Is Google Broken -- This article says Yes!

"most of my google visitors use "" in their searches"

I certainly do.

"Sexual Discrimination"

will pop up more relevant results than:

sex discrimination

That's the problem with using keywords without the quotations because one keyword can dominate the other in many search engines and give you something you really don't want. (At least that has been my personal experience)

 

In my opinion, that 32bit limitation is really unlikely. Try searching for the word "the", you get well over 5 billion results! Voila the 32bit barrier is broken!

 

This article has been around forever now, in various forms. There probably is a theoretical limit to the number of webpags google can support, but like IP4...when the limit has been reached IP5 comes right along after it and voila!

 

Much of this thread, since Bob's original post, has focussed heavily or entirely on the speculative indexing limitation.

That ignores the much more serious criticism contained in the second part of the cited article, that of the basic PageRank philosophy. I feel like I should be looking into plagarism charges there (that there's a joke, son, I say, a joke), because Constant Reader will know that I have been saying the same things, emphatically, for a long time.

"Links are votes" is a broke-down piece of garbage.​

The article recites the various reasons why, if in less detail than ideally wanted. I now see threads popping up like mushrooms after a rain on whether G's days are numbered. Of course they are. Soon or late, two other guys in a garage will come up with a set of algorithms based on realistic on-page relevance evaluation, and then Google will be the next AltaVista. (In reality, it is much more likely to be a dozen guys in a building leased by some clever entrepreneurial-funding company.)

Till then, G is safe because M$ and Yahoo can't find their butts with both hands on a sunny, and just keep chasing breathlessly after G. But the day will come, because even Joe Sikspak will eventually get tired of what G serves.

 

Owlcroft, I enjoy reading your posts, even if I don't agree with everything you say, because they seem to me to be based on sincerity and reasoned evaluation of the issues.

However, I've in the past day or so read two which (and I am aware this is a personal thing, a "pet peeve" if you like) contained a glaring irritant that almost distracted me from the points you were making.

Feel free to ignore this rant entirely, but I need to post it anyway: Lose the "M$" references. It is an old, tired, boring, over-used, pointless cliche that, IMO, really does detract from what you are saying. We all get it: Microsoft has made a lot of money. They have been very successful. We all know that. We also all know that being successful does not make someone evil or the products they sell bad (or vice versa for that matter).

We get it. We ALL get it. We all got it 10 to 15 years ago when we first saw the tired old gag. Let's move on and put it to rest.

Then we can get back to considering the points you really want to make in your posts.

As I said -- my opinion only -- my suggestion only -- feel free to ignore it.

 

Yes I do agree and what is more I think it needs to be looked at how SE's are used. The growth of new users will eventually drop to a trickle in "first world" countries - just look at the birthrate.

Without looking at overall stats I still venture to say that queries aimed at SE's start to plateu.

G is nice for research and sheer information but it will always just be an add on.
Y is a portal that happens to have search as well but is something one can use as overall homepage, it can be tailored etc.

M will simply integrate a search and facilities in a new IE and as we all know 80% of users have yet to switch the given page by their ISP so it is likely that 80% of M users will use what M deems apropriate.

Plug in's will apear that allow modification of result presentation (G ad's can already be blocked by a plug in for firefox) or like me I use Copernic professional and search all the big 10 at once with a nice result presentation and NO AD's, but this is not used and will never used by Joe Blogs.

Y is sort of showing the way. The first page is nearly all sponsors now "commercial" (type in asthma and there are at least 5 now and 8 at the side) and the second page is more about "info" results.
And why not? To run a service a bit of money is needed. So fine split, it into commercial and non commercial.

I think the sunday paper is still the best format
Info-news-b-news-classified- supplements

So for me the question is not will G crumble but who will generate the format that servers 80%?

M

 

Google's "clients" aren't webmasters: They are (1) normal people doing searches (webmasters clearly aren't "normal" ) and (2) advertisers, and neither of these groups gives a hoot what the PR on my web page is.

Minstrel is quoted above.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Minstrel, how are you? It is good to see you here at DP.

You mention that "Google clients" are not webmasters, that is not correct since it is "webmasters" that buy their product. With 95% of Google's gross profits coming from the sale of advertising and only webmasters buying this product, how can you say that webmasters are not Google's "clients" (customers). Can you mention anyone other than webmasters that buy ADWORDS? Google does not make money selling searches or Google baseball caps.

Next thing, webmasters are also "Google suppliers", who gives them space to put Adsense on their websites?

I would say that webmasters are the most important customer and partner (supplier) that Google has.

I would also say that webmasters seem to be the least respected group of customers in the world. I also think webmasters should form a union or an association demanding industry standards and issue policy statements.

 

I think your confusing annoyingly called "organic" search results with pay per click advertising. Organic search results is Google the search engines core business.

If you've ever worked for a company with more than a hand full of employees you may notice they have a marketing department... If you ever find yourself in the marketing department you may notice the majority of people there know zero about website development.

 

Gooner, has Google ever made a dime by organic search results?

I think you and and some webmasters really do not understand what the meaning of the word client is.

client = customer

Who are Google's customers that provide 95% of their gross sales?

Can I answer for you since you don't understand this?

Google customers = webmasters who PAY Google for advertising.

Do organic search users PAY Google anything?

Can you tell me who other than webmasters pay Google anything?

Please let me know when you find others that pay Google for services other than webmasters.

Then come back and tell me who is confused.

 

If you've finished with rudimentary business studies 101 can we get back with the exact point your making

Google customers are the million or so visitors that search their engine each day... and yes Advertisers - some of which use Adwords listings and their original (been around long before Adwords was invented) on-site advertising Sponsored Links, example here: http://www.designplace.org/images/srch_google_srchresults.gif

So if tomorrow the public started taking Google naysayer's seriously and stopped searching the internet using Google don't you think that may have a slight impact on the "95% of their gross sales"?

 

Guess what, I watch TV every day, but I have never purchased anything from a TV Network.

Do you Gooner?

 

Google is like a mall. Its job is to get people to use the mall as much as possible so that the stores (ie advertisers) within it make money. If google allows a few bullies to run the mall due to spam or whatever, people will leave and everyone loses money. Google has to think of foot traffic first, advertisers second.

 

and if you were the only one watching TV shows from that Network how long do you think it would last?

As lorien1973 sort of said, Google has to think of foot traffic first, and (IMO a distant second) advertisers.

 

"[H]as Google ever made a dime by organic search results?"

Has any newspaper or magazine ever made a dime of profit off subscription and newsstand sales? But, to sell the advertising that is their moneymaker, they still have to publish the rag. And keep people reading it.--which depends on the attractiveness of the content they serve.

 

Old is objective, the rest is subjective.

There are not a lot of Galahads in the corporate world, but some of the creatures are simply more vile than the rest of the pack, and I, at least, think it important that we never lose sight of who they are. To me, anyway, "M$" is not a jest, it is a reminder, that may be needed in some quarters, that not everyone accepts M$ as just another corporate player.

When we accept vileness as a norm, it is we who are become vile. How many speeches did wossname end with "Carthage must be destroyed"? But no one ever told him to "lose it".

Making money is not objectionable, it is desireable. That is not at issue. But there are means and there are means.

 

Anthonycea, I think there is something to your point in spirit, but I would wager that in $ amounts, google's biggest customer group isn't individual webmasters, but internet marketing companies that don't necessarily produce web sites, but specialize in reselling clicks they buy through adwords/overture/etc.

Google's biggest customers are internet marketing firms that specialize in getting clicks to a site. They buy adwords en masse, and get a volume discount. They hire statisticians to game the system better, sometimes, but most of them aren't that obsessive, they just do what seems to work.

Internet marketing companies like google, because adwords works ok; google makes money, and they make money marking up the clicks. The webmasters/big ass corporations are happy because they are spared the hassle of managing adwords campaigns and can do what they like, making pretty webpages, figuring out dhtml menus, getting "organic" backlinks from allies, etc.

The above is a highly idealized analysis, but I think there is something to it.

 

Chris Ridings the well know author of Page Rank Uncovered has written an article on the subject of Googles docIE's called No Google Search Engine DocIDs AINT Broke. I found it very informative and interesting.

Both Daniel Brandt (June 2003) and Anthony Federico (Sept 2004) have written articles entitled Is Google broken?
Is Google Broken? by Daniel Brandt
Is Google Broken? by Anthony Federico

The speculation is that Google has run out of docID’s and they can’t add any more pages to their index. Some are also saying this is the reason that Google has not updated the toolbar displayed PR for 93 days.

 

Humm, I didn't read that as it's sooo long, but I appreciate the quick recap. I sure hope google is not broken. However, today, a co-worker got different results than me and we googled the same terms at the same time in the same browsers. Odd, very odd.

 

TwisterMc: Ya it is interesting when you read both sides of the store. Take some time to read Ridings article it is short and informative.

 

When I read this a few months ago, I particularly liked the point in the Daniel Brandt article about using a 4byte integer because that is the default - could easily see that happening when development of the Google engine was started.

AND, once everything was in place and live, a move to a 5byte integer would NOT be trivial.