Google Is Full?

[Matt]

Webmasters now report sites not being crawled for weeks, with Google SERPS (search engine results pages) returning old pages, and failing to return results for phrases that used to bear fruitful results.

With creating junk web pages is so cheap and easy to do, Google is engaged in an arms race with search engine optimizers. Each innovation designed to bring clarity to the web, such as tagging, is rapidly exploited by spammers or site owners wishing to harvest some classified advertising revenue.

Google's chief executive Eric Schmidt: "Those machines are full," he said. "We have a huge machine crisis."

Giving Google the benefit of the doubt, and assuming the changes are intentional, one webmaster writes: "In which case Google's index, and hence effectively 'the Web as most people know it' is set to become a whole lot smaller in the coming weeks."

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/05/04/go...bigdaddy_chaos/

[JDoors]

I know it's been an "arms race" from day ... two maybe. Once people saw the power of the Big G they've been trying to manipulate the results.

I was however suprised to hear a G. rep. expressing anything but optimism.

[Naming is hard]

The Eric Schmidt quote from the earlier article was taken out of context.

http://www.cincomsmalltalk.com/blog/blogVi...ntry=3324214398

Edited May 5, 2006 by Naming is hard

[JDoors]

"That's a fairly nasty bit of selective quoting. Orlowski leaves the impression that "full" machines are causing search problems. Follow the link though - that comment came in reference to the huge capital infrastructure spending that Google is engaged in:

Google continued to make substantial capital investments, mainly in computer servers, networking equipment and its data centers. It spent $345 million on such items in the first quarter, more than double the level of last year. Yahoo, its closest rival, spent $142 million on capital expenses in the first quarter.

Referring to the sheer volume of Web site information, video and e-mail that Google's servers hold, Schmidt said: "Those machines are full. We have a huge machine crisis."

Jordan Rohan of RBC Capital Markets called Google's capital spending "unfathomably high," noting that it spent the same percentage of its revenue on equipment as a wire-line phone company.

Boy, it sure sounds different when you actually put it in context, doesn't it? ... "

Uh, no, it sounds exactly like what he said, his machines are full. That they're spending millions to resolve the problem he clearly states exists doesn't negate the clear meaning of what he said. Bloggers, meh. Wasting their time nit-picking each other's blogs seems to be the new sport.

Edited May 5, 2006 by JDoors

[jcl]

Uh, no, it sounds exactly like what he said, his machines are full. That they're spending millions to resolve the problem he clearly states exists doesn't negate the clear meaning of what he said.

Orlowski was describing a problem with the quality of search results. He took Schmidt's comment about capacity out of context -- an explanation for Google's massive capital expenditures -- and implied that it's the cause of the problem with the search results. Orlowski provided no evidence to support that implication and his hedging ("Schmidt has hinted") indicates that he doesn't have any. He's sensationalizing. (I know, the Register sensationalizing? Hard to believe.)

[JDoors]

-- Nevermind, I see the fine point now. --

Edited May 6, 2006 by JDoors