Account Options

  1. Sign in
The old Google Groups will be going away soon.
Switch to the new Google Groups.
Google Groups Home
« Groups Home
Discussions > Random chit-chat > Yahoo Slurp madness
There are currently too many topics in this group that display first. To make this topic appear first, remove this option from another topic.
There was an error processing your request. Please try again.
flag
  2 messages - Collapse all  -  Translate all to Translated (View all originals)
The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
 
From:
To:
Cc:
Followup To:
Add Cc | Add Followup-to | Edit Subject
Subject:
Validation:
For verification purposes please type the characters you see in the picture below or the numbers you hear by clicking the accessibility icon. Listen and type the numbers you hear
 
djc  
View profile  
 More options Jul 6 2007, 4:47 pm
From: djc
Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2007 13:47:04 -0700
Local: Fri, Jul 6 2007 4:47 pm
Subject: Yahoo Slurp madness
I took one of my smaller server logs and imported the IP and URLs
being crawled where the user agent claims to be Slurp and pulled them
into a database.....1 24 hour period.  I was expecting to find most
were not really Slurp.

As it turned out, most appear to be slurp but it looks like multiple
bots from Yahoo arrive all at the same time and rather than splitting
what's in queue to be crawled among them, they all crawl the same
URLs.

Math example on why Yahoo is now wasting bandwidth

for every 4 bots with 4 pages to crawl, 16 pages could be crawled yet
the 4 URLs get crawled 4 times each.

So if 4 bots came and each should crawl 500 URLs, that would be 2000
URLs crawled but only 500 are.  Had each only been crawled once, it
would have been 25000 kb bandwidth

If 500 pages of 50kb each get crawled 4 times each, that equals
100,000 kb bandwidth

If 2000 pages of 50kb each get crawled once that equals 100,000 kb
bandwidth

So 75000kb of bandwidth is wasted in a crawl of 500 pages

Do the math for the number of URLs in your sitemap.  It's ridiculous.
I should also point out I am finding more than 4 at a time but still
haven't determined exactly how many are really slurp nor I have
checked to see if some come and go while others stay.  4 was based on
an average of several 30 minute blocks using IP's where I am sure they
are Slurp.

I have also checked that there was no round robin in the sitemap which
it appears was the source of the URLs.  (site uses sitemapIndex, all
URLs were from the same individual sitemap, but not all URLs in that
sitemap were crawled  - next 24 hour period showed a very similar
behavior with URLs found in one of the other individual sitemaps).
Haven't imported any data from other sites yet but all are really
getting hammered by Yahoo.


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
-  
View profile  
 More options Jul 17 2007, 2:15 am
From: -
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2007 23:15:20 -0700
Local: Tues, Jul 17 2007 2:15 am
Subject: Re: Yahoo Slurp madness
Alot of sites, especially those running some sort of forum or bulletin-
board system, are banning Yahoo's search engine as a result of this
madness.  Complaints regarding this are being made at Yahoo's feedback
forums regarding Slurp and Site Explorer.

For those having a problem, Yahoo's crawlers will recognize a "Crawl-
Delay:" directive in "/robots.txt" (the parameter is in seconds
specifying the minimum delay between any two resource fetches).  Using
that may be a viable alternative to an outright ban.


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
End of messages
« Back to Discussions « Newer topic     Older topic »