Brrreeeport crazy and more search engine lies

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.

100 thoughts on “Brrreeeport crazy and more search engine lies

  1. Pingback: Google
  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. Pingback: CoCaman
  5. 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.

  6. 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.

  7. Pingback: Zoli's Blog
  8. Pingback: Micro Persuasion
  9. 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?

  10. 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?

  11. 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.

  12. 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.

  13. 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

  14. 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

  15. 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.

  16. 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.

  17. 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.

  18. 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.

  19. Have Mercy, for they know not what they do. (I hafta keep telling myself that).

    Glad you found a hobby tho.

  20. Have Mercy, for they know not what they do. (I hafta keep telling myself that).

    Glad you found a hobby tho.

Comments are closed.