Google's Search Algorithm Challenged
Posted 19 November 2011 - 02:20 PM
Posted 19 November 2011 - 05:23 PM
Posted 19 November 2011 - 08:54 PM
That's when you pick "Verbatim" under "More search tools" in the left hand nav.
Posted 20 November 2011 - 06:26 AM
Posted 20 November 2011 - 06:31 AM
governments are always looking for improved technology. the new algorithm will likely de-throne google in foreign markets and even with our own covert sub governments that not only require faster super computers but faster software to conduct searches of their databases, which i think are larger than googles, bings and yahoo combined.
Posted 20 November 2011 - 06:53 AM
Search engines aren't doing a great job. I come daily upon Google searches that bring no relevant results. If someone can come up with a better solution, not just a little better but significantly better, I'm sure I will use it, and I'm sure a lot of others will. Google may be a massive brand, but if a much better search engine comes along, either Google will buy it or another big player (such as Microsoft) will buy it, and it will be used.
I'll wait to see what this guy comes up with, but I can only hope he does have something nice up his sleeve.
Posted 20 November 2011 - 11:59 AM
Secure proxy services that grant access to the 'whole' internet, through servers hosted in countries that haven't become a corporatist/fascist paradise will become a normal fixture of internet use.
Posted 20 November 2011 - 12:11 PM
Never say never
Posted 20 November 2011 - 01:52 PM
The problem, though, lies in the fact that the majority of Big G's users are not sufficiently discriminating; for them, quantity impresses. And, that they are there owing to the freebies, which are just good enough to attract and addict them, that Big G offers.
Posted 20 November 2011 - 02:00 PM
When they change it around, it's annoying, because the expected KINDS of search results change with it. Though the 'fix' they did a year or two ago where they got rid of the big 'PAY US TO ANSWER THIS' sites off the first page or so of hits was welcome. Saving me from having to page past them.
Adding and removing words from a search is just routine. It's not having a 'million' results for something that impresses me. It's finding what I want at, or near the top with relatively few tries.
But this does, in fact, take some slight amount of skill and experience. For instance, knowing something about computers makes finding information about computers VERY easy. Though having all of your results dump to ads for retail products and services seems to satisfy most clueless fools.
Unfortunately, you can't really automate that knowledge away trivially. Knowing WHAT to ask, and HOW to ask it is important in any kind of research.
Posted 20 November 2011 - 04:32 PM
I know that Google wants to block repetitious content, but it seems stymied by at least two things: an inability to distinguish between the main content on a page and peripheral content (which leads it to see the content of pages with duplicate sidebar heads as different because the unrelated main bars on the page are different) and a problematic weighting of metadata (which people viewing the page from the outside don't see, but which may cause the same main-page content to seem different to a search engine that treats the metadata variations as highly significant).
I also don't understand why the number of Google results you get increases (hugely, in many cases) when you try to refine your search by excluding certain terms. For example. I just now searched for the exact word or phrase "mausoleum" and Google reported 11.6 million matches. Then I searched for the exact word or phrase "mausoleum" but with none of the words "velociraptor"--and Google reported 19.2 million matches. Hunh?
Anyway, I welcome a fencer's foil in place of (or as a supplement to) a bludgeon, if Marchiori's group can pull it off.
Posted 20 November 2011 - 05:27 PM
Here's another interesting search engine toy...
I remember using metacrawler as an engine, once upon a time.
Posted 20 November 2011 - 08:04 PM
Hm-mm; not really.
What is wants to do is to rank multiple occurrences of multiple copies of content in the SERPS according to the context within which they appear. Think of it as being analogous to your ranking various covers of the same musical recording.
You may find, though, as you drill deeper into the SERPs, that such numbers decrease dramatically.
At least part of this strange behavior owes to the fact that the initial reported totals are estimates; Google does not actually construct a full listings of all possible SERPs, but rather extends them as needed when called for by the user.
Also, remember that we now have the case of the double-quotes and plus-sign operators having been seemingly conflated, with unknown consequences.
This post has been edited by deepsand: 20 November 2011 - 08:04 PM