Ad blocker detected: Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors. Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker on our website.
This is the location for conversations that don't fall anywhere else on FlameFans. Whether its politics, culture, the latest techno stuff or just the best places to travel on the web ... this is your forum.
Will this upstage Google? Claims to search over 120 billion web pages as opposed to Google's 8 billion. Also, the developer was from Google. (pronounced "cool")
I just read an article saying that Google is not at 1 Trillion
Sly Fox wrote:In my experience with the Falwell family over the past 30+ years, they have never been shy about stating what they believe and standing by it. If anything it should be on their family crest.
We knew the web was big...
7/25/2008 10:12:00 AM
We've known it for a long time: the web is big. 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. Recently, even our search engineers stopped in awe about just how big the web is these days -- when our systems that process links on the web to find new content hit a milestone: 1 trillion (as in 1,000,000,000,000) unique URLs on the web at once!
How do we find all those pages? We start at a set of well-connected initial pages and follow each of their links to new pages. Then we follow the links on those new pages to even more pages and so on, until we have a huge list of links. In fact, we found even more than 1 trillion individual links, but not all of them lead to unique web pages. Many pages have multiple URLs with exactly the same content or URLs that are auto-generated copies of each other. Even after removing those exact duplicates, we saw a trillion unique URLs, and the number of individual web pages out there is growing by several billion pages per day.
So how many unique pages does the web really contain? We don't know; we don't have time to look at them all! Strictly speaking, the number of pages out there is infinite -- for example, web calendars may have a "next day" link, and we could follow that link forever, each time finding a "new" page. We're not doing that, obviously, since there would be little benefit to you. But this example shows that the size of the web really depends on your definition of what's a useful page, and there is no exact answer.
We don't index every one of those trillion pages -- many of them are similar to each other, or represent auto-generated content similar to the calendar example that isn't very useful to searchers. But we're proud to have the most comprehensive index of any search engine, and our goal always has been to index all the world's data.
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. This graph of one trillion URLs is similar to a map made up of one trillion intersections. So multiple times every day, we do the computational equivalent of fully exploring every intersection of every road in the United States. Except it'd be a map about 50,000 times as big as the U.S., with 50,000 times as many roads and intersections.
As you can see, our distributed infrastructure allows applications to efficiently traverse a link graph with many trillions of connections, or quickly sort petabytes of data, just to prepare to answer the most important question: your next Google search.
Sly Fox wrote:In my experience with the Falwell family over the past 30+ years, they have never been shy about stating what they believe and standing by it. If anything it should be on their family crest.
I was on the cuil site this morning and did 3 or 4 searches. My initial reaction is that I don't like it. It changes what I have been used to using for some time. Even if their technology is better, it is always difficult to change the habits of people.
If it has access to so much information then why does it come up with so few options on the most basic searches? You would think they would have this ready for a rollout.
Sly Fox wrote:If it has access to so much information then why does it come up with so few options on the most basic searches? You would think they would have this ready for a rollout.
There must have been some link on drudge or something today because they apparently got way overloaded and had to shut it down.
No results because of high load...
Due to excessive load, our servers didn't return results. Please try your search again.
basically they weren't ready for national attention and I will most likely never go there again.
*please disregard this post if dated before 2017 and accept my apologies*
You should all use goodsearch, it donates money to the charity(or church, like i have mine set to do) of your choice every time you search the internet
Strictly speaking, the number of pages out there is infinite -- for example, web calendars may have a "next day" link, and we could follow that link forever, each time finding a "new" page. We're not doing that, obviously, since there would be little benefit to you. But this example shows that the size of the web really depends on your definition of what's a useful page, and there is no exact answer.
- By LU Armchair coach
- By thecomeback