[OT] Someone broke Google Groups search - Linux

This is a discussion on [OT] Someone broke Google Groups search - Linux ; Google groups search for "Tim Smith". 9 hits. Click "sort by date" and then there are 161000 hits. Google groups search for "Roy Schestowitz". 4 hits. Click "sort by date" and then there are 104000 hits. Google groups search for ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: [OT] Someone broke Google Groups search

  1. [OT] Someone broke Google Groups search


    Google groups search for "Tim Smith". 9 hits. Click "sort by date" and
    then there are 161000 hits.

    Google groups search for "Roy Schestowitz". 4 hits. Click "sort by
    date" and then there are 104000 hits.

    Google groups search for "Mark Kent". 46200 hits. Click "sort by date"
    and it stays 46200 hits.

    It used to be that you'd get about the same number of hits regardless of
    whether you sorted by date or relevance. It's still doing that with
    Mark, but for Roy and me, it gives far fewer hits when sorted by
    relevance.

    Anyone else seeing this? Or am I just hitting a bad server? (It's been
    like this for a few days for me, but they seem to use some kind of
    scheme to try to send you to the same server when you come back, so if
    there is a broken server in their pool, I could be stuck on it).


    --
    --Tim Smith

  2. Re: [OT] Someone broke Google Groups search

    On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 17:37:13 -0700, Tim Smith wrote:

    > Google groups search for "Tim Smith". 9 hits. Click "sort by date" and
    > then there are 161000 hits.
    >
    > Google groups search for "Roy Schestowitz". 4 hits. Click "sort by
    > date" and then there are 104000 hits.
    >
    > Google groups search for "Mark Kent". 46200 hits. Click "sort by date"
    > and it stays 46200 hits.
    >
    > It used to be that you'd get about the same number of hits regardless of
    > whether you sorted by date or relevance. It's still doing that with
    > Mark, but for Roy and me, it gives far fewer hits when sorted by
    > relevance.
    >
    > Anyone else seeing this? Or am I just hitting a bad server? (It's been
    > like this for a few days for me, but they seem to use some kind of
    > scheme to try to send you to the same server when you come back, so if
    > there is a broken server in their pool, I could be stuck on it).


    Same results here...



    --
    Moshe Goldfarb
    Collector of soaps from around the globe.
    Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
    http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/

  3. Re: [OT] Someone broke Google Groups search

    "Tim Smith" stated in post
    reply_in_group-2D1992.17371321072008@news.supernews.com on 7/21/08 5:37 PM:

    >
    > Google groups search for "Tim Smith". 9 hits. Click "sort by date" and
    > then there are 161000 hits.
    >
    > Google groups search for "Roy Schestowitz". 4 hits. Click "sort by
    > date" and then there are 104000 hits.
    >
    > Google groups search for "Mark Kent". 46200 hits. Click "sort by date"
    > and it stays 46200 hits.
    >
    > It used to be that you'd get about the same number of hits regardless of
    > whether you sorted by date or relevance. It's still doing that with
    > Mark, but for Roy and me, it gives far fewer hits when sorted by
    > relevance.
    >
    > Anyone else seeing this? Or am I just hitting a bad server? (It's been
    > like this for a few days for me, but they seem to use some kind of
    > scheme to try to send you to the same server when you come back, so if
    > there is a broken server in their pool, I could be stuck on it).
    >

    It was *not* working for me for some time but seems to be now. Might be an
    update that is propagating...


    --
    .... something I'm committed to work on, focusing increasing amounts of
    resources of Canonical on figuring out on how we actually move the desktop
    experience forward to compete with Mac OS X.
    - Mark Shuttleworth (founded Canonical Ltd. / Ubuntu Linux)


  4. Re: [OT] Someone broke Google Groups search

    "Moshe Goldfarb." stated in post
    zh1nl3cxugqa$.183sfw3lasms2$.dlg@40tude.net on 7/21/08 5:46 PM:

    > On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 17:37:13 -0700, Tim Smith wrote:
    >
    >> Google groups search for "Tim Smith". 9 hits. Click "sort by date" and
    >> then there are 161000 hits.
    >>
    >> Google groups search for "Roy Schestowitz". 4 hits. Click "sort by
    >> date" and then there are 104000 hits.
    >>
    >> Google groups search for "Mark Kent". 46200 hits. Click "sort by date"
    >> and it stays 46200 hits.
    >>
    >> It used to be that you'd get about the same number of hits regardless of
    >> whether you sorted by date or relevance. It's still doing that with
    >> Mark, but for Roy and me, it gives far fewer hits when sorted by
    >> relevance.
    >>
    >> Anyone else seeing this? Or am I just hitting a bad server? (It's been
    >> like this for a few days for me, but they seem to use some kind of
    >> scheme to try to send you to the same server when you come back, so if
    >> there is a broken server in their pool, I could be stuck on it).

    >
    > Same results here...
    >
    >

    Maybe Steve Carroll is taking down Google like he claimed to before:



    Sigh....

    --
    Projects should really look to the whole Linux desktop and see how they can
    appeal to both sides.
    - Mark Shuttleworth (founded Canonical Ltd. / Ubuntu Linux)


  5. Re: [OT] Someone broke Google Groups search

    Snit writes:

    > "Tim Smith" stated in post
    > reply_in_group-2D1992.17371321072008@news.supernews.com on 7/21/08 5:37 PM:
    >
    >>
    >> Google groups search for "Tim Smith". 9 hits. Click "sort by date" and
    >> then there are 161000 hits.
    >>
    >> Google groups search for "Roy Schestowitz". 4 hits. Click "sort by
    >> date" and then there are 104000 hits.
    >>
    >> Google groups search for "Mark Kent". 46200 hits. Click "sort by date"
    >> and it stays 46200 hits.
    >>
    >> It used to be that you'd get about the same number of hits regardless of
    >> whether you sorted by date or relevance. It's still doing that with
    >> Mark, but for Roy and me, it gives far fewer hits when sorted by
    >> relevance.
    >>
    >> Anyone else seeing this? Or am I just hitting a bad server? (It's been
    >> like this for a few days for me, but they seem to use some kind of
    >> scheme to try to send you to the same server when you come back, so if
    >> there is a broken server in their pool, I could be stuck on it).
    >>

    > It was *not* working for me for some time but seems to be now. Might be an
    > update that is propagating...


    The infamous "Google dance".

    --
    - "Just think, consumers are not sold on XP, and Microsoft shelled out
    some major $$$ to develop this thing. This is a great opportunity for
    alternative operating systems to intercept the ball, and run it back for a
    touchdown.": comp.os.linux.advocacy - where they put the lunacy in advocacy

  6. Re: [OT] Someone broke Google Groups search

    * Tim Smith peremptorily fired off this memo:

    > Google groups search for "Tim Smith". 9 hits. Click "sort by date" and
    > then there are 161000 hits.
    >
    > It used to be that you'd get about the same number of hits regardless of
    > whether you sorted by date or relevance. It's still doing that with
    > Mark, but for Roy and me, it gives far fewer hits when sorted by
    > relevance.
    >
    > Anyone else seeing this? Or am I just hitting a bad server? (It's been
    > like this for a few days for me, but they seem to use some kind of
    > scheme to try to send you to the same server when you come back, so if
    > there is a broken server in their pool, I could be stuck on it).


    For you, I get the big difference you note. For "Mark Kent" and
    "Linonut", it is the same either way.

    "Bill Gates" gets the "Tim Smith" treatment, as does "Joe Blow" and
    "Kurtis Blow".

    "Ray Ingles" is the opposite - 3 hits by relevance, 0 by date.

    "Erik Funkenbusch" gets 1 by relevance, 7 by date.

    Is it a bug that they're relevance criterion drops entries? Or is it
    deliberate?

    Wow, I just notice that a post I made a couple of minutes ago is already
    there, too.

    --
    Uh-oh -- WHY am I suddenly thinking of a VENERABLE religious leader
    frolicking on a FORT LAUDERDALE weekend?

+ Reply to Thread