Sadly I was informed earlier today by "Christine" that Google is
moving toward a 3 site maximum CSE model. Whether or not this means
untold thousands of Custom Search Engines on countless websites will
stop working is (as of yet) unclear.
"...In the Sites tab, make sure to include no more than three sites.
Please note that each domain you add is counted towards this total..."
While I was told that the new forthcoming 3-site maximum CSE would
improve performance and accuracy of results, a quick test using a
sample engine proved otherwise.
Another snippet from the article reads:
"...If your Custom Search Engine includes more than three sites, the
results may be from a subset of our index and may differ from the
results of a 'site:' search on Google.com...."
To me this latter caveat sounds like a preemptive "weasel clause",
that is, to prepare you for eventual and less than satisfactory
results. In other words, more sites = poor quality results???
With so many persistent problems plaguing what first appeared to be a
most useful and promising resource for websites everywhere, the CSE
experiment and reasons for using it now seem to be quickly
deteriorating into only more problems.
Is this an effort to drive more sales for the CSE Business edition?
Would the Business Edition allow you to include more than 3 websites?
I wish "Christine" would let us know what to expect so that CSE users
could better prepare for the possible collapse of their search
engines.
While I see several shortcomings with the current CSE's performance,
until something better comes along, personally I would be willing to
pay the small annual fee for the Business Edition - if it becomes
necessary.
As of this writing, I'm still having problems with a CSE not giving
results for the sites it has listed. Is anyone else experiencing
similar problems?
> Sadly I was informed earlier today by "Christine" that Google is
> moving toward a 3 site maximum CSE model. Whether or not this means
> untold thousands of Custom Search Engines on countless websites will
> stop working is (as of yet) unclear.
> "...In the Sites tab, make sure to include no more than three sites.
> Please note that each domain you add is counted towards this total..."
> While I was told that the new forthcoming 3-site maximum CSE would
> improve performance and accuracy of results, a quick test using a
> sample engine proved otherwise.
> Another snippet from the article reads:
> "...If your Custom Search Engine includes more than three sites, the
> results may be from a subset of our index and may differ from the
> results of a 'site:' search on Google.com...."
> To me this latter caveat sounds like a preemptive "weasel clause",
> that is, to prepare you for eventual and less than satisfactory
> results. In other words, more sites = poor quality results???
> With so many persistent problems plaguing what first appeared to be a
> most useful and promising resource for websites everywhere, the CSE
> experiment and reasons for using it now seem to be quickly
> deteriorating into only more problems.
> Is this an effort to drive more sales for the CSE Business edition?
> Would the Business Edition allow you to include more than 3 websites?
> I wish "Christine" would let us know what to expect so that CSE users
> could better prepare for the possible collapse of their search
> engines.
> While I see several shortcomings with the current CSE's performance,
> until something better comes along, personally I would be willing to
> pay the small annual fee for the Business Edition - if it becomes
> necessary.
> As of this writing, I'm still having problems with a CSE not giving
> results for the sites it has listed. Is anyone else experiencing
> similar problems?
Sorry if it wasn't clear from my earlier post about this, but the 3-
site limit has actually existed for the entire product lifetime; it's
not a new or upcoming feature. As a matter of fact, we're working to
improve coverage for CSEs of all sizes. Just so you know, the Business
Edition has a similar limitation for 4+ sites, so that's not
necessarily a better solution at the moment.
I never saw the 3-site maximum caveat before, during, or even after
building numerous CSE's. Only after you mentioned it did I become
aware. Had I read the warning early on, I would have never considered
spending any time creating a custom engine under such limitations.
What's the point of only allowing 3 websites to an engine? Why even
mention a 3 site max when at the same time up 5,000 sites are also
allowed? These two premises combined equate to a vague, open-ended
policy which gives Google plenty of wiggle room. Essentially, it means
absolutely nothing.
So no, it's not clear. Wiggle = evasion, not clarity - and it
certainly doesn't engender trust.
I suppose it's pointless to debate the issue; Google and its reps will
continue wiggling no matter what myself, you, or anyone else says or
does. That is the nature of the beast.
For the record though, albeit fleeting, when one takes the 3-site
maximum at face value it still comes up wanting. I interpret the 3
site max as meaning as more sites are added over the limit, quality
(and quantity) of results diminish proportionately.
Only a casual glance at this poor performance reveals that the CSE 3
site max model's ability to return satisfactory results leaves much to
be desired.
So in the end, like the vague, open-ended 3-site max policy, a CSE
with only 3 sites still is about as useful as a wiggly worm - which I
might add is commonly used to catch unwary, gullible little fishes.
This thread is most disturbing, i have a few questions/remarks about
this:
* Can you point us to the exact location of this 3-site limit? Where
is it written?
* Why is there a 'Google marker' for adding sites? (anyone can add 3
url by hand...)
* When you pay $100 you get to add 1 (one) site extra.. [duh]
* Why aren't the 'can not save' bugs not being fixed? (core
functionality)
Imo, a 3-site limit makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, the CSE
concept would become virtually useless.
@dottie: thanks for bringing up this issue, i wasn't aware of it
before.
> Sorry if it wasn't clear from my earlier post about this, but the 3-
> site limit has actually existed for the entire product lifetime; it's
> not a new or upcoming feature. As a matter of fact, we're working to
> improve coverage for CSEs of all sizes. Just so you know, the Business
> Edition has a similar limitation for 4+ sites, so that's not
> necessarily a better solution at the moment.
This very much reduces my enthousiasm for Google CSE.
I can understand that Google has some sort of limit (server capacity?,
what is the exact reason??),
but this puts all the previous posts in the Blog from the Google
engineers and the prestations on SES in another perspective.
Apperently it is not at all possible to
use my Digg friends posts, iCal, RSS, Google Base, etc. to create
CSEs.
http://googlecustomsearch.blogspot.com/2007_06_01_archive.html
If only a 'not to be unfluenced subset' is indexed, what is the use?
If you make a CSE for, f.i., New York restaurants and from one
restaurant only the menu is indexed and from the other one only the
opening hours or directions, this will not create a usefull search
engine.
If the costs / server capacity is the issue, Google should believe in
the potential and rely that Adwords income wil cover those
investments.
We should also be provided, in the meantime, with the logic which
pages of a site are indexed and for what reason so we can anticipate
on that building our CSE's.
Hope that the Google CSE engineers can and get the opportunity to
resolve this,
> This thread is most disturbing, i have a few questions/remarks about
> this:
> * Can you point us to the exact location of this 3-site limit? Where
> is it written?
> * Why is there a 'Google marker' for adding sites? (anyone can add 3
> url by hand...)
> * When you pay $100 you get to add 1 (one) site extra.. [duh]
> * Why aren't the 'can not save' bugs not being fixed? (core
> functionality)
> Imo, a 3-site limit makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, the CSE
> concept would become virtually useless.
> @dottie: thanks for bringing up this issue, i wasn't aware of it
> before.
> On Mar 28, 7:59 pm, Custom Search Guide wrote:
> > Hi Dottie,
> > Sorry if it wasn't clear from my earlier post about this, but the 3-
> > site limit has actually existed for the entire product lifetime; it's
> > not a new or upcoming feature. As a matter of fact, we're working to
> > improve coverage for CSEs of all sizes. Just so you know, the Business
> > Edition has a similar limitation for 4+ sites, so that's not
> > necessarily a better solution at the moment.
I can think of no reason to limit the number of sites to 3 - google
has all these sites already indexed. Why limit our ability to limit
the sites we get returns from? I am very frustrated that I can have
5000 sites, or something like that, according to all the info I read
before I began creating my CSE to search alternative auction sites:
http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=000091095675867607379%3Aqqi_7hgshck
I spent several days working on this and only THEN discovered my
results for any given search were severely limited compared to the
same search done on google.com with a site: parameter (for
comparison). This limitation makes creating a CSE utterly pointless,
and makes me rather frustrated that I spent time on it.
Also, what does "make public" mean? My search does not turn up in
anyplace I can think to look.
> This very much reduces my enthousiasm for Google CSE.
> I can understand that Google has some sort of limit (server capacity?,
> what is the exact reason??),
> but this puts all the previous posts in the Blog from the Google
> engineers and the prestations on SES in another perspective.
> Apperently it is not at all possible to
> use my Digg friends posts, iCal, RSS, Google Base, etc. to create
> CSEs.http://googlecustomsearch.blogspot.com/2007_06_01_archive.html
> If only a 'not to be unfluenced subset' is indexed, what is the use?
> If you make a CSE for, f.i., New York restaurants and from one
> restaurant only the menu is indexed and from the other one only the
> opening hours or directions, this will not create a usefull search
> engine.
> If the costs / server capacity is the issue, Google should believe in
> the potential and rely that Adwords income wil cover those
> investments.
> We should also be provided, in the meantime, with the logic which
> pages of a site are indexed and for what reason so we can anticipate
> on that building our CSE's.
> Hope that the Google CSE engineers can and get the opportunity to
> resolve this,
> Thanks in advance
> Jeroen
> On Mar 29, 11:23 am, dizid wrote:
> > Christine,
> > This thread is most disturbing, i have a few questions/remarks about
> > this:
> > * Can you point us to the exact location of this 3-site limit? Where
> > is it written?
> > * Why is there a 'Google marker' for adding sites? (anyone can add 3
> > url by hand...)
> > * When you pay $100 you get to add 1 (one) site extra.. [duh]
> > * Why aren't the 'can not save' bugs not being fixed? (core
> > functionality)
> > Imo, a 3-site limit makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, the CSE
> > concept would become virtually useless.
> > @dottie: thanks for bringing up this issue, i wasn't aware of it
> > before.
> > On Mar 28, 7:59 pm, Custom Search Guide wrote:
> > > Hi Dottie,
> > > Sorry if it wasn't clear from my earlier post about this, but the 3-
> > > site limit has actually existed for the entire product lifetime; it's
> > > not a new or upcoming feature. As a matter of fact, we're working to
> > > improve coverage for CSEs of all sizes. Just so you know, the Business
> > > Edition has a similar limitation for 4+ sites, so that's not
> > > necessarily a better solution at the moment.
> * Can you point us to the exact location of this 3-site limit? Where
> is it written?
> Imo, a 3-site limit makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, the CSE
> concept would become virtually useless.
> @dottie: thanks for bringing up this issue, i wasn't aware of it
> before.
seems like google used cse enthusiasts to tag the web.
I have no other explanation why this important drawback was so long
hidden - have a look at cse comparisons google is always listed with
5000 sites or unlimited sites.
> > * Can you point us to the exact location of this 3-site limit? Where
> > is it written?
> > Imo, a 3-site limit makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, the CSE
> > concept would become virtually useless.
> > @dottie: thanks for bringing up this issue, i wasn't aware of it
> > before.
Ok - I have some direct comparisons available for Google regular,
Google CSE with 1 site, Google CSE with hundreds of sites:
I searched for the words "in the Romania" on a specific auction site
www.specialistauctions.com/auctiondetails.php (this finds items listed
by a seller registered in Romania - a limited set). This specific
site is the only one in my Specialist Auctions by Country CSE, and is
included as a subset of my Alternative Auctions Search CSE (tagged
Just Items).
Take Note - I learned a new trick, adding &filter=0 to the end of the
google search string in the URL in the address bar has the SAME effect
as clicking on the "repeat the search with the omitted results
included" link on the last page of nearly any google search. Very
useful if you want a complete count without navigating to the last
page.
So, how does Google decide what 2/3ds of the results to leave out?
Why is the same page consistently left out? If I search for electric
guitars first, and then specify site:specialistauctions.com, it STILL
finds NO results.
First of all, thanks for posting your feedback. I'm glad that you're
interested in seeing improvements in the product. I want to also point
out that this limitation has been documented and discussed on the
group before - check out these threads for some more background and
some tips from a couple of our expert users:
CSEs of any size are still working as they always have; we haven't
made any changes. For CSEs that contain 3 sites or fewer, there are
fixes in place that allow better results than you might see for a
larger CSE. As I've mentioned before, we've heard your feedback on
this and are working actively to make CSEs return more complete
results for >3 sites. You should begin to see improvements soon!
I have the Business Edition of Custom Search Engine and, with 4 sites
not works and many times I obtain 0 results :S
Then, I ask myself, ¿why have I convinced my enterprise to pay by a
service that seems not works correctly? This limitation is hidden in
documentation and I didn't seen it before carrying out the payment.
Now I ask myself again ¿what have I to do? My enterprise has 5 sites
(!!) and I only can seek in three of them. Neither to speak about
applying labels according to the sections.
My boss will kill me when I'll explain him so useful is the service we
paid for my insistence..
Please update us on the progress of usable results for over 3
domains. What kind of improvements can we expect and when? This is
extremely critical to many of us.
Oh dear, the issues brought up in this thread seriously devalue 2 of
my side projects. Thankfully before I put huge effort into the
second.
The site limitation seems to be a total nonsense (did the project grow
to quick, get out of hand, lack resources, or are people abusing it?),
and the confirmation of the results quality issue just disturbing (I'd
simply closed my eyes to it).
Doesn't Google risk it's search credibility and reputation in this
way? (Answers on a postcard)
Just as I was beginning to think that qualified search was the answer
to piles of superfluous results - for who needs a million results, or
is just a reassurance - anyone ever seen gone the millionth one?
This is very disappointing. I have put a lot of effort into
establishing my CSE's and the number of users who conduct searches
continues to grow over time.
After gaining experience with CSE'sI can see lots of potential to
provide valuable services to website visitors by including CSE's
within sites that already have solid visitor traffic.
Google need to be flexible on this if they want to retain the loyalty
of credible web masters.
A related question is would I be allowed to have multiple CSE's under
a single domain name? I have a specific and credible use where doing
so could provide valuable search services to visitors.
|
