Slashdot Log In
Google URL Index Hits 1 Trillion
Posted by
Soulskill
on Fri Jul 25, 2008 11:03 PM
from the orders-of-magnitude dept.
from the orders-of-magnitude dept.
mytrip points out news that Google's index of unique URLs has reached a milestone: one trillion. Google's blog provides some more information, noting,
"The first Google index in 1998 already had 26 million pages, and by 2000 the Google index reached the one billion mark. Over the last eight years, we've seen a lot of big numbers about how much content is really out there. To keep up with this volume of information, our systems have come a long way since the first set of web data Google processed to answer queries. Back then, we did everything in batches: one workstation could compute the PageRank graph on 26 million pages in a couple of hours, and that set of pages would be used as Google's index for a fixed period of time. Today, Google downloads the web continuously, collecting updated page information and re-processing the entire web-link graph several times per day."
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Screenshot. (Score:5, Funny)
Or it didn't happen.
Re:Odd (Score:5, Funny)
So unless there is a screenshot showing the 1,000,000,000,000 site count, Google's index didn't reach that milestone? Even if it now shows 1,000,000,000,001?
The 1,000,000,000,000th page had only one word on it:
"woosh"
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Seriously, you just want to get into his/her pants...
Re:Screenshot. (Score:5, Funny)
That can be arranged.
Parent
How long till.. (Score:5, Funny)
Once the index reaches a google (or rather a googol), the universe explodes.
Re:How long till.. (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Won't happen since the universe's max integer is significantly smaller than a googol or a 'google'.
Re:How long till.. (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm more interested in when Google starts returning relevant results to my queries.
I can't believe that I'm the only one that finds Google's quality of service somewhat below par. I guess they're better than randomly stabbing in the dark, and there certainly isn't any alternative that's obviously better, but Google sure isn't everything they think they are.
I know--stop trying to compete with Wikipedia and cut out Experts-Exchange.com from your search results since their pages don't actually return the information you think they do.
Parent
Re:How long till.. (Score:5, Informative)
... and cut out Experts-Exchange.com from your search results since their pages don't actually return the information you think they do.
Perhaps you should try scrolling to the bottom of the page... :)
Parent
Re:How long till.. (Score:5, Informative)
It took me a while to realize it, but if you scroll clear to the bottom of an expert exchange post, you'll find the comments unhidden and relevant.
Parent
Re:How long till.. (Score:4, Informative)
Actually, If you go to the cached version of those pages, you can see all the answers. You can also just use the Googlebot's user agent via the User Agent Switcher [mozilla.org].
Parent
Re:How long till.. (Score:5, Informative)
...and cut out Experts-Exchange.com from your search results since their pages don't actually return the information you think they do.
If you block cookies from experts-exchange.com you can actually see the answers on any e-e page - after you visit the first time, it normally sets a cookie to not show results next visit, which is how they get Google to index their pages anyway. With cookies from them blocked, you can then see the answers - you just have to scroll 7/8s of the way down the page past all the fake "Please sign up to see this result" boxes. :)
(First AC post in years... tee hee.
Parent
Re:How long till.. (Score:5, Interesting)
"I'm more interested in when Google starts returning relevant results to my queries.
I can't believe that I'm the only one that finds Google's quality of service somewhat below par."
You're not the only one, but for the most part it is better then most other search engines out there. The real problem is spammers and paid advertising, I think spammers have really made search frustrating for a lot of companies. And ad companies pay other people to promote their sites for them (digg, slashdot, etc). I've noticed the increase in spam-vertised websites in search results for a lot of things.
Personally I think the idea of sharding and search being more specific for what you're looking for is needed. I'd like to see a google with 'tags' and a delicious interface, things like educational institutions and universities get lumped into their own search engine space for instance, this would help narrow down what one is looking for, although it would take time and feedback to design something well for other areas. The fact is that search results get diluted as you put more and more stuff online (numbers and geometric scale).
For fun, I've noticed stumble upon and del.ico.us are not bad alternatives when looking for new and interesting sites without having to use search
Parent
Re:How long till.. (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Amazing (Score:3, Interesting)
As someone who is partially engineering/analytically minded (but not a great programmer) it amazes me how Google has manged to index so much data, yet at the same time, serve up results in a fraction of a second to so many people.
Re:Amazing (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Amazing (Score:5, Informative)
I couldn't agree more.
Many of the clients I support are constantly asking me "Is there a program that does this? or Can you find me a program to do this" etc etc.
I used to be able to just use google to help me get started but these days the top level searches are all those bloody link farms peddling "free" software, even when typing in the word review you come up with link farms that offer no reviews.
Parent
Re:Amazing (Score:5, Informative)
Many of the clients I support are constantly asking me "Is there a program that does this? or Can you find me a program to do this" etc etc.
I used to be able to just use google to help me get started but these days the top level searches are all those bloody link farms peddling "free" software
Have you tried SourceForge [sourceforge.net]? That's what it's there for, you know.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you design your queries well enough, then you dont see any of the crap.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Yeah, that's a problem. I'm sure they'll work it out. I don't find it to be a problem most of the time though, just on certain searches in certain places. They have a real spam problem if you search for info on pharmaceuticals in their groups search last time I checked (about a month ago). The problem wasn't the Usenet groups, but their own special groups, and the worse thing is you can't filter out their groups and just search Usenet ones.
I tried to contact them about it and discovered that they could also
Try "Live" search (Score:3, Interesting)
And you'll be back faster than a Google search result. Weeding out the crap?
Just for a sample, try this one: getfirefox [live.com]. If the first link on that search goes to a Mozilla mirror you will win one Internet. Try Linux [live.com]. Hey, this is fun. Spoiler: the first link there is always "www.Microsoft.com/Windows : Special Offers from Windows Vista® w/ the Purchase of Select Laptops." The first time I tried this I was looking for Open Office and wound up misdirected to a members only site where you had
Re:Try "Live" search (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
i wish they would work on weeding out the crap.
There are a *lot* of people at Google working on that problem. Please understand that it is really difficult to keep up with new attacks when your site is #1, because many people out there are aiming directly for it. No matter how many work on ranking and relevance inside the company, there will always be 10x-100x that number of people outside who are working on the shady side of SEO, spamming, etc. It's a never-ending battle, much like spam email. We're trying.
anything you google now is infested with cheesy search sites that list other websites and try plaster you with ads. they contribute zero to the web.
We're working on that both from the search
Re:Amazing (Score:4, Funny)
I imagine that certain sites, such as sites the size of Slashdot (in terms of dynamically generated pages), make a difference. After all, the index talks in pages, not domains. I bet there's also a lot of junk and redundancy in there, but still, it's quite an achievement to be able to deal with that much data.
Surely you're not saying that Slashdot's full of junk and redundancy and redundancy?
Parent
Wow, that's a lot of porn. (Score:5, Funny)
Seriously, since the web is something like 42% porn. (Yes, that is the ultimate answer.) So that's on average, 60-70 pages of each person in the world naked.
Re:Wow, that's a lot of porn. (Score:5, Interesting)
"the web is something like 42% porn"
That probably stopped being the case after namespace speculators started buying up expired domains in large numbers just to put up a mildly useless index on *each* and *every* site to collect ad revenue or marketing statistics off of unwary visitors. I would also include typosquatters in that category, and maybe someone else can name a few other examples of utter namespace hogging uselessness.
Whatever it is, you can rest assured that it's mostly repetitive trash... no need to stand in awe of it.
Parent
1 trillion url's (Score:5, Funny)
How many of those are automatically generated rank-spoofers, 80%?
My favorite spoof pages were the ones that randomly substituted search terms into porno stories.
"Yes!" she screamed as he thrust his SAMSUNG CD PLAYER deep into her. "I want you balls-deep in my CHEAP HARD DRIVES!" The smell of DISCOUNT SOFTWARE filled the room.
No concern for the foreign readers? (Score:2, Insightful)
Trillion can mean 1E+12 or 1E+18 depending on which country you are in.
Re:No concern for the foreign readers? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No one in the UK uses the long scale system really. For example, traditional UK billions are _never_ used in governmental budgets, and no one points out that the "American" billion is being used. A billion is just 1E9 here, like just about everywhere else.
I guess some older people may be confused (what's new ;)), but I'll wager a large proportion of the younger UK population don't even know what a traditional English billion is. I'm 30, and I've never used 1E12 as a billion, or even been taught it could
And I rest in peace.. (Score:3, Funny)
Some numbers (Score:5, Interesting)
Counts of words:
the: 18.3 billion pages
a: 23.9B
0: 12.7B
1: 25.4B
in: 17.1B
I: 10.2B
I know these numbers aren't exact, but you'd think one of them would be over 100B if Google is really indexing a trillion pages. What's on them? Anyone find any keywords that produce more?
Re:Some numbers (Score:4, Funny)
My hobby:
Getting the fewest possible google results above 0 with a quoted string.
"interspecies gangbang": 6
"hot topic meets disney world": 2
"died in a blogging accident": 15,300
"can boys make babies": 4
"why does it hurt when I read": 1
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm. This probably means something statistically, but I'm not sure what... I started adding digits to a number until I hit one result. I had to get to nine digits:
123512553
215323703
684354537
I also found a few with 0 to 3 results. Interestingly, I couldn't find any eight digit numbers that scored zero hits.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You can list all of them with less than a gigabyte: 10^8 * (8+1) ~= 858 MB
The web is pretty big, so all of them are bound to happen *somewhere*.
Plus, I just registered all8digits.net
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
My hobby:
Getting the fewest possible google results above 0 with a quoted string.
"interspecies gangbang": 6
"hot topic meets disney world": 2
"died in a blogging accident": 15,300
"can boys make babies": 4
"why does it hurt when I read": 1
My Hobby
Attributing my sources: http://xkcd.com/369/ [xkcd.com]
Re:Some numbers (Score:5, Interesting)
My Hobby
Attributing my sources: http://xkcd.com/369/ [xkcd.com]
In [xkcd.com] , my [xkcd.com] humble [xkcd.com] opinion [xkcd.com] my [xkcd.com] usage [xkcd.com] of [xkcd.com] "My [xkcd.com] Hobby" [xkcd.com] was [xkcd.com] sufficient [xkcd.com] attribution [xkcd.com], all [xkcd.com] by [xkcd.com] itself. [xkcd.com]
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You mean Googlewhacking [wikipedia.org], except not nearly as hard?
Re: (Score:3)
Kind of like counterfeiting currency or collecting teenybopper porn, it sucks to have a cool hobby you can't brag about.
I brag about that all the time.
What's going on with the founders' studies? (Score:5, Interesting)
No, it didn't. (Score:5, Informative)
They have identified that there are 1T pages out there, somewhere. They have indexed 40 billion pages. Read the entire Google post. It says it right there.
Bad on Google for the misleading post. Bad on the submitter for not reading the misleading post. Bad on Slashdot for further descending into mindless repetition of mindless submissions of mindless PR announcements.
And most of them are webspam (Score:4, Insightful)
But how many of those trillion pages have unique, useful content? E-mail is over 95% spam, and the web is getting there.
There were about 153 million registered domains at the beginning of the year. The ones from the spam-friendly registrars [knujon.com] are mostly junk. Tim Bernars-Lee said in 2006 that web junk was becoming a major problem, and it's become worse since then.
If you throw out all the anonymous but commercial domains (we call them "bottom-feeders"), as we do with SiteTruth [sitetruth.com], the Web looks a lot better. Search engines are getting stricter about this. You don't see that many "landing pages" in Google any more. Bad news [fool.com] for companies like Marchex [yahoo.com], the publicly traded web spammer that cranks out all those junk "What you need, when you need it" sites.
"The mass trials are going well. There will be fewer Russians, but better ones." - Greta Garbo in Ninotchka.
google's search becoming steadily useless. (Score:4, Insightful)
I think google.com's search engine achieved its peak usefuleness about 5 years ago. Now, for the most part when I google for a certain electronic component I get some crappy webstore front (and by crappy I mean I can't actually order the component but must "contact by phone" first) or if I search for an electronic device, be it pro or just home electronics, I get those "Read reviews and compare prices"-sites. Which I hate with a passion. WTF google, you have the world's most talented programmers, can't you weed out this crap from your search? At least so it doesn't come up as top hits?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Thanks, but what I was trying to say (and I'll admit to bad wording), is that not only does google.com search return webstore fronts when I am actually looking for technical information about electronic components (this is the point I did not get across well - I am not looking for shops, but for info), but it returns the worst kind of webshops. The kind that isn't really a webshop at all, as in, you can't actually buy anything from them using the web.
As for froogle: I just tried searching for "NAD 701" (wit
Dynamic pages pollute count (Score:5, Informative)
Google tries to detect a dynamic page by looking for ampersands and equal signs, as well as looking at the content of the page, it is really quite easy to fool.
e.g.: http://somesite.com/itemlist.php?listmode=1&category=beds&orderby=7 [somesite.com]
when 'rewritten' shows up as
http://somesite.com/items/1/beds/7.html
So 1 billion web pages could be, and I know a few thousand pages like this, just a few hundred thousand dynamic pages. Not that the pages don't have relevant information, some of the stuff can be redundant though. For instance, when the spider crawls across "Records per page = 10" > "Records per page = 20" > "Records per page = 30" etc.. or when lazy programmers don't use cookies and databases to store information but try and concatenate the URL with the user's selections. Thank god for that GET limit [boutell.com]. People need to use POST!
If someone knows how to stop this message board from creating links out of false URLs please, let me know.
Re:First Post (Score:4, Interesting)
-1 Redundant sure...
But that's sort of along the lines I was/am thinking... take txoof's post alone (or mine, or whoever may reply) there are 3 separate URLS for each Slashdot comment
The Header:
http://search.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=626647&cid=24345519 [slashdot.org]
The User:
http://slashdot.org/~txoof [slashdot.org]
The Score:
http://search.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/07/26/0036245# [slashdot.org]
How many Slashdot comments are there? It's probably in the high millions, (rhetorical, but I'm interested to know none-the-less) There's like an average of about 250 comments per article, about 25 articles a day, thats about 2 million a year, so 6 million links, then take into consideration stuff like Facebook, which bounces URLs (http://www.facebook.com/link=###/etc) or sites that generate a random identifier every few minutes, making those "unique", gets unexciting quite quickly, Although billions is still fairly high.
Parent
Re:First Post (Score:4, Funny)
Considering your comment is #24345983, I'd say about 24.3 million comments. Also, I believe there's about 1.5 million different users.
Parent
Re:First Post (Score:5, Funny)
Also, I believe there's about 1.5 million different users.
yeah but if you take out Twitter and all his sock-puppets you'll just be left with 500K unique users...
Parent