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.