive is if you managed to get the checksum to match the complete sig, including the checksum itself, so that this:
$ echo "~~~~ The MD5 checksum of this sig is ~~~~
af7118a625c2526851cc963963ed6068" | md5sum
would return:
af7118a625c2526851cc963963ed6068 -

Re:Yeah well... (1)

Mad Merlin (837387) | more than 9 years ago | (#13275580)

I was thinking about suggesting that, as it would be very cool, but very very unlikely.

Re:Yeah well... (1)

Kwelstr (114389) | more than 9 years ago | (#13275652)

i gave up on that idea after my hair started smoking

Re:Yeah well... (1)

LuisAnaya (865769) | more than 9 years ago | (#13275615)

I do not know, this is my "thingie" is bigger than you "thingie" syndrome.

Yahoo! playing Tortoise to Google's Hare (4, Insightful)

Ohmster (843198) | more than 9 years ago | (#13275363)

It's interesting to see that Yahoo! may have surpassed Google on this metric. Over the past decade, Yahoo! has beaten other "hares" to date, including AOL and Microsoft's MSN. They're doing some innovative stuff, but also have some areas to catch up on. More here: http://mp.blogs.com/mp/2005/08/on_the_merits_o.htm l [blogs.com]

Re:Yahoo! playing Tortoise to Google's Hare (0, Flamebait)

seanadams.com (463190) | more than 9 years ago | (#13275617)

It's interesting to see that Yahoo! may have surpassed Google on this metric.

How about this metric: users

I don't know a SINGLE person - not one solitary soul, who uses Yahoo! search, but I know scores who use google every day, for everything from engineering research to doing background checks on a date.

Is ANYONE out there using Yahoo search for anything? Sure, they have personals, finance, weather etc. Anybody can do that stuff - who's using their search though?

Re:Yahoo! playing Tortoise to Google's Hare (4, Funny)

cybersaga (451046) | more than 9 years ago | (#13275618)

but also have some areas to catch up on

Like how to park [realtechnews.com] ?

Re:Yahoo! playing Tortoise to Google's Hare (1)

RosenSama (836736) | more than 9 years ago | (#13275646)

I'm sure there's a slashdot term for this, but this post links to the poster's (Ohmster = Mparekh) blog that runs Google ads.

Great (5, Insightful)

Rosco P. Coltrane (209368) | more than 9 years ago | (#13275366)

Now all Yahoo has to do is create a real search engine that can actually spew out relevant results amongst those 20 billion entries...

Great... (5, Insightful)

Lewisham (239493) | more than 9 years ago | (#13275369)

...now it'll be even harder to find anything on Yahoo! Google keeps and holds its users because searches *work*. When I search for something, Google has a very high chance of giving me what I want in 4 pages or so. Yahoo! isn't as good at getting me the information I want. The problem might even be made *worse* with all these pages. Yahoo! has never said, AFAIK, how it ranks pages, but Google does it better. With this wealth of data, the ranking system is going to be under much more scrutiny at picking the right pages.

Re:Great... (3, Informative)

donutello (88309) | more than 9 years ago | (#13275417)

Google keeps and holds its users because searches *work*.

You must not have used Google recently. It's been about 2 years since Google stopped returning useful results. Now, most of the results are crap. Unfortunately, there isn't a better search engine out there.

Re:Great... (3, Interesting)

MacJedi (173) | more than 9 years ago | (#13275443)

It's been about 2 years since Google stopped returning useful results. Now, most of the results are crap.
This has not, in general, been my experience. Can you give an example where a reasonable search yields results that are mostly "crap?"

Re:Great... (1)

ryanw (131814) | more than 9 years ago | (#13275482)

Can you give an example where a reasonable [Google] search yields results that are mostly "crap?"
.... to be continued... The previous posters are currently on google hitting page after page thinking, "I know there was something that returned "crap" ...

Re:Great... (3, Interesting)

AEton (654737) | more than 9 years ago | (#13275614)

Searching for information on digital cameras, especially less popular ones, often yields dozens of pages of sites that want to sell one and no descriptions of user experiences or reviews. (Even the manufacturers' own product description is usually hard to find.)

This problem is not specific to digital cameras - it's endemic to any piece of hardware that the majority of the Internet is interested in selling rather than discussing. It's great that your Yahoo! Storefront and its twenty clones want to give me a great deal on the Flibbet Jibbet Cog, but I'd really like to know what people who use it think about it.

(Occasionally some results with "flibbetyjibbit linux compatibility" will work - but never general product information!)

Re:Great... (2, Interesting)

skiflyer (716312) | more than 9 years ago | (#13275642)

I wouldn't call it useless... but certainlly not as useful as it used to be for me... this weekend I needed to learn how to countersink a screw.

So I searched "how to countersink a screw"... and first a handful of links selling bits used in countersinking, then a page or two of links for how to projects which required the countersinking of a screw... then a few links about what a countersunk screw is... then I said screw it, this doesn't look so hard and I just did it... never found the link, but I'm sure it's there somewhere after page 3 where I gave up.

Re:Great... (1)

YetAnotherAnonymousC (594097) | more than 9 years ago | (#13275445)

Sad, but entirely true.

Re:Great... (1)

bedroll (806612) | more than 9 years ago | (#13275530)

Unfortunately, I'm not quick enough to post something insightful, because you posted exactly what I would have.

In fact, I rarely remember using Yahoo! Search, almost everything good I've ever found on there has been by browsing the directory. Fortunately for Yahoo! they have a decent amount of other useful content.

Re:Great... (1)

Rew190 (138940) | more than 9 years ago | (#13275537)

Can you please explain why exactly it is a bad thing that Yahoo! is attempting to improve their searches, and do you have some sort of explanation/proof of your implied correlation that Yahoo! results gets worse as it indexes more websites?

Adding more potential hits is nothing but A Good Thing. The actual search itself might not be up to snuff with Google yet, however, adding more potential search hits it is nothing but an improvement. We should be excited that Yahoo! is upping the ante in any form. Just because they're competing with /. favorite Google shouldn't mean that the Google fans have to laugh at competitors' efforts to beat Google.

Competition is good. Yahoo! should be given a given a positive nod for attempting to outdo Google on any front (which they've done here) instead of attempting to spin their efforts at improving their free search into a negative. Even as a huge Google fan that hasn't touched Yahoo! in a while, this just makes me think "Cool, now Google is going to retaliate."

Re:Great... (2, Insightful)

Lewisham (239493) | more than 9 years ago | (#13275609)

I don't have any proof, it's all subjective. YMMV. Adding more potentional hits, however, is not guaranteed to make things better. It might makes things worse.

Massive simplification: If you have a dataset that's twice as large, you're going to get twice as many pages that might be right. The searching mechanism will be under more difficulty trying to determine which is the best one to return and in what order it should be. This is going to really work the ranking algorithm, if its not up to snuff, its going to return you pages in the wrong order of helpfulness, and the page that might have been exactly what you wanted and returned on the first page under the smaller dataset might end up bumped onto page 4.

Google, everyone knows, uses a PageRank algorithm, so other pages do the picking for it. As the dataset gets bigger, results could actually improve, as more sites add to the reputation of others. As I said, I don't know if Yahoo! has ever published how it picks pages. The larger set could make things worse, it could makes things better. But because I have been finding Google better at ranking results than Yahoo! so far, I'm erring on the side of caution.

Re:Great... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13275563)

Of course, most people don't set &num=600

Re:Great... (1)

martin-boundary (547041) | more than 9 years ago | (#13275588)

Google does not actually tell how it ranks its pages either. It's well known that PageRank is no longer the primary ingredient in Google's ranking algorithm, and the real mix of heuristics and methods is kept a trade secret. So if you're going to compare Yahoo and Google, they are both black boxes with only secret customer feedback influencing their algorithms. If Yahoo do have twice the number of indexed pages, they have a potential advantage provided their algorithms are up to it.

Re:Great... (1)

Lewisham (239493) | more than 9 years ago | (#13275631)

But we *do* know PageRank improves as the dataset does. But yes, you are right, both are essentially black boxes. My main point is this isn't necessarily such a great thing.

Re:Great... (1)

JourneyExpertApe (906162) | more than 9 years ago | (#13275658)

Yahoo! has never said, AFAIK, how it ranks pages, but Google does it better. What is that sentence supposed to mean? First you say that Yahoo! hasn't disclosed its exact algorithm for ranking pages. Well, guess what, Google hasn't either. Next you say Google, whose ranking algorithm is just as secret, "does it better". Sounds like bias to me.

Nyeh, nyeh (1)

pin_gween (870994) | more than 9 years ago | (#13275370)

My Search Engine is bigger than yours

Re:Nyeh, nyeh (1)

GuineaPigMan (663444) | more than 9 years ago | (#13275528)

Sure, but you know what they say about engine size, and how it compares (inversely) to the size of your... you know?

More Customers (1)

jpiggot (800494) | more than 9 years ago | (#13275374)

Well, isn't that wonderful for Yahoo.

I guess that means 9 billion potential more sites to hopefully buy their way into Yahoo's directory. Because if you're unwilling to pay, you're pretty damn sure not to get in for free.

Re:More Customers (1)

ScentCone (795499) | more than 9 years ago | (#13275590)

Because if you're unwilling to pay, you're pretty damn sure not to get in for free.

But you can use it for free, or just walk away. And people can pony up (or not) for exposure if they want it the way that Yahoo's doing it. It actually is wonderful for Yahoo - and if it turns out to suck, you won't care, because you'll be off using Google anyway. Isn't just not caring and ignoring it easier than bitching about it? Honestly.

Re:More Customers (1)

jpiggot (800494) | more than 9 years ago | (#13275608)

Isn't just not caring and ignoring it easier than bitching about it? Honestly.

Well, yeah. But if everyone did that, we wouldn't have a Slashdot.

Re:More Customers (1)

ScentCone (795499) | more than 9 years ago | (#13275641)

Well, yeah. But if everyone did that, we wouldn't have a Slashdot.

Touche!

Re:More Customers (1)

jpiggot (800494) | more than 9 years ago | (#13275651)

Zing !

And in other news... (0, Troll)

daveschroeder (516195) | more than 9 years ago | (#13275377)

...world keeps using Google for searching.

Re:And in other news... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13275444)

And in other news, I use the words "and in other news" because I'm essentially a brainless parrot brought up on a steady diet of unfunny television comedy and slashdot attempts at humor, based around the idea of "wouldn't it be funny if one of those oh-so-serious newsreaders said something funny?". Right now I'm learning to repeat things professors tell me in order to get a degree. Tragic, isnt it?

Re:And in other news... (0, Flamebait)

conran (837379) | more than 9 years ago | (#13275538)

Whats tragic is your attitude. The poster simply pointed out that regardless of what press releases Yahoo may make, people are likely to stick with google. Grow up, grow a pair and post while logged in next time.

More isn't better. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13275379)

There's a lot of crap out there on the internet, and adding it all doesn't help, especially when your search engine sucks.

Question (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13275381)

But does Yahoo know what the President knew and when he knew it concerning the recent activities of traitors inside his Whitehouse? I want to trust the President, but it's getting hard to when he must know somebody in his Whitehouse is a traitor. I cannot believe he will sanction that behavior.

Googlebot is not very aggressive on internal links (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13275388)

We recently launched a mobile search engine [mwtj.com] . The domain was registered, pages created, etc, so I'm observing it go from zero page rank, to having a page rank and getting crawled. Yahoo's bot definitely crawls more frequently, and Googlebot doesn't seem to crawl any links unless they are linked to from external pages. I assume that as the pagerank increases, Googlebot will get more aggressive, but from what I can see in the logs it's clear that Googlebot takes a "wait and see" approach to crawling.

That's not a bad thing. There are a lot of useless pages out there, and having twice as many pages in the index certainly does not mean twice as many useful pages.

I am glad to see the search engine wars are on and competitive.

Re:Googlebot is not very aggressive on internal li (4, Informative)

Eric Giguere (42863) | more than 9 years ago | (#13275465)

The Yahoo! crawler (Slurp) is definitely more aggressive than the Googlebot. It comes knocking on my door several times a day, especially the blog pages. Google is more conservative and keeps things in a sandbox, too.

More important (5, Insightful)

Chairboy (88841) | more than 9 years ago | (#13275389)

A newsflash that's more important to me is how, years ago, Google passed Yahoo's abillity to display relevant results.

Why isn't programmer efficiency measured in KLOCs? Because quality is more important than quantity when used as the only metric.

Re:More important (1)

rtaylor (70602) | more than 9 years ago | (#13275644)

Why isn't programmer efficiency measured in KLOCs?

I didn't even know that Kangaroo's had Libraries of Congress, let alone used it as a measurement.

Why Google ain't all that (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13275391)

Reading these comments here all I can say is you guys are so brainwashed by the Google hype machine.

First, Google is NOT an innovator. Why not? Everything they do is a slight improvement on existing services:

- Search: Sure, it's the best search around, but it is simply an improvement over existing search services. And by now Yahoo's search is comparable. Soon there will be many equivalent search engines.

- Maps: Looks pretty, but it's just an incremental improvement over existing services. Trivial for Yahoo or anyone else to catch up.

- GMail: Nothing to see here except very good marketing. Who ever uses 1 GB of email? Nobody.

A lot of Google's services actually suck if you think about it. Froogle? Google Images? Those are a joke. And thanks for breaking Google Groups to make it unusable.

If you think Google is the greatest thing since sliced bread, take a deep breath and realize that it's just a company that is very good at marketing, and making lots of money.

Google is an advertising company, they are not a technology company. They are not true innovators like, say, Apple or Oracle. Just look at the reasons I outlined above to understand why. A true innovator ushers in a new age. Like Apple with the iPod and digital music. Or Oracle with database systems. Google hasn't ushered in a new age of anything.

Stop the hype.

Re:Why Google ain't all that (3, Informative)

HeroreV (869368) | more than 9 years ago | (#13275463)

I agree about Froogle. Usually over 90% of all items can't be ordered by price even though the engine was clearly able to determine what the price was. How is it being froogle if you can't easily figure out which is the cheapest?

Re:Why Google ain't all that (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13275491)

Stop the hype.
Stop astroturfing.

Re:Why Google ain't all that (3, Insightful)

daniel_mcl (77919) | more than 9 years ago | (#13275586)

Nonsense.

Search: Google's Pagerank concept radically changed the way that search engines determined which results were relevant. While previous services were based on human rankings or on how many times a particular word was listed on the page, Google put out an automated system which was able to deliver more relevant results when confronted with normal sites and, by its very design, much harder to exploit with SEO techniques. Further, Google continually tweaks the parameters of their search -- if you can go to one of Norvig's talks about the sorts of stuff they do, it's amazing.

Maps: That interface -- scrolling, markers, and all -- is done entirely in javascript. No plugins, no flash, no helpers. Nobody thought that that sort of thing was even possible.

GMail: I don't use it, so I can't comment. But I do have around 1 GB of email on my primary account. When you use email for serious work, it can add up.

Google Groups: It's my group reader. I like it because it shows the discussions in thread format from the top and supresses the quoting that can make USENET discussions turn into pages and pages of greater-than symbols.

As to your assertion that Google hasn't ushered in a new age, I disagree. Ten years ago, when someone wanted information they went to a library, an encyclopedia, or maybe a CD-ROM. Now, any time anyone wants to know anything, they go immediately to Google and chances are that the information will come up on the first page.

Lest you've forgotten, it was Napster and Winamp that 0popularized mp3's, not the iPod, and COBOL, not Oracle, that popularized the database. So I'd respond to you, "Stop the misinformation campaign."

Re:Why Google ain't all that (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13275625)

The parent is a copy/paste of a comment on an earlier thread, because last time someone replied saying that they do indeed use their 1GB, and it's 2GB now for the record.

Quantity versus quality (5, Insightful)

IamGarageGuy 2 (687655) | more than 9 years ago | (#13275394)

I don't believe that volume of pages is really a relevant metric to be used in the case of search results. With an infinite number of pages the real metric comes down to relevance.

Re:Quantity versus quality (1)

xiaomonkey (872442) | more than 9 years ago | (#13275511)

Yeah, but relevance is really hard too quantify over a large collection of web pages. It depends not only on the pages you've indexed, but also who your target audience is. For example, what's relevant to the average web surfing teenager is not at all relevant to an Oracle DBA trying to looking into some problematic query, and the stuff that's relevant to the Oracle DBA is probably not relevant to someone in the Marketing dept. of a luxury car company.

In contrast, quantity is really easy to quantify and allows you to put out buzz generating press releases stating how you now have X many billion more pages than you're closest competitor. It doesn't really matter in terms of the press release whether your X many billion pages were generated by a spider trap [die.net] , or not.

I've noticed that recently (2, Interesting)

Eightyford (893696) | more than 9 years ago | (#13275403)

I've found that yahoo! slurp is almost always my most frequent visitor to my websites.

Re:I've noticed that recently (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13275662)

It is the most agressive indexer on our government site as well... even if you add up all the different Google bots.

Hey Yahoo (2, Informative)

Spackler (223562) | more than 9 years ago | (#13275422)

It's not the size of the boat...
it's the motion of the ocean.


Re:Hey Yahoo (1, Offtopic)

winkydink (650484) | more than 9 years ago | (#13275570)

Women only say that to guys with small penises. You know that, right?

Re:Hey Yahoo (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13275654)

Women only say that to guys with small penises. You know that, right?

That's because they're too busy screaming "oh god! oh god!" while riding those of us with big ones.

Re:Hey Yahoo (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13275575)

A sentiment only held by those with boats.

We with ships snort and laugh hard a good, long time.

toolbar (1)

sithkhan (536425) | more than 9 years ago | (#13275426)

Don't forget the sneaky introduction of Yahoo toolbar with the installation of the Macromedia stuff .... That couldn't possibly have anything to do with the increase in searches ....
---
When you want to type a double-quote use " instead
Generated by SlashdotRndSig [snop.com] via GreaseMonkey [mozdev.org]

If it weren't for that mail ... (1)

sabio (906020) | more than 9 years ago | (#13275430)

The only reason Google has not completely taken over all Yahoo traffic is the fact that Yahoo mail came out long before GMail. Many who have had Yahoo email accounts for years hate the thought of having to redistribute there email address to friends, family and colleagues that have come so accustomed to there current one. I for one continue although begrudgingly to use yahoo mail, but do all my searches from Google.

Ah well (2)

nahnkari (732424) | more than 9 years ago | (#13275431)

I bet 15 billion of those 20 billion are google search result pages.

i can't believe i had this effect! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13275435)

i was only searching for hacks for windows genuine advantage and noticed that yahoo had better results since it runs on *nix :)

i'm not sure what the google-ster runs on.

20 billion documents, I wonder... (5, Funny)

baylanger (780885) | more than 9 years ago | (#13275437)

Are those 20 billion documents, the actual SPAMs I received at my yahoo mail account since 1994?

95% of which is crap (5, Interesting)

darkCanuck (751748) | more than 9 years ago | (#13275448)

  • useless blogs and geocities "websites": 12 billion
  • clipart, midi and hideous backgrounds for above websites: 6 billion
  • links to outdated or expired user sessions: 1 billion
  • real content: 1 billion, if lucky
The only thing I ever use Yahoo for is if and when my internet connection seems slow or dead I ping yahoo.com. It's just been a habit since the 90's.

Re:95% of which is crap (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13275587)

And you know what? The same thing can be said of Google. I know Google is akin to the iPod on Slashdot, but I've been finding it less and less useful...expired image links, "cached" pages that go nowhere (the browser just sits and spins), completely irrelivent results. I've been finding sites like www.clusty.com to be better at giving me meaningful results these days.

But the real problem, as I see it, is the whole concept of "spidering" around the web to begin with. It started with the original Webcrawler as an ad-hoc solution to a serious deficiency in the design of the World Wide Web. Ted Nelson (of Xanadu fame, which at least somewhat inspired the WWW) has railed and ranted about this from day one. Hell, even Gopher was built with some sort of indexing capability. But not the Web, and that leaves us with this ancient (in relative terms) method of trolling web servers for links. There has GOT to be a better way, but perhaps it is far too late at this point.

Re:95% of which is crap (1)

paranoidgeek (840730) | more than 9 years ago | (#13275600)

For my site Google find 634 pages while Yahoo finds ~2,400. However most of this is either alt urls ( there are about 3 different way to access the site [ so for example you can access the main page via example.com, example.com/?id=1, example.com/id-1, example.com/index.php, example.com/index.php?id=1, etc ]), old ( 404ing ) content, or outdated stuff in a robots.txt excluded folder.

Re:95% of which is crap (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13275630)

Hey, me too!

Someone should make a poll about how many people ping yahoo to check their internet connections.

Um, (1, Funny)

tfoss (203340) | more than 9 years ago | (#13275461)

It's not the size of your index, it's the results you get with it.

Right?

RIGHT?!?

-Ted

Google is busy playing with itself. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13275462)

While google is busy playing games with microsoft, creating google maps, giving employees 20% time off to work on their own projects, hiring only people with Masters or PHDs, giving away money for open source projects, giving away free 2GB+ email accounts,

Yahoo! has been busy working on its search technology. Soon, you'll also be introduced to Yahoo! blog search engine.

Very ironic! (1)

confusion (14388) | more than 9 years ago | (#13275476)

It's ironic that 20 billion just happens to be the VERY SAME number of links on www.yahoo.com... hmm, coincidence?

Jerry
http://www.cyvin.org/ [cyvin.org]

I can believe it (0, Redundant)

ranson (824789) | more than 9 years ago | (#13275483)

I see robots from yahoo and inktomi search (owned by Yahoo) hitting my web servers several times daily, as opposed to weekly (or even more sparse) hits from google.

Re:I can believe it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13275643)

I see robots from yahoo and inktomi search (owned by Yahoo) hitting my web servers several times daily, as opposed to weekly (or even more sparse) hits from google.

Unless you are regularly updating your goatse site, I think weekly is plenty.

Google Strikes Back (1)

motbob (897343) | more than 9 years ago | (#13275487)

Look for quick retaliation from Google; Remember what happened when Yahoo, Hotmail etc. began expanding their email storage space? Google's doubled to 2GB.

Yahoo too "commerce heavy" (1)

TFGeditor (737839) | more than 9 years ago | (#13275505)

I have always found Yahoo searches too "commerce heavy," leaning way to much to "Yahoo stores" and "Yahoo sites." The meaningful info is lost in the jumble. Google results are cleaner and easier to parse. So, more Yahoo results equals more furustrating/confusing results.

I'll stick with Google, thank you.

Google needs to become mature like Yahoo (2, Insightful)

ShatteredDream (636520) | more than 9 years ago | (#13275507)

If Google wants to survive in the long run, they will need to stop playing favorites based on political ideology. They give, IMO, too much lee way for their adsense and google news people to restrict access. One blogger I know of was rejected as a "racist" because she questioned whether Nelson Mandela really should be called a hero. The irony of it is that my blog is far more politically incorrect than hers and AdSense for some reason accepted me. I wrote a letter to Google about the behavior of their AdSense policies and News development team [blindmindseye.com] , but they did the customary Google response which was "we don't care."

The thing that Google needs to wake up and realize is that they have been caught doing genuinely evil things like letting Hamas use AdSense to promote their recruitment and training centers, and Yahoo has survived enough big companies attacking them to make them a longterm threat. The real war is between Google and Yahoo, not Google and MSN, and Yahoo understands clearly how being apolitical is necessary to really become a hub for finding and accessing data online.

Don't be surprised if in a few more years of broadband development, that Yahoo is able to position itself as an alternative to many cable TV providers. Expect them to start providing premium content alone or in conjunction with Apple. If that happens, Google is actually going to be screwed because the market for that sort of media is huge and the amount of money that Yahoo will have will dwarf Google. Sooner rather than later, Google's stock price will crash down to maybe $20-$30 a share unless they really do some death-defyingly radical things every so often over the next several years that the market likes. In fact, I'd wager that if Yahoo can get deep into providing on-demand TV services, that in five years they'll be able to buy Google in cash unless Google really does become the "Microsoft of search services."

Soo... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13275510)

Yahoo has grown a bigger epenis than google.

How about that..

Though of course thats if its true, which it probably isnt - and even then, how does this affect your search?

Oh thats right.. it doesn't. If google doesn't have it, its obscure and unreferenced - sounds to me like filler.

Isn't that Google's algorithm? (1)

MickLinux (579158) | more than 9 years ago | (#13275517)

(1) Take search, submit to multiple different engines (2) Rank sites among results (3) Ad Google ads and spit back out (4) Profit!

Several interpretations (2, Interesting)

Alomex (148003) | more than 9 years ago | (#13275518)

I read this in one of two ways:

a) Yahoo crawler is not as discriminating as google, collecting loads of garbage and mirrored sites

or

b) Google is finally falling behind the Web. In the past every snazy search engine eventually got overwhelmed by web growth and fell beihnd. Has that time arrived for Google?

On a different note I've heard a rumor that Google's total CPU count across all its server sites is fast approaching a million. If this is true, talk about barriers to entry! Anyone out there who can confirm or deny this?

Re:Several interpretations (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13275557)

or (c) Yahoo found a new (perhaps less "honest") way of finding new sites that Google cannot crawl.

For example, if the yahoo toolbar causes yahoo to index every the page you visit. If that's the case, it's not "technically" the same as using a spider, so they can ignore the robots.txt file.

p.s. This is funny: my image is vibrator [slashdot.org] !

It's true, and easy to check... (4, Interesting)

NotQuiteReal (608241) | more than 9 years ago | (#13275522)

I did a search for "a" on both Google and Yahoo.

Results:

Google: "1-10 of about 3,120,000,000 .06 sec"
Yahoo: "1-10 of about 11,300,000,000 .08 sec"

Top yahoo hit - some punk band. Top Google hit, apple .com.

Gee, who do you think will make more money with those results... ;-)

Sorry for the "self reply"... (2, Funny)

NotQuiteReal (608241) | more than 9 years ago | (#13275536)

But I find the 11.3 Billion hits for Yahoo an odd coincidence, given that the /. story mentions 11.3 billion for Google ...

Maybe the editors need to check on something, or we all ought to count 11.3 billion as the "new 42".

Re:It's true, and easy to check... (1)

liangzai (837960) | more than 9 years ago | (#13275635)

Search results for...

the Chinese word "bi1" (meaning cunt):
Google: 439,000
Yahoo: 402,000

the Cantonese word "len" (meaning cock):
Google: error
Yahoo: 0

Quality, not quantity (1, Redundant)

qw0ntum (831414) | more than 9 years ago | (#13275560)

Lots of indexed docs is nice, but it doesn't mean much if the indexed stuff isn't meaningful.

I wonder how many of those indexed images are spacers and things, or how many of those documents are just copies/meaningless information.

But enough being a naysayer. More documents does mean that Yahoo! is more likely to have found the document I'm looking for, and that amount of searched stuff will definitely help for those more obsucre searches.

Big Increase - Simple Explanation (5, Funny)

ndansmith (582590) | more than 9 years ago | (#13275572)

The increase can be explained by Yahoo adding Slashdot dupes to their index.

I Search With Google, But Yahoo! Is My Portal (1)

aquatone282 (905179) | more than 9 years ago | (#13275589)

The My Yahoo! portal is (for the time being) superior to Google's simple offering.

And who can resist the pleasure of flaming [yahoo.com] your political enemies on the Yahoo! news story message boards - the veritable bathroom walls of the Internet.

In Soviet Russia... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13275597)

from google:
Results 1 - 10 of about 3,930 for "In Soviet Russia" slashdot.org

from Yahoo!:
Results 1 - 10 of about 11,300 for "In Soviet Russia" slashdot.org - 0.38 sec.

 

Looks convincing to me, comrades!

Just sayin' (1)

LowbrowDeluxe (889277) | more than 9 years ago | (#13275637)

I find it interesting that Cnet is the second link about this, after the Google/Cnet snub a bit ago.

Google filtering? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13275648)

Okay an odd search but even stranger results

searching for
inurl:"axis-cgi/mjpg"
will bring up Axis web cams. For the past few days, any attempts to view the 2nd or any additional results other then the first page of Google results, results in a Google error of:

We're sorry... ... but we can't process your request right now. A computer virus or spyware application is sending us automated requests, and it appears that your computer or network has been infected.

Maybe it is just my IP and I am searching for this too much ;)

Yeah, They Added The Yahoo Porn Sites (1)

Wandering Wombat (531833) | more than 9 years ago | (#13275653)

And all the sex-bot Yahoo ID's. I know for a fact there's 999,999 numerically-different variants of one particular name, because a friend of mine is responsible for all 999,999 of them, and he made quite a bit of cash at it. Had I the time, inclination, and lack of soul, I'd do that, too. I don't think adding 12 billion sites is TOO hard, considering the cappillary branching of some sites. My own website (not linked here for courtesy reasons) just from the way it's made, has over 700 end-result HTML pages, and I made it in a few days. Let's see if Yahoo is more USEFUL than Google. That's kind of a better test than how many sites it has.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?