Google Problems Revealed?

[4Pics]

Not sure if you've read this but it looks like it might be whats wrong.


http://www.google-watch.org/broken.html

[DarkJedi]

um.....

whatever.

[Tipsy]

Interesting and really does make a little sense. I suppose only time will tell how accurate it may or may not be.

[AOLGuy]

it will be curious to see how the new tweaks change things...

lately, it's just not working as well as it once did.

[PimpRoll]

hmm

[cash69]

will probably take more then a couple months... i'd hope they would at least test it out for a month or 2 .. instead of just putting it up and updating 15,000 linux box's and hoping the script is 100% working correctly.. instead of having everthing just crash.. but how do you run a test? if everything is with the old script with the old 4 byte variables.. how would you make a script that auto works with the 5 byte.. probably going to take a year or 2

[fnet]

Google Watch is hysterical in both senses.

I can't believe this conspiracy theorist hasn't even figured out who GoogleGuy is.

I don't buy this:

12:04 pm on June 7, 2003
Google has reached its data indexing capacity of 4,294,967,296 (2^32) URLs. Now non-image URLs have an ID stored in 4 bytes, so Google is now running out of IDs for stored pages. When there will be no URLs returned "not found" and deleted from the index, total number of non-image files indexed will soon reach 4,294,967,296 including 3,083,324,652 html pages. After that Google will stop adding new URLs from indexed pages as well as new URLs added for indexing.

They are now considering reconstruction of the data tables which involves expanding ID fields to 5 bytes. This will result in additional 2 bytes per every word indexed throwing the total index size to be multiplied by 1.17. This procedure will require 1000 new page index servers and additional storage for temporary tables. They are hoping to make this change gradually server by server. The completion of the process will take up to one year after that the main URL index will be switched to use 5 bytes ID.

Why would a little extra data storage require 1000 new index servers and a year of time? Why couldn't Google double their number of index servers in one week? Reindexing a table is not difficult. Mirroring everything offline is totally within their ability and budget.

Lastly, this idea contradicts the fundamental concept of Google's algoriithm, their branding, and their ability to plan. It looks like nothing but a cheap shot, worthy of Microsoft post thug disruption tactics.

[funkmaster]

googleguy can kiss my sweaty balls ... whatever they do ... I´ll beat them ... spam all the way ... hurray !

[cherrylula]

its called, stop trying to fucking cheat google and perhaps they can focus more on things they should instead of weeding out the fucking cheaters.

[fnet]

Originally posted by funkmaster
googleguy can kiss my sweaty balls ... whatever they do ... I´ll beat them ... spam all the way ... hurray !

time to <a href="http://www.kevinwarwick.org/">upgrade</a> your balls

[easyfun]

I think the problem is Google's algoriithm is so easy to manipulate - I haven't tried with adult sites, but some of my non adult sites have pr 7 and 8 - So I get traffic via that door - Too many people have used similar systems going direct adult - And I don't think google like it too much!

[fnet]

Originally posted by easyfun
I think the problem is Google's algoriithm is so easy to manipulate - I haven't tried with adult sites, but some of my non adult sites have pr 7 and 8 - So I get traffic via that door - Too many people have used similar systems going direct adult - And I don't think google like it too much!

Google's algorithm is still basically cheese- overt and obvious.

And they poo poo the semantic web now.

They're losing some of my respect.

[AdultNex]

Originally posted by easyfun
I think the problem is Google's algoriithm is so easy to manipulate - I haven't tried with adult sites, but some of my non adult sites have pr 7 and 8 - So I get traffic via that door - Too many people have used similar systems going direct adult - And I don't think google like it too much!

What's your PR method?

[4Pics]

Originally posted by fnet
Google Watch is hysterical in both senses.

I can't believe this conspiracy theorist hasn't even figured out who GoogleGuy is.

I don't buy this:



Why would a little extra data storage require 1000 new index servers and a year of time? Why couldn't Google double their number of index servers in one week? Reindexing a table is not difficult. Mirroring everything offline is totally within their ability and budget.

Lastly, this idea contradicts the fundamental concept of Google's algoriithm, their branding, and their ability to plan. It looks like nothing but a cheap shot, worthy of Microsoft post thug disruption tactics.

I guess you didn't notice that it takes Dmoz about a week to do a database run, how long do you think changing a database with 4 billion records in it would take? All the while running fresh bot which is changing things.

I don't mean to say this crap is true, but I've never seen anyone else point something that makes sense? Kinda stupid that they've reverted back to page ranks that I had in February for my sites.

Whatever the problem is just fix the shit so I can get hits again.

[fnet]

Originally posted by 4Pics

I guess you didn't notice that it takes Dmoz about a week to do a database run, how long do you think changing a database with 4 billion records in it would take?

And I suppose you would be <b>wrong</b>, given that I'm a <b>dmoz editor</b>.

All the while running fresh bot which is changing things.

I don't mean to say this crap is true, but I've never seen anyone else point something that makes sense? Kinda stupid that they've reverted back to page ranks that I had in February for my sites.

Whatever the problem is just fix the shit so I can get hits again.

The space of possible assumptions is very large.

[funkmaster]

there are 10.000 people that know how to work google, but only 5 that really can ...

... unfortunatly I am not one of them.

[slapass]

Well if it is true it looks like they took care of it ahead of time (barely) and losing one month of a clean update is not that big of a deal to anyone but us.
Besides freshbot rocks so let the little pig run around and make us bling bling.

[fnet]

Originally posted by funkmaster
there are 10.000 people that know how to work google, but only 5 that really can ...

... unfortunatly I am not one of them.

Over the next month it will be determined whether or not I really can. I recently looked to see if there was anyone willing to put money where my mouth is. As it turns out, people are.

[JamesK]

google sucks.

I hope they'll die as soon as I get alive.

I don't wanna be a crook while getting fucked in my arse its total bullshit i dont wanna die before i see my ugly face getting raped by a tranny.

bye bye

[JamesK]

p00p

[nuclei]

Little late aint ya?


http://gofuckyourself.com/showthread...hreadid=142982

[nuclei]

Originally posted by fnet
Google Watch is hysterical in both senses.

I can't believe this conspiracy theorist hasn't even figured out who GoogleGuy is.

I don't buy this:



Why would a little extra data storage require 1000 new index servers and a year of time? Why couldn't Google double their number of index servers in one week? Reindexing a table is not difficult. Mirroring everything offline is totally within their ability and budget.

Lastly, this idea contradicts the fundamental concept of Google's algoriithm, their branding, and their ability to plan. It looks like nothing but a cheap shot, worthy of Microsoft post thug disruption tactics.

fnet and who would googleguy be exactly? seeing as I posted a conversation with a google employee that flat out said he didnt even work for them, and was merely a shill for webmasterworld. Of course webmasterworld deleted that post almost immediately and banned that persona from posting again.


actually the 4 to 5 byte conversion is a good possibility however i have to agree with you about the timeframe. A year? I doubt that immensely, but a month to 2 is possible as stated there are 4 billion entries across multiple tables.

as for googleguy, if you pay attention he has never once uttered a solid answer to anything, he talks in vagueries to slip some of his friends services to newbies.

[fnet]

Originally posted by nuclei

fnet and who would googleguy be exactly? seeing as I posted a conversation with a google employee that flat out said he didnt even work for them, and was merely a shill for webmasterworld. Of course webmasterworld deleted that post almost immediately and banned that persona from posting again.

Hey that's great. Who is the Google employee you were talking to?

actually the 4 to 5 byte conversion is a good possibility however i have to agree with you about the timeframe. A year? I doubt that immensely, but a month to 2 is possible as stated there are 4 billion entries across multiple tables.

That's the claim. I think it's a silly one. I don't care if it's on Aaron's blog too. Kid needs to think it through. Lettin that #1 weblog rank thing go to his head.

as for googleguy, if you pay attention he has never once uttered a solid answer to anything, he talks in vagueries to slip some of his friends services to newbies.

GG does hand out specific information in direct response to questions sometimes. First example off the top of my head would be how to get vBulletin deep crawled. As for vagueness, if you've ever fed fish while standing in the water, then you know what it feels like to get sucked down by a whirlpool of circling mouths.

"Slip some of his friends' services to newbies?" Methinks you are letting someone else think for you, and that person is at least sometimes a fount of silly conjecture. Examples?

[foe]

They are still making more than their share of money

[fnet]

the work they're doing is probably related to the creation of the new seperated blog index, and a belated realization about how their exist-

nevermind. peace love and happiness to you all.

[nuclei]

If his conspiracy theory about blogs is so wrong, how come google is now making a seperate index for them?


I hardly think everything he has to say makes sense at all. But look over GG's remarks on this subject. Every single one of them is vague, to make sure he cant be bitten like he has been before.

And while I dont give weight to google-watches timeframes, the possiblity of the reason is at least conceivable. And I must say, a lot easier to swallow than the gibberish GG was spouting on the subject.

[jojojo]

It all sounds very plausible.

After reading this and being on WW for the last 3 months everyday I really don't know what to believe - time will tell all.

[InsaneMidget]

Yahoo will come back as the top search tool on the internet shortly anyway, if they aren't already.

[AdultNex]

Originally posted by InsaneMidget
Yahoo will come back as the top search tool on the internet shortly anyway, if they aren't already.

If they aren't already?

Yahoo's search results aren't any better than the millions of PPC search engines out there.

[fnet]

Originally posted by nuclei
If his conspiracy theory about blogs is so wrong, how come google is now making a seperate index for them?

What are you talking about? Are you attributing <i>my</i> words here to someone else?

I hardly think everything he has to say makes sense at all. But look over GG's remarks on this subject. Every single one of them is vague, to make sure he cant be bitten like he has been before.

And while I dont give weight to google-watches timeframes, the possiblity of the reason is at least conceivable. And I must say, a lot easier to swallow than the gibberish GG was spouting on the subject.

Google-watch does the minimum amount of homework to get maximum attention. A sort of Massive Cock minimax (if you recall his posting frenzies). But GW's posts are not valueless.

I don't know what GG said; haven't followed this one. Google lies publicly for good reason. It is bothersome to me when I ask an insightful question point blank and get a point blank lie from someone who knows I know better. They have a doctrine of silence. Everyone from the top down will give you the same story on any upcoming tech. "We're Not Doing Anything With That." Clashes with the other puzzle pieces. But, spies are cheap research staff. And Google knows they are the mote in the greenest eyes of envy. Microsoft wants to pillage Google's innocent bottom, and Microsoft learned a long time ago that Microsoft is stupid dumb in new markets.

[appleboy]

I think google is using this cloudy results period to test the viability of adwords should google decide to go public - they can measure some amount of revenue from fools who decide to use it now , and yahoo has a great opportunity if they make inktomi into the old style google they would rule.

[mrthumbs]

" We'll call this intriguing explanation the "Y2K+3 problem." "

you SE spammers are idiots..

[fnet]

Originally posted by appleboy
I think google is using this cloudy results period to test the viability of adwords should google decide to go public - they can measure some amount of revenue from fools who decide to use it now , and yahoo has a great opportunity if they make inktomi into the old style google they would rule.

Not quite that easy. Yahoo has numbers, but Google has branding and a sterling reputation for innovation. Google is still known as the clean machine. That <i>idea</i> won't fade easily. As for reality, Google isn't even a good way to search- the best way to really find something has always been to reorder the aggregated results of several different search engines. But that's unsimple.

The word Google is right up there with Kleenex and McDonalds.

Inktomi is not a verb in the vernacular.

[montel]

Originally posted by InsaneMidget
Yahoo will come back as the top search tool on the internet shortly anyway, if they aren't already.

yahoo is terrible. their index is atrocious and should stay in 1998.

[mrthumbs]

Originally posted by fnet


Not quite that easy. Yahoo has numbers, but Google has branding and a sterling reputation for innovation. Google is still known as the clean machine. That <i>idea</i> won't fade easily. As for reality, Google isn't even a good way to search- the best way to really find something has always been to reorder the aggregated results of several different search engines. But that's unsimple.

The word Google is right up there with Kleenex and McDonalds.

Inktomi is not a verb in the vernacular.

finally someone that knows what he's talking about.

[mrthumbs]

ok guys, enough is enough: i'm googleguy.

[appleboy]

yahoo made google it surely can make inktomi especially now , google was great because of its more targetted searches now you have to wade through pages to find something and hope its what you were looking for because alot of times its a couple of fragmented words on one huge page, fragmented meaning results have one or two of the keywords you're searching for but their not connected in one result.