As I often do, I was tinkering with my webstats today, and reflecting on internet searches, future growth of the internet and Google. Sort of stemmed from how 20% of my traffic comes from a page I made about somthing barely relevant to my work - deals more with birds. Anyway, it came to mind that as the internet grows - lets say if the number of websites goes up by 400% - will Google get "burned-out" or "taxed" to the point of either: 1. Not being able to keep up with the growth 2. Not really caring about new sites as much 3. Etc. For example, let's say that there is a great website or page on the best way to clean windows - or maybe there are currently 300 pages like that, since that's more realistic. Suppose all those sites or web pages ARE really good, what profit is there for Google to keep track of say 1200 more websites? The reason I ask, is because it takes money to make the web function. And whereas the number of websites is rising by 100% increments, world population and internet users are not rising like that at all. So if the number of users goes up by 3% in 5 years, but website numbers go up by 900%, the advertising income will rise ever so slightly, but the bulk of data to process will be enormously bigger. It seems logical that something has to slack or give at some point - but I'm not certain. What do you think? Can Google reach a point where it just can't handle going any further?
The growth in the number of websites will eventually slow down. There's a limit to how many can be supported by a finite population of users. So the problems you mention will probably be temporary.
Not really billbw because abandoned websites will just stay there until they are deleted by something. I think as the web grows just less webpages will get indexed per site.
That's possible, but even within my small sphere of influence, I'm seeing more. On Lawnsite.com, I read about landscapers on a regular basis getting brand new websites, and some of the lawn guys are making second or third websites. I have one site for work, and just started a second for a forum. My son has 2 websites, and just started another for something totally different for his girlfriend, for horse stuff. That son wants to make a website for our younger son to make pocket change off of. A tree service in Australia, who has one website, started another as a forum Tree World, to sort of compete with Arborist Site. And then this Aussie, just offered a contest on the forum, for a free website for the winner. Turns out, that with few entrants, he's going to make about 8 free brand new websites. At least in my line of work, more don't have sites than do have, but the majority would like to have. And quite a few with one site, want a second site. So I'm projecting at least a 300% to 400% increase for the green trade over the next 10 years. A decade is long, yet it is short. It should be both interesting and amusing to see what the next 10 years will bring.
Actually I had similar thoughts, but than came to this conclusion: google can only show a limited amount of sites in let's say top 20 for any key phrase. So the websites that don't get that position will not get almost any visitors and without visitros, why would someone even have a webpage? So webpages will come and go all the time, because they will be unable to break the ice and get good positions in engines. Remember, google ranks by amount of backlinks. Sites that exist now are building links already and when their competitors come out in few months or years they will have to make up for what sites before them already have. It's hard to do that, so most people make a webpage and take it off in few months. It's getting harder and harder to get a good position for a good search term. For example I know there is no way I could make it to first page for keyword "porn", bacause I know how much guys up there make and they than reinvest that money in buying links all the time. It's almost impossible to catch them.
It's funny how little people know about google. Google has nothing to do with how the "web" functions. Your entire scenario about taking present day google, and comparing it to the future is absurd. Technology is improving, and improving significantly. Google could easily purchase more harddrives to store all their data, and more processors to rank websites and such.
It's not about google handling it, he's saying can they handle it effectively as the web gets bigger and bigger. I think something else will eventually come and take it's place, because their 'perfect' system has become compromised, either they are going to have to find a way to get rid of all the link purchasers, or else the system will continue to get gamed, and the good information won't be able to surface. It's amazing, three years ago you used to be able to go to Google and type in a phrase and find what you needed on the first or second page. I know find myself shifting back to Yahoo more often, because I often find myself wading six, seven, eight pages deep to find what I need on Google.
Yes, plenty of new websites are being created. But I would bet that only a small percentage will survive for the long term. Already there are many that disappear everyday as their hosting accounts expire and aren't re-newed.
Great thread Mdvaden! As far as the google searches go, I think we will see some HUGE changes soon. Google has a real problem to deal with, because it is getting worse..... as it is set up now, you are better off trading and making links all day then you are actually putting together quality content on your site (you can spend 5 minutes a day on your content and 8 hours on links and you will do way better than a guy that spends 8 hours a day on content) This HAS to change.... I almost expect google to one day become much more a sponsored results engine (at least for profitable searches, maybe just page one will be all sponsored links that are sold to the highest bidders, and subject to being relevant at google's discretion)
I think you circumvented the "scenerio" I wrote about which included that the whole system has to be paid for. The internet does not run on charity, it runs on money. Hard drives cost money - data cables cost money. Google can only "easily" purchase more hard drives, if a bunch of people like myself "easily" hand-over more money to Google. We certainly agree that they are not printing money at the Google campus. Ad money gets to Google primarily by people clicking on ads that are seen, not ads of sites on page 999. So a lot of Google's money, depends on the first couple of pages of results. Your post reminds me of the two or three link exchange requests I get every week. One thing that is in-common with 80% of them, is that they have LINKS pages, but virtually no CONTENT pages - nothing really special other than just what they sell. No articles, no tips, no image galleries. I think I've added one link to my links page in the past 4 months. Most that email me, are basically after links increase, not content increase.
Google has never had a problem with any of those. New sites, old sites are all treated the same - in terms of backlinks, and authority.
10 years ago would you have thought it possible to buy a laptop computer with over 1000gb of disk space and could burn dvd's at 16 speed and also process grafix to almost life like defintition. the answer in probably no. so who knows what kind of storage and indexing technology will be available. my guess with the buget that google has for this kind of research we wont have anything to worrie about.
No, would not have imagined that. But one thing I could imagine then, and can imagine now, is that I was financially limited to whatever size of equipment that our income would enable. Forgotten Creature said something that leads me to remember Google's habits and limitations. Google undertakes certain major projects only several times per year. Ideally, if there were enough resources, it should be done at least monthly, but I don't think Google has the computing power to pull-off those projects monthly or weekly - which would be optimum. From what I can tell, Google, and a lot of other companies, tend to bot check websites during the night hours in the USA, when less traffic is affecting the speed and efficiency of various servers. It's a wise move allowing faster retrieval, but its also related to the limits of their computing ability and resources. say no more debunker...
Google currently has enough cash on hand to purchase enough harddrives to cache the entire internet multiple times over. They won't have a problem.
Well, I see that point yet to be proven - even now. My research leads me to believe that Google does not cache the entire internet now. Seen any proof that 100% of all websites registered worldwide are cached? It there is proof, then we are one step closer to knowing for a fact that Google can do what you say. One thing though, Google may have enough to purchase all those hard drives, but it may not have enough to purchase all the peripheral equipment, buildings and staff that are connected to those hypothetical hard drives. I think it may be sort of like fossil fuel. The resources seem to be there, but things may dwindle or change in 50 years.
This is really sounding like Chicken Little. The Google sky is not falling. Your point may be valid if they used todays technology 50 years from now, but they won't. Remember that 50 years ago, man was just putting the first man-made object into space. Now we have a full space program and all the benefits from it. Your "research" is seriously flawed. Google does cache sites it visits. Its called indexing. Can you imagine if you typed in say, "baseball" and because it wasn't cached, googlebot had to go scan every linked paged on the internet and build a results page in under a second? So yea, there is proof that pages are cached. As far as resources to keep expanding go, Google is a perfect storm. As the internet grows, revenues grow, reinvestment grows and so on. Check out there financials in your "research" sometime. They are one of the greatest cash generating ventures of modern times. America is a country of over 300 million people now. Google employs 14,000 world wide. Google is not going to run out of staff. Even if they do, technology bridges the gap. My God man, do you know what a history book is? You don't have one valid point! Please chicken little, stop posting as an authoritative source backed not with fact, but your own "research".
Your reading and paying attention to vocabulary may be what is seriously flawed. I didn't say they don't cache "sites they visit" as your wrote. My post referred to 100% of sites registered. I have not seen anything to date, showing that Google has cached or indexed 100% of all sites registered - sometimes called the invisible internet and visible internet combined. Once you go back and figure out what I wrote, feel free to repost with something that's related, then I'll know you accurately cached and indexed the reply. I mean, seriously, your suggestions or jokes can't be taken seriously if you can't connect the dots accurately for a few consecutive posts.
You can't be taken seriously. Of course they are not going to index sites they don't visit. Thats a no brainer. Last time I checked, Google does not maintain the worlds DNS servers or domain registration databases. What about the guy who has a webserver setup on a box in the corner of his office, is this the invisible internet? So yea, if you want to sound smart saying Google hasn't indexed what it can't see, go drink the kool-aid. I mean, seriously, you can't be taken seriously if you can't grasp simple concepts already widely know to damn near everybody on this forum. If you needed research for this, then I feel sorry for you.