Comments on: Las Cruces

By: Coder13

Coder13 — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 13:46:52 +0000

Very nice and stunning picture. ,

By: Boy32

Boy32 — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 16:42:10 +0000

Their statements are genuine. ,

By: Yahoo rewriting URLs to improve indexing « Joe Duck

Yahoo rewriting URLs to improve indexing « Joe Duck — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 00:24:14 +0000

[...] to spam than Google. I think I’ll run yesterday’s “Las Cruces” SERP test at Yahoo and see how those results compare to Google’s, especially given the new Yahoo [...]

By: JoeDuck

JoeDuck — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 22:52:21 +0000

Art – very interesting that it’s persisted so long. With all the processing power I’d think Google would be able to remove these results almost as soon as they are reported, but clearly that does not happen. This is a good question for Brian White (who does not blog nearly enough!):
http://www.brianwhite.org/

By: JoeDuck

JoeDuck — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 22:46:19 +0000

FG is is conspicuous that a “major” query like this that is probably done thousands of times daily would list a deleted page. I think some of these these spurious results come about in the course of calculations about how hard the algorithm is going to work on a given query to give a lot of relevant results. If, for example, Google knows that 99% of the people doing city,state queries are going to pick from the top 5 results they may determine it’s not worth the extra cost to continue working hard to list relevant results past that point. I have some inside info that suggests MS actually does this cost/benefit analysis for search queries.

By: Art Schobey

Art Schobey — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 22:46:16 +0000

I’ve reported the WEBLIFEPRO.COM Las Cruces page problem to Google. It’s been in the top 10 for months.

No reply form Google needless to say.

By: Yuri from Russia

Yuri from Russia — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 21:36:09 +0000

Wery well!!! i’m every day u blog

By: FoolsGold

FoolsGold — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 17:09:55 +0000

Your “top ten are fine with only one glaring exception” seems to be a fair description but I think its a question of precision. Can we really tolerate that one out of ten that is a spurious return on the ‘first page’ of Google results.
Consider an algorithm that analyzes your email and dumps some of it into your inbox and some of it into your junk box. The algorithm can’t be wrong ten percent of the time.
A bank can’t drop ten percent of its deposits. A radar system can’t lose ten percent of its targets.

And when that ‘one tenth’ is a real doozy that is clearly something that should not have been presented anywhere near the top of the heap, one wonders if its a sign of worse to come.