[OT] Someone broke Google Groups search
Tim Smith
Google groups search for "Tim Smith". 9 hits. Click "sort by date" and
then there are 161000 hits.
Google groups search for "Roy Schestowitz". 4 hits. Click "sort by
date" and then there are 104000 hits.
Google groups search for "Mark Kent". 46200 hits. Click "sort by date"
and it stays 46200 hits.
It used to be that you'd get about the same number of hits regardless of
whether you sorted by date or relevance. It's still doing that with
Mark, but for Roy and me, it gives far fewer hits when sorted by
relevance.
Anyone else seeing this? Or am I just hitting a bad server? (It's been
like this for a few days for me, but they seem to use some kind of
scheme to try to send you to the same server when you come back, so if
there is a broken server in their pool, I could be stuck on it).
--
--Tim Smith
Moshe Goldfarb.
Same results here...
--
Moshe Goldfarb
Collector of soaps from around the globe.
Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/
Snit
reply_in_group-2D1...@news.supernews.com on 7/21/08 5:37 PM:
It was *not* working for me for some time but seems to be now. Might be an
update that is propagating...
--
... something I'm committed to work on, focusing increasing amounts of
resources of Canonical on figuring out on how we actually move the desktop
experience forward to compete with Mac OS X.
- Mark Shuttleworth (founded Canonical Ltd. / Ubuntu Linux)
Snit
zh1nl3cxugqa$.183sfw3lasms2$.d...@40tude.net on 7/21/08 5:46 PM:
> On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 17:37:13 -0700, Tim Smith wrote:
>
>> Google groups search for "Tim Smith". 9 hits. Click "sort by date" and
>> then there are 161000 hits.
>>
>> Google groups search for "Roy Schestowitz". 4 hits. Click "sort by
>> date" and then there are 104000 hits.
>>
>> Google groups search for "Mark Kent". 46200 hits. Click "sort by date"
>> and it stays 46200 hits.
>>
>> It used to be that you'd get about the same number of hits regardless of
>> whether you sorted by date or relevance. It's still doing that with
>> Mark, but for Roy and me, it gives far fewer hits when sorted by
>> relevance.
>>
>> Anyone else seeing this? Or am I just hitting a bad server? (It's been
>> like this for a few days for me, but they seem to use some kind of
>> scheme to try to send you to the same server when you come back, so if
>> there is a broken server in their pool, I could be stuck on it).
>
> Same results here...
>
>
Maybe Steve Carroll is taking down Google like he claimed to before:
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/3b3febcdefb625b4>
Sigh....
--
Projects should really look to the whole Linux desktop and see how they can
appeal to both sides.
Hadron
> "Tim Smith" <reply_i...@mouse-potato.com> stated in post
> reply_in_group-2D1...@news.supernews.com on 7/21/08 5:37 PM:
>
>>
>> Google groups search for "Tim Smith". 9 hits. Click "sort by date" and
>> then there are 161000 hits.
>>
>> Google groups search for "Roy Schestowitz". 4 hits. Click "sort by
>> date" and then there are 104000 hits.
>>
>> Google groups search for "Mark Kent". 46200 hits. Click "sort by date"
>> and it stays 46200 hits.
>>
>> It used to be that you'd get about the same number of hits regardless of
>> whether you sorted by date or relevance. It's still doing that with
>> Mark, but for Roy and me, it gives far fewer hits when sorted by
>> relevance.
>>
>> Anyone else seeing this? Or am I just hitting a bad server? (It's been
>> like this for a few days for me, but they seem to use some kind of
>> scheme to try to send you to the same server when you come back, so if
>> there is a broken server in their pool, I could be stuck on it).
>>
> It was *not* working for me for some time but seems to be now. Might be an
> update that is propagating...
The infamous "Google dance".
--
- "Just think, consumers are not sold on XP, and Microsoft shelled out
some major $$$ to develop this thing. This is a great opportunity for
alternative operating systems to intercept the ball, and run it back for a
touchdown.": comp.os.linux.advocacy - where they put the lunacy in advocacy
Linonut
> Google groups search for "Tim Smith". 9 hits. Click "sort by date" and
> then there are 161000 hits.
>
> It used to be that you'd get about the same number of hits regardless of
> whether you sorted by date or relevance. It's still doing that with
> Mark, but for Roy and me, it gives far fewer hits when sorted by
> relevance.
>
> Anyone else seeing this? Or am I just hitting a bad server? (It's been
> like this for a few days for me, but they seem to use some kind of
> scheme to try to send you to the same server when you come back, so if
> there is a broken server in their pool, I could be stuck on it).
For you, I get the big difference you note. For "Mark Kent" and
"Linonut", it is the same either way.
"Bill Gates" gets the "Tim Smith" treatment, as does "Joe Blow" and
"Kurtis Blow".
"Ray Ingles" is the opposite - 3 hits by relevance, 0 by date.
"Erik Funkenbusch" gets 1 by relevance, 7 by date.
Is it a bug that they're relevance criterion drops entries? Or is it
deliberate?
Wow, I just notice that a post I made a couple of minutes ago is already
there, too.
--
Uh-oh -- WHY am I suddenly thinking of a VENERABLE religious leader
frolicking on a FORT LAUDERDALE weekend?