I am forwarding this from a ham radio users list, one which specializes in microwave radio. I wonder if anyone else has found a problem like this with Google? I have presently abandoned all others. ******************************************************
Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2006 01:07:28 -0700 From: Rex
Subject: [Mw] Search engines Sender: microwave-admin@lists.valinet.com To: microwave@lists.valinet.com X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.93/32.576 English (American) X-BeenThere: microwave@lists.valinet.com Delivered-to: microwave@lists.valinet.com X-Original-To: microwave@lists.valinet.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.13 List-Post: mailto:microwave@lists.valinet.com List-Subscribe: http://www.valinet.com/mailman/listinfo/microwave, mailto:microwave-request@lists.valinet.com?subject=subscribe List-Unsubscribe: http://www.valinet.com/mailman/listinfo/microwave, mailto:microwave-request@lists.valinet.com?subject=unsubscribe List-Archive: http://www.valinet.com/mailman/private/microwave/ List-Help: mailto:microwave-request@lists.valinet.com?subject=help List-Id: Amateur Radio Microwave non-commercial Original-recipient: rfc822;dmcgarrett@optonline.net I've recently just done searches on my own callsign (KK6MK).
Google is rife with ancient and long dead listings.
Yahoo, MSN, and Altavista search engines all managed to figure out how to put my current listings at the top.
Just wanted to share with everyone who may be as unaware as I was, that by my limited semi-scientific examination of available search engines, Google sucks.
_______________________________________________ Microwave mailing list microwave@lists.valinet.com http://www.valinet.com/mailman/listinfo/microwave
-- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.4.4/320 - Release Date: 4/20/2006
-- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.4.4/320 - Release Date: 4/20/2006
Doug McGarrett wrote:
I am forwarding this from a ham radio users list, one which specializes in microwave radio.
I wonder if anyone else has found a problem like this with Google? I have presently abandoned all others.
It's not really clear what KK6MKs problem is.
I've recently just done searches on my own callsign (KK6MK). Google is rife with ancient and long dead listings.
Yahoo, MSN, and Altavista search engines all managed to figure out how to put my current listings at the top.
I googled for KK6MK, but I can't tell if anything is wrong with result or not. The results show by e.g. altavista are different, but whether they are better or worse - I have no idea. /Per Jessen, Zürich, OZ1HZV(inact)
On Sunday 23 April 2006 07:09, Per Jessen wrote:
It's not really clear what KK6MKs problem is.
Hi Per, Presumably, he's had that radio call sign (ham license) for a very long time. When he 'Googles' it, the 'hits' are "rife with ancient and long dead listings." He claims that Yahoo!, MSN and Altavista searches result in current 'hits' being brought to the top. Carl
Carl Hartung wrote:
On Sunday 23 April 2006 07:09, Per Jessen wrote:
It's not really clear what KK6MKs problem is.
Hi Per,
Presumably, he's had that radio call sign (ham license) for a very long time. When he 'Googles' it, the 'hits' are "rife with ancient and long dead listings."
Yeah - but what is "an ancient and long dead listing"? I see 99 and 2002 results on google, and 98 and 99 results on altavista. /Per Jessen, Zürich
On 23/04/06, Per Jessen
Carl Hartung wrote:
On Sunday 23 April 2006 07:09, Per Jessen wrote:
It's not really clear what KK6MKs problem is.
Hi Per,
Presumably, he's had that radio call sign (ham license) for a very long time. When he 'Googles' it, the 'hits' are "rife with ancient and long dead listings."
Yeah - but what is "an ancient and long dead listing"? I see 99 and 2002 results on google, and 98 and 99 results on altavista.
/Per Jessen, Zürich
I seem to recall reading that Google bases it's hit strategy on the number of page visits a particular site has had. So, if the older mentions of this chaps call sign have been hit more often then that will rise to the top of the current Google search. It's obviously more complex than that but that is a rough idea of how it does it. -- ============================================== I am only human, please forgive me if I make a mistake it is not deliberate. ============================================== Xmas may be over but, PLEASE DON'T drink and drive you'll make it to the next one that way. Kevan Farmer Linux user #373362 Cheslyn Hay Staffordshire WS6 7HR
On Sunday 23 April 2006 09:02, Per Jessen wrote:
Yeah - but what is "an ancient and long dead listing"?
:-) I guess that depends on the material and one's expectations. If you're posting time-sensitive material online that will be stale in six months, getting one year old 'hits' at the top might seem "ancient."
I see 99 and 2002 results on google, and 98 and 99 results on altavista.
Four to seven years ago in Internet time almost qualifies as an eternity, doesn't it? ;-) Carl
Carl Hartung wrote:
On Sunday 23 April 2006 09:02, Per Jessen wrote:
Yeah - but what is "an ancient and long dead listing"?
:-) I guess that depends on the material and one's expectations. If you're posting time-sensitive material online that will be stale in six months, getting one year old 'hits' at the top might seem "ancient."
I see 99 and 2002 results on google, and 98 and 99 results on altavista.
Four to seven years ago in Internet time almost qualifies as an eternity, doesn't it? ;-)
Carl
You can use the "date" expression in your search for more recent entries: /search-string /date:3 the 3 signifies "in the last three months". You can also use 6 or 12. -James W.
On Sunday 23 April 2006 13:59, James Wright wrote:
You can use the "date" expression in your search for more recent entries:
/search-string /date:3
the 3 signifies "in the last three months". You can also use 6 or 12.
Now *that* is a great tip! Thanks James!
participants (5)
-
Carl Hartung
-
Doug McGarrett
-
James Wright
-
Kevanf1
-
Per Jessen