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)
|Comments on this would be most welcome. | |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
Yes, they're called "datacenters". Which one you get for ANY search is 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.
> 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. >...
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!
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.
> 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
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.
<QuienEsREMOVET...@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.
<derm...@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.
On 3 May 2006 10:36:04 -0700, "Phil Payne" <p...@isham-research.co.uk> 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.
>> 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
>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.
>>> 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
>>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.
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 ============================
|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. |
<QuienEsREMOVET...@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.
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.
> 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
searching using "" isn't giving the results it used to give across a lot of data centers. Try this on 64.233 "You may be asking yourself, why optimise at all?"
>>>>>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
>searching using "" isn't giving the results it used to >give across a lot of data centers. >Try this on 64.233 >"You may be asking yourself, why optimise at all?"
Doc.Far...@gmail.com wrote: > Google could fix this pretty quick with a couple of z990 processors > (fully kitted out) running z/OS with UNIX System Services (USS).
> Y'see?
> And here you thought mainframes were passé...
> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
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!!!
I am in charge of promoting various legitimate websites and y ratings bounce like crazy. After so many years doing the same thing, it does get a mite frustratrating.
I am in charge of promoting various legitimate websites and y ratings bounce like crazy. After so many years doing the same thing, it does get a mite frustratrating.
> 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.
> 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.
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.
On Sat, 6 May 2006, The One wrote: > 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:
|
