Damn, brrrreeeport is the top search on Technorati and there are 420 posts there. Wacky.
What’s an even better deal is that Google says there are now about 14,000 results. What the f___? I HATE the lies that are going on on search engines. Quick: click through and tell me how many entries there really are. Hint: it isn’t 14,000. Funny that Google’s blog search can only find 382.
MSN says there are 1,369 results. Yahoo says there are 1,010 results.
Feedster is back online with 454 results (they were doing server upgrades when I did my first tests).
Anyway, it’s very bbbrrrrryyyy here in Keystone, CO.
Does anyone believe any of these numbers? How can we verify any of them?
Update: Dave Sifry, founder of Technorati, looked into it more.
Have Mercy, for they know not what they do. (I hafta keep telling myself that).
Glad you found a hobby tho.
Have Mercy, for they know not what they do. (I hafta keep telling myself that).
Glad you found a hobby tho.
[...] Google has fallen from its high horse and is still receiving negative press regarding its move into China. And now, someone is testing Google against other search engines (like Technorati) with a made up word, “Brrreeeport”. The idea is to track the number of times Google finds this completely new word compared to the other search engines. I’m not exactly sure what this will prove, but it’s fast becoming a phenomenon amongst bloggers, who have written over 500 entries about it over the last couple of days. Are we above jumping on the bandwagon in hopes of greater visibility for our blog? Of course. Not. And so, a t-shirt. [...]
Well one possibility with the results in Google vs Technorati is that Technorati sucks as far as recognizing their own pings and Google seems to pull posts from everywhere. My post that I tracked back here as no. 24 in the comments may be here and in googles blog search but Technorati seems to always ignore all of my pings from all of my weblogs even though I have claimed them and not recieved an error in the pinging of my Movable Type blogs.
Maybe is the pinging worked better the Google and Technorati numbers would be the same.
Well one possibility with the results in Google vs Technorati is that Technorati sucks as far as recognizing their own pings and Google seems to pull posts from everywhere. My post that I tracked back here as no. 24 in the comments may be here and in googles blog search but Technorati seems to always ignore all of my pings from all of my weblogs even though I have claimed them and not recieved an error in the pinging of my Movable Type blogs.
Maybe is the pinging worked better the Google and Technorati numbers would be the same.
[...] First may I thank all the people who told me that I had not been left out of the brrrreeeport party. So nice to know. I guess my sulk was premature. Probably a feature of living with two 5 year olds! [...]
Most likely, the strange result count is due to statistical sampling methods used to quickly _estimate_ the number of matches to a search. Obviously, in this case the sampling method broke down rather spectacularly.
Most likely, the strange result count is due to statistical sampling methods used to quickly _estimate_ the number of matches to a search. Obviously, in this case the sampling method broke down rather spectacularly.
I’m sorry, what exactly is Brrreeeport means?
I’m sorry, what exactly is Brrreeeport means?
[...] Mr. Scoble has a good reason make me do this. [...]
[...] He has done some other posts on the topic since then (here and here and here and here), and now WebProWorld says this: Scoble’s snarky experiment was in response to the notion of the supposed Blog Club, where A-list bloggers only link to each other and thereby keeping lesser-known bloggers out of the loop of recognition in typical Critical Theory style. [...]
[...] http://scobleizer.wordpress.com/2006/02/15/brrreeeport-crazy-and-more-search-engine-lies/ [...]
Although it doesn’t account for all of it, I was under the impression that Google’s total was inflated because the count shown wasn’t pages, but occurrences (many “pages” have the term multiple times).
I don’t believe the lower numbers though. Just about every single blog that mentions it thus accounts for multiple mentions on the main page, the individual archive page and perhaps more uf there are aggregate archives of various types. The number simply CAN’T be in the
Although it doesn’t account for all of it, I was under the impression that Google’s total was inflated because the count shown wasn’t pages, but occurrences (many “pages” have the term multiple times).
I don’t believe the lower numbers though. Just about every single blog that mentions it thus accounts for multiple mentions on the main page, the individual archive page and perhaps more uf there are aggregate archives of various types. The number simply CAN’T be in the
22,000 @22:42 UCT – This is becoming so unbelievable….
22,000 @22:42 UCT – This is becoming so unbelievable….
I yelled out Brrreeeport
Out for a smoke on the back yard porch I yelled, “Brreeeport”!And back from over the fence came a loud retort, a report,
[...] Scoble poses an interesting comment about the discrepancy of return result numbers and actual results: [...]
Robert, here’s my overview of the Brrreeeport:
http://www.feedster.com/blog/2006/02/16/feedsters-brrreeeport-report/
Robert, here’s my overview of the Brrreeeport:
http://www.feedster.com/blog/2006/02/16/feedsters-brrreeeport-report/
What the Heck is BBBRRRRRYYYYY?
Scoble is calling the search engines on their total counts…
[...] http://scobleizer.wordpress.com/2006/02/15/brrreeeport-crazy-and-more-search-engine-lies/ [...]
[...] http://scobleizer.wordpress.com/2006/02/15/brrreeeport-crazy-and-more-search-engine-lies/ [...]
being a lay person i have no clue what you guys are doing, but it seems real important, and real beneficial, so keep at it.
i remember a few years ago, google went from 4.5 billion web pages to 8.9 billion. how did they double?
NO EXPLANATAION.
being a lay person i have no clue what you guys are doing, but it seems real important, and real beneficial, so keep at it.
i remember a few years ago, google went from 4.5 billion web pages to 8.9 billion. how did they double?
NO EXPLANATAION.
brrreeeport Mantra
Brrreeeport, a comfort to me, during the full moon, when restless, my mind feverishly roams the night. Brrreeeport, s
I am a total nobody in blogsphere but i find this very interesting!
I am a total nobody in blogsphere but i find this very interesting!
[...] http://scobleizer.wordpress.com/2006/02/15/brrreeeport-crazy-and-more-search-engine-lies/ [...]
[...] Und sonst? Der Brrreeeport klettert in den Indizes nach und nach weiter nach oben – und vermittelt so ein Bild von der Qualität der verschiedenen (Blog-)Suchmaschinen. Bleibt also auch weiterhin interessant. Bei den Blogsuchmaschinen selbst tut sich ein bisschen: Technorati hat eine Gewichtungsoption eingeführt. Ob das sinnvoll ist oder sich dann nur die eh schon großen Blogs selbst verstärken und damit nur eine neue Hierarchie eingeführt wird, da bin ich mir noch nicht ganz sicher… Falk Lüke | 13:41 [...]
[...] Joining in the brrreeeport posting fun started by Scoble. A few days ago he posted about the misleading numbers search engines (such as Google) seem to show. [...]
Great idea – fantastic for you, and everyone else.
e.g.
http://www.brrreeeport.co.uk
Will the epidemic completely take off or it will
it fizzle away?
Great idea – fantastic for you, and everyone else.
e.g.
http://www.brrreeeport.co.uk
Will the epidemic completely take off or it will
it fizzle away?
[...] power for good. So how about it? Permanent Link | Del.icio.us | Technorati | Digg | Slashdot [...]
brrreeeport in my life, and my wife
I was sitting at a red light in front of Whole Foods MarketMusing on my tough luckWhen my mind started chanting and m
Accurate Search Counts Matter
Search engines are used for more than searching for shoes and various other necessities Suzie B. Average may be looking for. Accurate search counts, not just accurate results, should be a part of the overall package of search engines.
…
Just a question, but what can you use a reliable search count for? Unless you know that EVERY page is indexed, or know exactly what percentage of pages are / are not indexed, what use is an accurate count?
I daresay you can’t do any statistics with it, because you don’t know your ‘search domain’.
What use is it, really?
Just a question, but what can you use a reliable search count for? Unless you know that EVERY page is indexed, or know exactly what percentage of pages are / are not indexed, what use is an accurate count?
I daresay you can’t do any statistics with it, because you don’t know your ‘search domain’.
What use is it, really?
Breememe, aka The Battle of the Memetrackers
OK, I am totally hooked on two memetrackers, memeorandum and TailRank. I can’t decide which one is better. There are three qualities I look for in a good memetracker: diversity of sources, speed and design. TailRank wins points for finding
[...] This is as a follow up to Robert Scobles’ test of search engines with the Brrreeeport test. [...]
Brrreeeport, Breememe and Bruuuhaha…
This is my most meaningless post. Ever. Just helping Steve Rubel to construct a little meme-tracker-race.
Taking a clue from Scoble’s Brrreeereport test for web/blog search, he now wants to compare Memeorandum and Tailrank by counting Bree…
[...] Steve Rubel, over at Micropersuasion, has taken Scbole’s recent brrreeereport test a step further. Rubel explains it as follows: [...]
You missed the obvious answer here.
The problem with the main search index counts vs blog searches is that a single post will be indexed multiple times and therefore count multiple times because it’ll have a cache of the front page, the post itself, the comments link, the “recent posts” link on every post that has that side bar, the archive, the rss feed etc.
As of 1pm Sunday, Google has 56,100, and Yahoo 78,900, MSN shows 45,379.
You missed the obvious answer here.
The problem with the main search index counts vs blog searches is that a single post will be indexed multiple times and therefore count multiple times because it’ll have a cache of the front page, the post itself, the comments link, the “recent posts” link on every post that has that side bar, the archive, the rss feed etc.
As of 1pm Sunday, Google has 56,100, and Yahoo 78,900, MSN shows 45,379.
[...] Brrreeeport! No idea what it is? Here Here Here Here or Here [...]
I posted the day after. still not showing up. Then again My blog started about two weeks ago. So I wait for the search engines to say. But I got friends, family and some strangers appearing.
Keep posting. You and Dave are one and two in my reading lists
I posted the day after. still not showing up. Then again My blog started about two weeks ago. So I wait for the search engines to say. But I got friends, family and some strangers appearing.
Keep posting. You and Dave are one and two in my reading lists
[...] Technorati returned 487 results for the fictitious word, pointing searchers to Z-list blogs that otherwise may have never been found. It was placed in the #1 slot for most popular search, even out ranking Dick Cheney’s hunting accident. Oh, but wait until you hear the Rest of The Story! Within two day’s time “brrreeeport” hit Google with over 452 results! At one time Google claimed over 14,000 results and some report as many as 50,000 results where claimed by Google. Now here’s the thing (and the peek up the skirt), when Scoble actually scrolled through and counted the results, he came up with only 382 (hardly 50,000). He says that this is an example of the “lies that are going on on the search engines”. MSN returned 1,369 and Yahoo returned 1,010. After blushing and wiping the egg off of their faces, a few days later Google returned only 190 results for “brrreeeport”, with MSN returning 221, and Yahoo still returning 2,130. Gee, I know we can’t trust our politians, but come on, this is the search engines. Was this an honest mistake or were the results manipulated in some brrreeeport mysterious way? [...]
Dave
Interesting topic… I’m working in this industry myself and I don’t agree about this in 100%, but I added your page to my bookmarks and hope to see more interesting articles in the future