begin quoting Andrew Lentvorski as of Wed, May 21, 2008 at 04:55:33AM -0700: [chop] > You're right. Google has the discretion not to index me. It's much > more profitable to index 5 trillion sites for herbal drugs.
Heh. Maybe google lost a server somewhere. > However, search engines have to convince people of two things: relevancy > *and* completeness. As of now, I have to start wondering about Google's > completeness. Sure, you probably get to hear about that neat new > algorithm discovered by that professor from MIT, Stanford, Berkeley, > etc. But what about the even better one from the professor at Oregon > State or Lehigh University? Will Google index that one? How do I find > that one? We've established that different users get different results from Google (presumably based on location, and thus what servers they hit). We've now established that the indexes aren't complete (though they once were). We've established that it's not a domain-wide blacklist. > For now, I don't have a choice. However, what this suggests is that > Microsoft could displace Google simply by throwing money at the problem > and indexing more than Google. What's interesting is that Yahoo didn't find you either. Time to trawl through *all* the search engines. Hm... Dogpile (www.dogpile.com) says it uses all of 'em. And still, no hits. This is *weird*. -- You've been deleted by wintermute. Stewart Stremler -- KPLUG-List@kernel-panic.org http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
