YT2095 Posted February 3, 2005 Share Posted February 3, 2005 I just did a google search for "YT2095" as my friend said he did it and it lights up like a christmas tree with hits. he was right, no less than 23,300 hits! now I don`t know about you, but that`s OverKill in my book. many of those will be the same site etc... so why bother storing such repeated junk on their network? surely it would save space and money just to keep the rellevant info only? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted February 3, 2005 Share Posted February 3, 2005 How does a script identify what's relevant to the term "YT2095"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted February 3, 2005 Author Share Posted February 3, 2005 it`s obviously cappable of it, else after a few pages it wouldn`t say: "In order to show you the most relevant results, we have omitted some entries very similar to the 58 already displayed. If you like, you can repeat the search with the omitted results included." why not just leave it at the 58? it`s Googlebot Madness I recon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted February 3, 2005 Share Posted February 3, 2005 Broadly speaking, the omitted results are any URIs that have an identical URL to a result already given, but a different querystring. There are other reasons a result would be in that list, but they are all based on properties of the resource, not the content. Think about it. If two web sites list the same information on you, and google spidered them and determined that to be the case (which their system can't do, because it doesn't think), would they drop one site from their index and only list the other? No, because that would make for a crap search engine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted February 3, 2005 Author Share Posted February 3, 2005 well I did a search for "scienceforms.net" and got 177,000 hits. then: In order to show you the most relevant results, we have omitted some entries very similar to the 314 already displayed. If you like, you can repeat the search with the omitted results included. so only 314 were usefull, are you saying the remainder off those 177,000 hits are likely to be every post ever made by anyone here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted February 3, 2005 Share Posted February 3, 2005 Only if you searched for site:scienceforums.net "scienceforums.net" which apparently you didn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted February 3, 2005 Author Share Posted February 3, 2005 Hmm... we have roughly 127,000 posts here, that`ll take a large chunk out of the 177k. i can`t help but feel there`s an awefull lot of Junk stored in Google, for instance, my old (and well out of date) website url, I`ve not had a .COM site for nearly 3 years now! can`t these bots Remove data from their system? or can they only Add stuff? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted February 3, 2005 Share Posted February 3, 2005 There's no real reason to delete the cache - it's not like they don't have the space. Sites do get de-indexed if they're dead for a certain period of time, but the cache is not reliant on the index. Google returns around 125,000 instances of the term scienceforums.net from this domain, and around 175,000 overall. This means it is indexing and caching us with virtually perfect efficiency. It also means there are around 50,000 known links to us out there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted February 3, 2005 Author Share Posted February 3, 2005 aha! it`s becoming a little less foggy now, I thought I knew a few neat tricks on Google, but you`re a better Google meister than I btw, what`s the "i" in URI? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted February 3, 2005 Share Posted February 3, 2005 "Identifier". http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=define%3Auri Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silencer Posted February 3, 2005 Share Posted February 3, 2005 There are books about google. One that specifically stands out is like the "[some number] Google Hacks" that outlines some interesting things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
5614 Posted February 3, 2005 Share Posted February 3, 2005 google newest update (i think - unless there's a newer figure out!): 14.5 billion pages indexed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted February 3, 2005 Share Posted February 3, 2005 I thought it was 8 billion. A google search for it says 8 billion, and it also says that on the main page. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ecoli Posted February 3, 2005 Share Posted February 3, 2005 Out of curiosity, How many different "YT2095" 's were you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
5614 Posted February 3, 2005 Share Posted February 3, 2005 I thought it was 8 billion. A google search for it says 8 billion' date=' and it also says that on the main page.[/quote'] i dont know... i just read it in The Time newspaper over the weekend... i know they've indexed 11billion because they officially announced that when MSN brough out their new search engine, then over the weekend i read 14.5billion..... the fact is its a lot! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuhrerkeebs Posted February 3, 2005 Share Posted February 3, 2005 Just as a funny side note, you guys should try googling "miserable failure" and hitting the "I'm feeling lucky" button. It's hilarious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ecoli Posted February 4, 2005 Share Posted February 4, 2005 Just as a funny side note, you guys should try googling "miserable failure" and hitting the "I'm feeling lucky" button. It's hilarious. HAHAHA!!!! edit: this is why http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3298443.stm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted February 4, 2005 Author Share Posted February 4, 2005 Out of curiosity' date='How many different "YT2095" 's were you?[/quote'] just One and have been since the early 1980`s Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now