Google web search on phrase returning loads of erroneous results
QuienEs
My wife's friends told her it would be fun to google her name, last
name is unusual enough that Google should only return a few results.
So she googled the web for her name as a phrase
[ " characters included ]
"firstname lastname"
and got 295 hits.
Problem is that only the top hit is valid, the rest of the results
have our last name in them, but NOT adjacent to her first name.
Looking at the cached versions is no help.
Anyone know what's up with this or a workaround to only get results
with the requested phrase ? I have used Google for years and think I
know what I am doing, maybe I am falling victim to a new "feature" ?
SafeSearch Filtering in my preferences is set to: Use moderate
filtering (Filter explicit images only - default behavior)
but this shouldn't matter anyway.
TIA, QE in NJ
QuienEs
I'm in NJ.
Was on the phone with my son in San Francisco.
When he tries it, it works fine, 1 hit.
Does Google have "duplicate" databases ?
If yes, we are apparently accessing different ones and the one near me
is gorked.
QE in NJ
=======================
Phil Payne
almost random.
If you do a search and assemble the top 100 hits by paging down 10
times, then do the same search asking for 100 hits on the page, the
results will be different.
David Dermott
>
> My wife's friends told her it would be fun to google her name, last
> name is unusual enough that Google should only return a few results.
>
> So she googled the web for her name as a phrase
> [ " characters included ]
>
> "firstname lastname"
>
> and got 295 hits.
>
> Problem is that only the top hit is valid, the rest of the results
> have our last name in them, but NOT adjacent to her first name.
> Looking at the cached versions is no help.
>
I have noticed this also. I normally use the "Advanced Search"
feature and 100 results/page:
http://www.google.ca/advanced_search
If I either enter a phrase in quotes in "All the Words" box
or "Exact Phrase" (no quotes), I get a lot of spurious results.
eg "long distance ice skating" gets 190000 results!
Actually, if I go to "Next page" it only shows about 220, but still
they are mostly bogus.
The symptoms seem to indicate that Google is ignoring
the quote marks and doing the "At Least One Of The Words" search.
HMM, I just noticed that most of the bogus results are "Supplemental
Results"
This happened last week but went away in a few hours but it came back
again yesterday and is still there (1753 UTC, May 3)
I deleted my google cookies and re-enterd my preferences and it's
still there. Using google.com instead of google.com doesn't
make any difference.
And Google now only has 3 out of my 50 pages indexed!
Several months ago it was up to about 30.
So Google is now returning bogus results as well as NOT finding
valid ones!
--
David Dermott , Wolfville Ridge, Nova Scotia, Canada
email: der...@ns.sympatico.ca
WWW pages: http://www.dermott.ca/index.html
David Dermott
>...
> I have noticed this also. I normally use the "Advanced Search"
> feature and 100 results/page:
> http://www.google.ca/advanced_search
>
> ... Using google.com instead of google.com doesn't
> make any difference.
> ...
Oops, that should say:
Using google.com instead of google.ca doesn't
make any difference.
--
T.J.
"QuienEs" <QuienEsR...@ANDTHISatt.net> wrote in message
news:1olh52pf0ndjd729c...@4ax.com...
Don't know how long it has been happening, but I noticed
it over the weekend.
It seems to be about a 50 50 split across the data centers
try searching here using "target phrase"
http://www.mcdar.net/dance/index.php
and you will see completely different results.
Big Bill
<QuienEsR...@ANDTHISatt.net> wrote:
>It gets curiouser and curioser.
>
>I'm in NJ.
>
>Was on the phone with my son in San Francisco.
>When he tries it, it works fine, 1 hit.
>
>Does Google have "duplicate" databases ?
Lots of them. Data Centres. DC's. As you've noticed, they aren't
exactly duplicates.
>If yes, we are apparently accessing different ones and the one near me
>is gorked.
Maybe that's the good one. You won't know till they settle down, and
that could be some time due to all the recent upgrades Google have
been performing and are visibly having a hard time implementing.
BB
--
http://www.kruse.co.uk/sandbox.htm
http://www.here-be-posters.co.uk/lithographs.htm
http://www.crystal-liaison.com/willow-tree/index.html
Big Bill
<der...@nOsPAM.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>On Wed, 3 May 2006, David Dermott wrote:
>>...
>> I have noticed this also. I normally use the "Advanced Search"
>> feature and 100 results/page:
>> http://www.google.ca/advanced_search
>> ...
>>
>> ... Using google.com instead of google.com doesn't
>> make any difference.
>> ...
> Oops, that should say:
>
> Using google.com instead of google.ca doesn't
>make any difference.
It might another day. Another time of day. Different weather. But you
still won't get a result from the Chinese one, or Google.de.
Big Bill
wrote:
>Yes, they're called "datacenters". Which one you get for ANY search is
>almost random.
Random? How often will you get a Chinese DC from the UK?
>If you do a search and assemble the top 100 hits by paging down 10
>times, then do the same search asking for 100 hits on the page, the
>results will be different.
Ah so.
Big Bill
<der...@nOsPAM.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> So Google is now returning bogus results as well as NOT finding
>valid ones!
Difficult to call them bogus because what Google decides is top
actually is top. Accurate is something else.
Big Bill
I didn't.
T.J.
"Big Bill" <kr...@cityscape.co.uk> wrote in message
news:o25i52t9c1jcq6rvo...@4ax.com...
Do you understand what the OP is talking about?
QuienEs
responses, stories etc.
I especially want to thank "T.J." for providing the wonderful "mcdar"
link below - when I hit it with my wife's name as a phrase most, but
not all of the results contain great wobs of spurious hits. To me, a
few min ago, it was more like 20% good, 80% bad.
Thanks again, QE in NJ
============================
Big Bill
<QuienEsR...@ANDTHISatt.net> wrote:
>On Wed, 3 May 2006 20:34:06 +0100, "T.J." <n...@home.invalid> wrote:
>Hi, I'm the OP and just want to thank everyone who has pitched in with
>responses, stories etc.
>
>I especially want to thank "T.J." for providing the wonderful "mcdar"
>link below - when I hit it with my wife's name as a phrase most, but
>not all of the results contain great wobs of spurious hits. To me, a
>few min ago, it was more like 20% good, 80% bad.
>
>Thanks again, QE in NJ
>============================
I saw consistency. But we expect that, some are stable, some aren't.
Big Bill
>>>>
>>>> but this shouldn't matter anyway.
>>>>
>>>> TIA, QE in NJ
>>>
>>>Don't know how long it has been happening, but I noticed
>>>it over the weekend.
>>>It seems to be about a 50 50 split across the data centers
>>>try searching here using "target phrase"
>>>http://www.mcdar.net/dance/index.php
>>>and you will see completely different results.
>>>
>>
>> I didn't.
>>
>> BB
>
>Do you understand what the OP is talking about?
Did I not? I missed something? I don't mind to be told.
T.J.
> On Wed, 3 May 2006 22:03:40 +0100, "T.J." <n...@home.invalid> wrote:
>
>>>>>
>>>>> but this shouldn't matter anyway.
>>>>>
>>>>> TIA, QE in NJ
>>>>
>>>>Don't know how long it has been happening, but I noticed
>>>>it over the weekend.
>>>>It seems to be about a 50 50 split across the data centers
>>>>try searching here using "target phrase"
>>>>http://www.mcdar.net/dance/index.php
>>>>and you will see completely different results.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I didn't.
>>>
>>> BB
>>
>>Do you understand what the OP is talking about?
>
> Did I not? I missed something? I don't mind to be told.
>
> BB
>
give across a lot of data centers.
Try this on 64.233
"You may be asking yourself, why optimise at all?"
Big Bill
Yeah, 50/50. I see it.
Try this though, "table magician"
Doc.F...@gmail.com
(fully kitted out) running z/OS with UNIX System Services (USS).
Y'see?
And here you thought mainframes were passé...
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
Johnnie390
An even better solution would be a few z9's filled with IFL's, z/VM and
fill her up Linux guests. Then watch things fly!!!
ralphm...@comcast.net
bounce like crazy. After so many years doing the same thing, it does
get a mite frustratrating.
http://www.themortgageadvocacy.com
http://www.thefinancialadvocacy.com
http://www.financialadvocacy.com
Ralph
ralphm...@comcast.net
The One
that pages link to this page with the text.
btw, your article is linked
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/05/04/google_bigdaddy_chaos/
--
The One
www.bootstrike.com
"QuienEs" <QuienEsR...@ANDTHISatt.net> wrote in message
news:1olh52pf0ndjd729c...@4ax.com...
T.J.
"QuienEs" <QuienEsR...@ANDTHISatt.net> wrote in message
news:9c9i52pq3g0rj9545...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 3 May 2006 20:34:06 +0100, "T.J." <n...@home.invalid> wrote:
> Hi, I'm the OP and just want to thank everyone who has pitched in with
> responses, stories etc.
>
> I especially want to thank "T.J." for providing the wonderful "mcdar"
> link below - when I hit it with my wife's name as a phrase most, but
> not all of the results contain great wobs of spurious hits. To me, a
> few min ago, it was more like 20% good, 80% bad.
>
> Thanks again, QE in NJ
No problem,
Try it today, then refresh your browser
and try again.
It looks like all Datacenters have reverted back.
I'm surprised this hasn't been talked about more,
unfortunately, I think most people didn't see how
significant your posting was.
T.J.
--
http://www.uksmallbusinessdirectory.co.uk
Borek
> It looks like all Datacenters have reverted back.
> I'm surprised this hasn't been talked about more,
> unfortunately, I think most people didn't see how
> significant your posting was.
I am observing DCs on daily basis. They dance, but at least for the KWs I
am observing nothing extraordinary happens.
Best,
Borek
--
http://www.chembuddy.com
http://www.ph-meter.info/pH
http://www.terapia-kregoslupa.waw.pl
David Dermott
> I have seen occurrences of this many times too, and Google gives excuses
> that pages link to this page with the text.
>
Googles "Exact Phrase" search now seems to be working properly.
The problem was mentioned on a few other forums. EG:
http://nico.nfshost.com/2006/04/26/google-phrase-search-no-longer-works/
--
David Dermott , Wolfville Ridge, Nova Scotia, Canada
WWW pages: http://www.dermott.ca/index.html
Big Bill
<m.bor...@delete.chembuddy.these.com.parts> wrote:
>On Sat, 06 May 2006 14:49:40 +0200, T.J. <n...@home.invalid> wrote:
>
>> It looks like all Datacenters have reverted back.
>> I'm surprised this hasn't been talked about more,
>> unfortunately, I think most people didn't see how
>> significant your posting was.
>
>I am observing DCs on daily basis. They dance, but at least for the KWs I
>am observing nothing extraordinary happens.
>
>Best,
>Borek
Frankly me neither. Some seem split but some are more or less uniform.
Same old same old.
BB
--
http://www.kruse.co.uk/sandbox.htm
http://www.here-be-posters.co.uk/jimi-hendrix-posters.htm
http://www.crystal-liaison.com/armani/index.html
Big Bill
Hey Roy! This is the post that made The Register.
What was the significance you saw, particularly, TJ?
T.J.
"Big Bill" <kr...@cityscape.co.uk> wrote in message
news:qrbp52537e20h6k64...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 6 May 2006 13:49:40 +0100, "T.J." <n...@home.invalid> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>>"QuienEs" <QuienEsR...@ANDTHISatt.net> wrote in message
>>news:9c9i52pq3g0rj9545...@4ax.com...
>>> On Wed, 3 May 2006 20:34:06 +0100, "T.J." <n...@home.invalid> wrote:
>>> Hi, I'm the OP and just want to thank everyone who has pitched in with
>>> responses, stories etc.
>>>
>>> I especially want to thank "T.J." for providing the wonderful "mcdar"
>>> link below - when I hit it with my wife's name as a phrase most, but
>>> not all of the results contain great wobs of spurious hits. To me, a
>>> few min ago, it was more like 20% good, 80% bad.
>>>
>>> Thanks again, QE in NJ
>>
>>
>>No problem,
>>Try it today, then refresh your browser
>>and try again.
>>It looks like all Datacenters have reverted back.
>>I'm surprised this hasn't been talked about more,
>>unfortunately, I think most people didn't see how
>>significant your posting was.
>>
>>T.J.
>
> Hey Roy! This is the post that made The Register.
> What was the significance you saw, particularly, TJ?
>
> BB
The register article didn't appear to pick up on the significance,
the only people who have are the OP and David Dermott.
We are not talking about standard databas fluxuations, but
about the way the Google advanced feature was behaving
last week.
Have a read here.
http://www.uksmallbusinessdirectory.co.uk/advanced-search.html
--
http://www.uksmallbusinessdirectory.co.uk
Big Bill
"I was amazed that no one else joined the thread and picked up on what
was appearing to be happening, but mainly put this down to the OP not
making his initial findings clear enough."
i put it down to your being alerted by having seen something odd along
those lines yourself. Unlike the rest of our jaded selves.
Three different algos. I wonder if that reflects three different bots?
T.J.
"Big Bill" <kr...@cityscape.co.uk> wrote in message
news:cdtp52d3uuoma94gq...@4ax.com...
Yes, probably right, had I not seen it earlier I would have
probably thought the OP was talking about a typical
googlebombing incident.
No idea about the 3 bots, the results didn't stay different
for long enough.
There was definitely one lot of data centers giving strange
results for an advanced search though, but these have now
reverted back to normal.
The oddest thing was the allinanchor: search
It was returning numerous results when there was no way
that the phrases were being used for anchor text.
--
http://www.uksmallbusinessdirectory.co.uk
Big Bill
>> Three different algos. I wonder if that reflects three different bots?
>>
>> BB
>>
>
>Yes, probably right, had I not seen it earlier I would have
>probably thought the OP was talking about a typical
>googlebombing incident.
>
>No idea about the 3 bots, the results didn't stay different
>for long enough.
>There was definitely one lot of data centers giving strange
>results for an advanced search though, but these have now
>reverted back to normal.
>The oddest thing was the allinanchor: search
>It was returning numerous results when there was no way
>that the phrases were being used for anchor text.
I say again, the abnormal is now comonplace.
ven...@gmail.com
Google is Google itself. This type of an operation no doubt requires
massive infrastructure. Maintaining all these distributed services
demands strict organization. Google has too many people doing their own
thing.
I like the service Google offers - use them every day. But the quality
has been dropping and I find myself going back to the old metasearch
tools like the Copernic Agent. These apps are slow and
resource-intensive but they get the job done by drastically improving
the noise-to-signal ratio in Web searches.
Meanwhile, Google should think less about kicking IBM's big blue ass
and more about maintaining quality. In their business there is no place
for random and poorly tested changes. No matter how big Google is, it
can always join Web Crawler and Alta Vista on the search engine junk
yard.
Big Bill
>At its present level of popularity, the only thing that can screw up
>Google is Google itself.
Too late! Next!
jon.r...@constitution.org
long before google.com went online, and during that time
constitution.org has ranked high on Google, at or near the top for a
search on "constitution".
But this past week constitution.org disappeared from google.com's
index. If you go to www.google.com and do a search on
"constitution.org", it will return a page that says:
Sorry, no information is available for the URL constitution.org
Of course, right below that it offers a link to it, which you can click
on and get our home page, which, except for a brief period a few months
ago when the server was down due to a power failure in Los Angeles, and
perhaps a few short maintenance periods while being transferred from
one server to another, has never gone down.
The third statement below the one above is
Find web pages that contain the term "constitution.org"
When I first discovered this situation April 26, 2006, I could click on
that and find that 178,000 pages linked to a page on our site. On April
30, that number ws down to 137,000. Today, May 8, it is down to 90,300.
It is almost as though some Orwellian Ministry of Information has
infiltrated Google and initiated an erasure not only of the indexes to
the site, but to pages that link to the site. One could explain the
former by a loss of the domain name from their current copy of the DNS
database, but the latter is weird.
Needless to say, I resubmitted the domain for crawling, something I
have never had to do.
This situation has come to the attention of a lot of people, and
brought a lot of inquiries. A common reaction is, "Did we get the
Chinese version of the Google servers?"
I have done similar queries on other search engines. No problem with
any of the others. You can try them from
http://www.constitution.org/search.htm and
http://www.constitution.org/seartool.htm
I have sent an inquiry to sup...@google.com, which has brought a
response in years past. So far no reply. People receiving this message
might make your own inquiries, perhaps to other addresses. This
situation is nothing if not interesting.
You might also spread the word to the media. This is news.
-- Jon
----------------------------------------------------------------
Constitution Society 7793 Burnet Road #37, Austin, TX 78757
512/374-9585 www.constitution.org jon.r...@constitution.org
----------------------------------------------------------------
jon.r...@constitution.org
finding the same things. There are also other search engines, many of
which I have linked at http://www.constitution.org/seartool.htm
It is possible that it is related to the problem reported in this
article
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/05/04/google_bigdaddy_chaos/
But what I find especially interesting is that the number of pages
Google reports as linking to constitution.org is also declining. It was
at 178,000 a week ago. Now it is down to 93,900. It seems google is not
just losing constitution.org from its index, which could be explained
if the domain was omitted from its DNS database, but pages of other
domains that link to it, and that cannot be so easily explained.
John Ferguson wrote:
> Dear Jon,
>
> I saw your post the other day and just got around to doing a bit of poking on the subject of constitution.org missing from Google.
>
> Below are the notes I took as I did it. Hope it is of use. I found it very intriguing while doing it; now I'm not sure what's there. . . except, of course, that the Constitution Society has been taken out of the loop to a large degree, which is bad regardless.
>
> I'd love to know what the story is. If there's nonsense behind it, as opposed to a true technical problem, it would indicate a move in the direction of separating people from hardcore fundamental data and analysis.
>
> ____________ (Don't know why the following text spaced out the way it did on copying, but can't seem to fix it)------
>
> Search items related to _constitution.org_
>
> _
>
> constitution.org
>
> _
>
> Google -- "Sorry, no information is available for the URL constitution.org"
>
> AllTheWeb -- "Constitution Society Homepage" and full page of links
>
> Alta Vista -- "Constitution Society Homepage" and full page of links
>
> Ask.com -- "Constitution Society Homepage" and full page of links
>
> Searching Google for "www.constitution.org" (in quotes) gets lots of that text where the site is mentioned elsewhere, but NOT ONE from the _constitution.org_ URL in 8-9 pages of results that I checked!!
>
> _
>
> John Locke, Second Treatise"
>
> _
>
> Google -- No constitution.org hits in first seven pages of results that I checked.
>
> AllTheWeb -- first item
>
> Alta Vista -- first item
>
> Ask.com -- second item
>
> _
>
> Constitution Society
>
> _
>
> Google-- No constitution.org hits first seven pages that I checked
>
> AllTheWeb -- constitution.org first 2 items
>
> Alta Vista -- first two items
>
> Ask.com -- first two items
>
> _
>
> Federalist Papers
>
> _
>
> Google-- No constitution.org hits first seven pages that I checked
>
> AllTheWeb -- two hits first page
>
> Alta Vista -- two hits first page
>
> Ask.com -- two hits first page
>
> _
>
> Jon Roland
>
> _
>
> Google-- No constitution.org hits first seven pages that I checked
>
> AllTheWeb -- two hits first page (first two)
>
> Alta Vista -- two hits first page (first two)
>
> Ask.com -- two hits first page (first two)
>
> *****My own conclusion (novice though I am in net matters) is that _constitution.org_ is missing from Googles indexing, for whatever reason. (suspicious) *****
>
> To check this further, I checked some other sites which might prove "controversial" (?).
>
> Search items related to _givemeliberty.org_
>
> _
>
> givemeliberty.org
>
> _
>
> Google-- "We the People Homepage" and many links
>
> AllTheWeb -- ditto
>
> Alta Vista -- ditto
>
> Ask.com -- ditto
>
> (i.e., other searches are responsive on all engines, including Google.)
>
> _ _
>
> _infowars.com_, _prisonplanet.com, www.losthorizons.com_ and many other URLs I checked had the same positive result.
>
>
>
> However, interestingly:
>
> Search items related to _freedomforceinternational.org_
>
> _ _
>
> _freedomforceinternational.org_ entered as a search term.
>
> Google --"Sorry, no information is available for the URL www.freedomforceinternational.org"
>
> AllTheWeb -- Lists Freedom Force Homepage and pages of hits and links
>
> Alta Vista -- Lists Freedom Force Homepage and pages of hits from the URL and links
>
> Ask.com -- Lists Freedom Force Homepage and pages of hits from the URL and links
>
> If you search for _"freedomforceinternational.org"_ (in quotes) there are a lot of hits but mostly where that exact text appears on other sites (including freedom-force.org and realityzone.com), but only one or two in many pages of results from the _freedomforceinternational.org_ URL.
>
> _ _
>
> _freedom-force.org_
>
> Google -- Lists Freedom Force home page
>
> AllTheWeb -- Lists FFI Homepage and only two pages of links.
>
> Other engines have usual results.
>
> When you search "Creed of Freedom" on the various engines, most of the hits are either references by others or unrelated to FFI creed, but on Google, mainly _freedom-force.org_ or _realityzone.com_ come up with only one hit from _freedomforceinternational.org_ that I could find in many pages. On the other engines, though, _freedomforceinternational.org_ is by far prominent. So there seems to be some bias against that particular URL on Google, as opposed to other engines, especially since it has "no information available."
>
> I don't have the time or knowledge to thrash this out further, or even know what significance to put to it, except that the _consititution.org_ omission is a gross omission. I've notified Google, as I'm sure you, Jon, have as well, so if a fix isn't forthcoming..... I dunno. I certainly won't be using Google further than absolutely necessary (see google-watch.org). No more "googling" for me. And I suspect some real news here somewhere.
>
> Hope this is of some service. (I've bcc'd Ed Griffin and some others on this as well.)
>
>
> John Ferguson
> fer...@earthlink.net <mailto:fer...@earthlink.net>
>
>
>
Borek
> But this past week constitution.org disappeared from google.com's
> index. If you go to www.google.com and do a search on
> "constitution.org", it will return a page that says:
(...)
> I have sent an inquiry to sup...@google.com, which has brought a
> response in years past. So far no reply. People receiving this message
> might make your own inquiries, perhaps to other addresses. This
> situation is nothing if not interesting.
You are not alone. Google has some serious problem with its index and many
pages were thrown away. While it is OK to cry about AFAIK it is just a
technical glitch.
Unless information about ph meters and Nernst equation is also censored
lately... ;)
> You might also spread the word to the media. This is news.
Check webmasterworld.com Google News forums to see you are not alone.
Best,
Borek
--
http://www.chembuddy.com
http://www.ph-meter.info/pH-Nernst-equation
http://www.terapia-kregoslupa.waw.pl
Borek
> It is possible that it is related to the problem reported in this
> article
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/05/04/google_bigdaddy_chaos/
Very likely.
> But what I find especially interesting is that the number of pages
> Google reports as linking to constitution.org is also declining. It was
> at 178,000 a week ago. Now it is down to 93,900. It seems google is not
> just losing constitution.org from its index, which could be explained
> if the domain was omitted from its DNS database, but pages of other
> domains that link to it, and that cannot be so easily explained.
If you remove 10% of pages from the index, you loose 10% of links. And
taking into account fact that Google shows only some subset of links (with
unknow rules of selection) this 10% of pages can contain 90% of your
links. So far it all fits.
Big Bill
>
>You might also spread the word to the media. This is news.
>
Not to us. We've been getting complaints and entreaties from
despairing webby folk about Google's loopy index for ages now. You
might want to inform The Register, they're taking an interest lately.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/
Ah! But you know that, I see...
acha...@yahoo.com
full name, using "exact phrase," and a bunch of unrelated junk came up.
When I'd done it last year, the results were quite specific. Also, I
recently added a bunch of pages to my site, and it took Google WEEKS to
index it. When they finally did, when a "site:" search is done, Google
reflects that my site now has 10,000 more pages than it really does. I
don't know that MSN is much better, as it says I have about 4,000 more
pages than I do. It looks like Google is having a major brain-fart.
Big Bill
>I noticed these problems weeks ago, when I googled my deceased mother's
>full name, using "exact phrase," and a bunch of unrelated junk came up.
> When I'd done it last year, the results were quite specific. Also, I
>recently added a bunch of pages to my site, and it took Google WEEKS to
>index it. When they finally did, when a "site:" search is done, Google
>reflects that my site now has 10,000 more pages than it really does.
Maybe it's given some of the 60,000 odd of mine gone missing to you.