Google Blogoscoped


Behind the Scenes of Google Rankings  (View post)

Roger Browne [PersonRank 10]

Sunday, June 3, 2007
13 years ago3,965 views

> the word “apples" for instance ought not to result in a match for “Apple”

Well Google has a really easy solution available for that: case-sensitive indexing.

AltaVista got it right: a search for "apple" will match "Apple" and "apple", but a search for "Apple" will only match "apple". (Singulars and Plurals are orthogonal to this.)

JT Ready [PersonRank 1]

13 years ago #

It is like comparing apples to oranges here. >wink< {-;

j cohen [PersonRank 0]

13 years ago #

If only there was a way that Google could recognize the companies in a search result that are legit and not frauds or wannabees.

Jonathan Marks [PersonRank 1]

13 years ago #

Sounds like the script for a thriller movie here – For Just a Few Dollars More sounds like a good title. Shall we make a billion on this one?

brian [PersonRank 0]

13 years ago #

This is why Google is where it is now because it's predecessor like Yahoo and AltaVista couldn't do what Google did. More I read about their algorithms, more interest I get. I wish they write a book about how they do it! =/

Roger Browne [PersonRank 10]

13 years ago #

Yep, Brian, Google did more things better: ...

However, there were just a few things that AltaVista did better. Not enough to make up for it becoming a portal though. Case-sensitive searching was one. Partial word matches was another (e.g. you could write encyclo* to search for encyclopedia, encyclopedic etc). The "NEAR" operator was another, although Google now implements that by default which is even better.

I should also mention that the modern AltaVista no longer allows these things. They changed their indexing technology a few years back.

Stephane Rodriguez [PersonRank 1]

13 years ago #

"I wish they write a book about how they do it!"

Can't you read the USPTO litterature related to Google?


Forum home



