-
Website
http://www.scobleizer.com/ -
Original page
http://scobleizer.com/2006/02/15/brrreeeport-crazy-and-more-search-engine-lies/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
All Comments
http://www.sifry.com/alerts/archives/000421.html
Dave
http://blogsearch.google.com/blogsearch?q=brrre...
Dave
http://www.feedster.com/search/brrreeeport/pg37
Dave
It is hard to know the accurate count, I guess.
I hope the search engines won't count the number of occurrences of the word "brrreeeport" in each post as opposed to number of blog posts. okay, this shows i don't know about how search engines work. :)
Is it not possible there *could* be 14 or 15 thousand pages containing "brrreeeport" on the web... given the exponential/self-feeding nature of the brrreeeport phenomenon???
Perhaps try the experiment again - but with a much more cumbersome term - say 50 characters... It might work better because, for one, people will be less enthusiastic the second time around, and, secondly, there is not such a "phenomenon" and "new meme" to talk about meaning fewer posts and more controlled spread of the new term.
And, if it were, then SOMEONE would be able to show that many pages.
It's very easy to verify, just click through the search engines until you can't click "next" anymore.
No search engine out there gives totally accurate results all the time. for many reasons, mostly relating to optimizations.
Even technorati (correct me Sifry if I am wrong) reports estimates only for search queries with many results (lets say 10K+).. terms like 'google search blog for example, giving 135,486 results .
On a side note: while Fred's link works for me, anytime I do a search starting on the Google homepage, there are NO records for brrreeeport. Anyone else seeing this?
Hello,
Thank you for advertising with Google AdWords. I recently reviewed your AdWords account and found that either one or more of your ads and/or keywords violates our guidelines or that you filed an exception request from one or more of our policies and it is awaiting a response. Below, please find my report on your account status.
----------------------------------------------
Campaign: 'brrreeeport,' Ad Group: 'brrreeeport'
----------------------------------------------
AD TEXT:
Got brrreeeport?
If it's not on your blog
it should be!
www.stighammond.com
Ad Status: Suspended - Pending Revision
Ad Issue(s): Spelling
~~~~~~~~~
DENIED EXCEPTION(S):
After careful consideration, we are unable to grant the exception requests listed below. Your ad or keyword is no longer active. For your convenience, I've included your original message to us directly below each policy violation.
Spelling: misspelled: brrreeeport?, language: en
Your explanation: Brrreeeport is a term coined by Microsoft's Robert Scoble of the blog Scobelizer
(http://scobleizer.wordpress.com/2006/02/13/the-...) and already has more than 156 mentions on Google Blog search.
SUGGESTIONS:
-> Ad Text: You have one or more words spelled incorrectly within your ad text.
Current: "brrreeeport"
Both MSN and Google show scobleizer.wordpress.com as the top link (excluding the 'special' Technorati links for Google). How much more accurate can you get?
Imagine you went to the library and asked the librarian for a book on Word War 2. Which would you prefer?
a) "Here you are... this book here has everything you could ever want to know about WWII and has been rated as worthy by thousands of readers"; or
b) "Well you know... we do have 11,485,927 references to WWII in books spread throughout the library. That's an exact count, so..."
As far as I'm concerned, answer (b) is absolutely useless.
In theory, a perfectly accurate search engine would only ever need to give you 1 answer, as a perfectly accurate search engine would know *exactly* what you wanted!
I does seem silly to show that big of a number if it is not accurate. Either say "approximately", or give the real number, or don't give any number at all.
Now there are blogs about the topic!
"In order to show you the most relevant results, we have omitted some entries very similar to the 364 already displayed.
If you like, you can repeat the search with the omitted results included."
When you run with the omitted results included, you'll see that most of the omitted results show exactly the same content -- its only the URL that is slightly different. Maybe if G and the other search engines would show actual search result numbers instead of clearly misleading ones I wouldn't have to suffer through yet another obnoxious news report where the reporter says something like "Google found 14 gazillion hits for 'xyz'" when I know that is just fiction.
Best,
-A-
Glad you found a hobby tho.
Maybe is the pinging worked better the Google and Technorati numbers would be the same.
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
http://www.feedster.com/blog/2006/02/16/feedste...
i remember a few years ago, google went from 4.5 billion web pages to 8.9 billion. how did they double?
NO EXPLANATAION.
e.g.
http://www.brrreeeport.co.uk
Will the epidemic completely take off or it will
it fizzle away?
I daresay you can't do any statistics with it, because you don't know your 'search domain'.
What use is it, really?
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.
Keep posting. You and Dave are one and two in my reading lists