Microsoft putting the beats on Google

[Sidoh]

x86] link=topic=5045.msg58389#msg58389 date=1141500059]
SQL organizes how it reads the data,  anything else would do something extremely similiar.
Additionally, how can it use something "better" if by what you say "it's not SQL"..?

SQL is a query language.  I can gaurentee Google doesn't use a SQL related engine (by this we mean MSSQL, MySQL, Oracle, etc).  They coded their own engine.  That's why it works so well; that's why it's better.

MSN (same query):

Page 1 of 1,543,673 results containing what's your favorite band right now (0.26 seconds)

x86] link=topic=5045.msg58389#msg58389 date=1141500059]
It isn't very hard actually. You can get a ballpark figure easily "on the fly" and it isn't like their webcrawls are done everytime you search either. It's using old data it collects.

How?  Show me.  By "old," it's as new as it can be.  I know the webcrawls aren't triggered by a search query.  That's common sense.  The point is that it has a huge database of billions of websites that it searches through for a specific query.  When it gets the results, it filters through them to find the most relevant.  That's not amazing?  Bullshit.

x86] link=topic=5045.msg58389#msg58389 date=1141500059]
It's impossible to not be thinking unless you're dead so I'll take it you're either indeed insulting or just posting random bull which wouldn't be out of character for you.

Warrior, I am now convinced that you're an idiot.  I'm done arguing with you.  You're hopeless.

[Warrior]

x86] link=topic=5045.msg58389#msg58389 date=1141500059]
SQL organizes how it reads the data,  anything else would do something extremely similiar.
Additionally, how can it use something "better" if by what you say "it's not SQL"..?

SQL is a query language.  I can gaurentee Google doesn't use a SQL related engine (by this we mean MSSQL, MySQL, Oracle, etc).  They coded their own engine.  That's why it works so well; that's why it's better.

MSN (same query):

Page 1 of 1,543,673 results containing what's your favorite band right now (0.26 seconds)

You can't "guarantee" anything withought proof. Like I said, find me the proof then we'll see how far your guarantees go.
MSN is inferior to google, that is well known. We still have yet to see how their new search will fair however. That will be in 6months time. Like I said, unless you can find an official statement from google, a document, whatever then your statement is false. That's about as logical as me saying "Linux has some feature, I know it's better I can guarantee it, blahblahbullshitblahblah but I have no proof."

x86] link=topic=5045.msg58389#msg58389 date=1141500059]
It isn't very hard actually. You can get a ballpark figure easily "on the fly" and it isn't like their webcrawls are done everytime you search either. It's using old data it collects.

How?  Show me.  By "old," it's as new as it can be.  I know the webcrawls aren't triggered by a search query.  That's common sense.  The point is that it has a huge database of billions of websites that it searches through for a specific query.  When it gets the results, it filters through them to find the most relevant.  That's not amazing?  Bullshit.

Alright let's see here:
It sends spiders out to get information about a site
It organizes them THEN based on keywords
It stores them

You search:
It parses your query and then fetches from a database where they ALREADY are
ordered by relevance and where there ALREADY is a set count of queries found

You additionally said the crawls arn't triggered by searches yet you continue to try to prove it has to sort through something like it's an amazing feat? Give me a break and quit shooting yourself in the foot.

x86] link=topic=5045.msg58389#msg58389 date=1141500059]
It's impossible to not be thinking unless you're dead so I'll take it you're either indeed insulting or just posting random bull which wouldn't be out of character for you.

Warrior, I am now convinced that you're an idiot.  I'm done arguing with you.  You're hopeless.

Hey, just as long as you know the strongest points in your arguments are your personal attacks that's fine by me.
:)

[Sidoh]

x86] link=topic=5045.msg58433#msg58433 date=1141516033]
You can't "guarantee" anything withought proof. Like I said, find me the proof then we'll see how far your guarantees go.
MSN is inferior to google, that is well known. We still have yet to see how their new search will fair however. That will be in 6months time. Like I said, unless you can find an official statement from google, a document, whatever then your statement is false. That's about as logical as me saying "Linux has some feature, I know it's better I can guarantee it, blahblahbullshitblahblah but I have no proof."

If you can find me an SQL engine that can search through 6-7 billion indexes and then sort and segment the results, I'll be disproved.  Until then, my point stands true.  That's my proof.  I've never used any database engine can do that.  This is why Google is amazing.

x86] link=topic=5045.msg58433#msg58433 date=1141516033]
Alright let's see here:
It sends spiders out to get information about a site
It organizes them THEN based on keywords
It stores them

You search:
It parses your query and then fetches from a database where they ALREADY are
ordered by relevance and where there ALREADY is a set count of queries found

You additionally said the crawls arn't triggered by searches yet you continue to try to prove it has to sort through something like it's an amazing feat? Give me a break and quit shooting yourself in the foot.

Warrior, this is a serious question.  It's not intended to be an insult.  Are you stupid?

As I've said already, I'm completely aware of how Google works.  I'm saying it's impossible for public search engines like MSSQL, MySQL and Oracle to do what Google does.  It has 6 BILLION results.  If Google searched iteratively like SQL engines do and it took 0.00000001 seconds (that's one ten-millionth of a second), it would take several minutes to complete your search.  That's considering it searches through different areas of a website, too.  This is valid proof.  You're just too blind to see it.

x86] link=topic=5045.msg58433#msg58433 date=1141516033]
Hey, just as long as you know the strongest points in your arguments are your personal attacks that's fine by me.
:)

I know that you think that, but it's a subjective statement.  Believe it or not, you're not always right.  In fact, recently, you're rarely right.

[Warrior]

x86] link=topic=5045.msg58433#msg58433 date=1141516033]
You can't "guarantee" anything withought proof. Like I said, find me the proof then we'll see how far your guarantees go.
MSN is inferior to google, that is well known. We still have yet to see how their new search will fair however. That will be in 6months time. Like I said, unless you can find an official statement from google, a document, whatever then your statement is false. That's about as logical as me saying "Linux has some feature, I know it's better I can guarantee it, blahblahbullshitblahblah but I have no proof."

If you can find me an SQL engine that can search through 6-7 billion indexes and then sort and segment the results, I'll be disproved.  Until then, my point stands true.  That's my proof.  I've never used any database engine can do that.  This is why Google is amazing.

Go try one out, you're the one who wants to know. I already know that provided you have the hardware to run it (Which google obviously has) it's quite possible. You can ride them all you want, until you provide something other than that it's just filler.

x86] link=topic=5045.msg58433#msg58433 date=1141516033]
Alright let's see here:
It sends spiders out to get information about a site
It organizes them THEN based on keywords
It stores them

You search:
It parses your query and then fetches from a database where they ALREADY are
ordered by relevance and where there ALREADY is a set count of queries found

You additionally said the crawls arn't triggered by searches yet you continue to try to prove it has to sort through something like it's an amazing feat? Give me a break and quit shooting yourself in the foot.

Warrior, this is a serious question.  It's not intended to be an insult.  Are you stupid?

As I've said already, I'm completely aware of how Google works.  I'm saying it's impossible for public search engines like MSSQL, MySQL and Oracle to do what Google does.  It has 6 BILLION results.  If Google searched iteratively like SQL engines do and it took 0.00000001 seconds (that's one ten-millionth of a second), it would take several minutes to complete your search.  That's considering it searches through different areas of a website, too.  This is valid proof.  You're just too blind to see it.

No, like you said in your other thread I want statistics, articles and documentation please. :) PDF format or doc would be nice.
It is possible and I'm done trying to convince you of it, i'm not a miracle worker.

x86] link=topic=5045.msg58433#msg58433 date=1141516033]
Hey, just as long as you know the strongest points in your arguments are your personal attacks that's fine by me.
:)

I know that you think that, but it's a subjective statement.  Believe it or not, you're not always right.  In fact, recently, you're rarely right.

I still have yet to see a situation where I am wrong, you're just looking at it from a different side of the glass. Most of the time you just get mad and assert your moderation powers thus resulting in me winning. Thanks.

[iago]

How the fuck is Warrior still arguing?  You aren't making sense!!!

There is no SQL engine that can sort that many results by relevance.  What, exactly, is the SQL statement to order by relevance?

Also, I hate to break it to you, but Google hasn't pre-generated every possible keyword.  I did a search for "it has the enemy of mankind to be luckier than thine own master" and it took 0.33 seconds.  There is no way that Google could have known I would type that.  Ergo, you are absolutely full of shit.  End of story. 

Sidoh is absolutely right.  You are hopeless.  Your arguments in this and other threads (recently and historically) have absolutely no merit, and, as far as I can tell, you don't think.  You're absolutely blinded and led to somebody else's conclusions.  I hate to break it to you, but you are COMPLETEY missing EVERY fact in this thread, and only posting in response to the parts that you've picked out.  Your arguments make no sense and totally suck, and if nothing productive is posted here soon I'm just going to trash this for complete and total ignorance. 

[Sidoh]

x86] link=topic=5045.msg58517#msg58517 date=1141535928]
Go try one out, you're the one who wants to know. I already know that provided you have the hardware to run it (Which google obviously has) it's quite possible. You can ride them all you want, until you provide something other than that it's just filler.

I've provided you with all of the information you need.  All you need to do is disprove it.  Good luck.

I'm not the one that wants to know, you idiot.  You're the one that's challenging what I know.

x86] link=topic=5045.msg58517#msg58517 date=1141535928]
No, like you said in your other thread I want statistics, articles and documentation please. :) PDF format or doc would be nice.
It is possible and I'm done trying to convince you of it, i'm not a miracle worker.

Hypocrite.

SQL searches iteratively.  If you don't believe that, you're stupid.  If you can't believe that, you're blind.  If you won't believe that, you're stubbornly idioticly blind.

x86] link=topic=5045.msg58517#msg58517 date=1141535928]
I still have yet to see a situation where I am wrong, you're just looking at it from a different side of the glass. Most of the time you just get mad and assert your moderation powers thus resulting in me winning. Thanks.

No.  You're an idiot Warrior.  AN IDIOT.  I seriously hope that you don't remain like this for much more of your young life.  You're shaving years of progress off of your potential.

iago, I love you.

[Warrior]

How the fuck is Warrior still arguing?  You aren't making sense!!!

There is no SQL engine that can sort that many results by relevance.  What, exactly, is the SQL statement to order by relevance?

Also, I hate to break it to you, but Google hasn't pre-generated every possible keyword.  I did a search for "it has the enemy of mankind to be luckier than thine own master" and it took 0.33 seconds.  There is no way that Google could have known I would type that.  Ergo, you are absolutely full of shit.  End of story. 

Let's see here, first it's been shown that google uses gzip to compress
it's webpages. That can account for most of it's speedy results along with indexed.

They don't use SQL to order by relevance, they use a technology they developed called "PigeonRank" or something along those lines to order the data returned in an SQL fashion, I'm not saying they use a public solution. I'm saying whatever solution they have developed is based on the same underlying principals.

"Google indexes pages on the Web by using what are commonly known as "spiders", "crawlers", or "robots".

Google's famous search engine spider, GoogleBot, uses links on web pages as a sort of freeway. It travels from site to site by following links. When Google finds a new web page, Google will "crawl" the code on the page and transport it back to its datacenter. Google's "FreshBot" may visit "indexed websites" everyday in order to keep the index fresh. How often this is done varies wildly, is often speculated, and varies from site to site.

Drive more traffic to your websiteGoogle's database maintain billions of pages. They use a proprietary formula (or alogorithm) to "score" the relevancy of websites for each search query. The highest ranking, or "most relevant" websites for a specific query are listed first in the search results. "

It indeed does crawl webpages and stores them by keyword, if you would look closely to google pages it searches them by integrity and by each individual keyword. I don't know what you're getting at.

Here is some information on the PageRanking technology they use, it's nothing exclusive to them and nothing super secret. My point still stands, this and most technologies can be replicated and refined pretty easily.

To further help my position:

    *  Keyword-rich, visible, on-page content in the form of paragraphs of complete sentences (not keyword after keyword separated by commas. This should be informative, descriptive text using words pertaining to your business.)
    * Keywords in the title tag
    * Keywords in the description tag
    * The number of web pages out on the Web that are linking to your site
    * The quality of the web pages out on the Web that are linking to your site
    * The number of links on a page
    * The keyword density of any particular section of text

For more information on how google ranking works to further my point that most of their technology is public knowledge:
http://blog.case.edu/bcg8/2006/02/24/how_does_google_ranking_work

Now to tackle the SQL issue further:

Google's Query Processor

The query processor has several parts, including the user interface (search box), the "engine" that evaluates queries and matches them to relevant documents, and the results formatter.

Here is even more information proving that google indeed handles their database like I said it does

To quote from that article

We add and update new sites to our index each time we crawl the web, and we invite you to submit your URL here. We do not add all submitted URLs to our index, and we cannot make any predictions or guarantees about when or if they will appear.

They crawl the web periodicly and update their known database of websites with keywords. It's known and accepted but somehow you're stating that they use something else?

You're full of shit.

[Warrior]

x86] link=topic=5045.msg58517#msg58517 date=1141535928]
Go try one out, you're the one who wants to know. I already know that provided you have the hardware to run it (Which google obviously has) it's quite possible. You can ride them all you want, until you provide something other than that it's just filler.

I've provided you with all of the information you need.  All you need to do is disprove it.  Good luck.

I'm not the one that wants to know, you idiot.  You're the one that's challenging what I know.

I think I stated pretty much how google works above if you want any more information please post. Good luck.

x86] link=topic=5045.msg58517#msg58517 date=1141535928]
No, like you said in your other thread I want statistics, articles and documentation please. :) PDF format or doc would be nice.
It is possible and I'm done trying to convince you of it, i'm not a miracle worker.

Hypocrite.

SQL searches iteratively.  If you don't believe that, you're stupid.  If you can't believe that, you're blind.  If you won't believe that, you're stubbornly idioticly blind.

Hey, give me proof - proof and I'll drop my argument. You have offered nothing and I have offered plenty. See above.
You're just poking at nothing now Sidoh.

x86] link=topic=5045.msg58517#msg58517 date=1141535928]
I still have yet to see a situation where I am wrong, you're just looking at it from a different side of the glass. Most of the time you just get mad and assert your moderation powers thus resulting in me winning. Thanks.

No.  You're an idiot Warrior.  AN IDIOT.  I seriously hope that you don't remain like this for much more of your young life.  You're shaving years of progress off of your potential.

Young life? I'm 17 and 18 in a few days. Years of progress? I've made more progress in a few years than people have made in plenty. I've read more manuals, PDFs, tutorials, articles, blog posts, magazines and been tutored by more people you can count. Me defending Microsoft isn't going to change than and you saying something isn't going to change that. Try actually addressing something instead of going "OH GOOD ONE IAGO", dolt.

[rabbit]

x86] link=topic=5045.msg58547#msg58547 date=1141566817]

How the fuck is Warrior still arguing?  You aren't making sense!!!

There is no SQL engine that can sort that many results by relevance.  What, exactly, is the SQL statement to order by relevance?

Also, I hate to break it to you, but Google hasn't pre-generated every possible keyword.  I did a search for "it has the enemy of mankind to be luckier than thine own master" and it took 0.33 seconds.  There is no way that Google could have known I would type that.  Ergo, you are absolutely full of shit.  End of story. 

Let's see here, first it's been shown that google uses gzip to compress
it's webpages. That can account for most of it's speedy results along with indexed.

They don't use SQL to order by relevance, they use a technology they developed called "PigeonRank" or something along those lines to order the data returned in an SQL fashion, I'm not saying they use a public solution. I'm saying whatever solution they have developed is based on the same underlying principals.

"Google indexes pages on the Web by using what are commonly known as "spiders", "crawlers", or "robots".

Google's famous search engine spider, GoogleBot, uses links on web pages as a sort of freeway. It travels from site to site by following links. When Google finds a new web page, Google will "crawl" the code on the page and transport it back to its datacenter. Google's "FreshBot" may visit "indexed websites" everyday in order to keep the index fresh. How often this is done varies wildly, is often speculated, and varies from site to site.

Drive more traffic to your websiteGoogle's database maintain billions of pages. They use a proprietary formula (or alogorithm) to "score" the relevancy of websites for each search query. The highest ranking, or "most relevant" websites for a specific query are listed first in the search results. "

It indeed does crawl webpages and stores them by keyword, if you would look closely to google pages it searches them by integrity and by each individual keyword. I don't know what you're getting at.

Here is some information on the PageRanking technology they use, it's nothing exclusive to them and nothing super secret. My point still stands, this and most technologies can be replicated and refined pretty easily.

To further help my position:

    *  Keyword-rich, visible, on-page content in the form of paragraphs of complete sentences (not keyword after keyword separated by commas. This should be informative, descriptive text using words pertaining to your business.)
    * Keywords in the title tag
    * Keywords in the description tag
    * The number of web pages out on the Web that are linking to your site
    * The quality of the web pages out on the Web that are linking to your site
    * The number of links on a page
    * The keyword density of any particular section of text

For more information on how google ranking works to further my point that most of their technology is public knowledge:
http://blog.case.edu/bcg8/2006/02/24/how_does_google_ranking_work

Now to tackle the SQL issue further:

Google's Query Processor

The query processor has several parts, including the user interface (search box), the "engine" that evaluates queries and matches them to relevant documents, and the results formatter.

Here is even more information proving that google indeed handles their database like I said it does

To quote from that article

We add and update new sites to our index each time we crawl the web, and we invite you to submit your URL here. We do not add all submitted URLs to our index, and we cannot make any predictions or guarantees about when or if they will appear.

They crawl the web periodicly and update their known database of websites with keywords. It's known and accepted but somehow you're stating that they use something else?

You're full of shit.

"PigeonRank" was an April fool's joke (it's just "PageRank").  Google uses their own stuff for queries (source: http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/netahtml/PTO/search-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PG01&s1=20050071741&OS=20050071741&RS=20050071741  ).
The PageRank system is primarily how many times a page is linked to, then how many of the words match, then how many of the words are relevant.

[Warrior]

Heh, I thought I saw something fishy when it was mentioned as "PageRank" everywhere else. Oh well.

[iago]

x86] link=topic=5045.msg58547#msg58547 date=1141566817]
Let's see here, first it's been shown that google uses gzip to compress
it's webpages. That can account for most of it's speedy results along with indexed.

So?

x86] link=topic=5045.msg58547#msg58547 date=1141566817]
They don't use SQL to order by relevance, they use a technology they developed called "PigeonRank" or something along those lines to order the data returned in an SQL fashion, I'm not saying they use a public solution. I'm saying whatever solution they have developed is based on the same underlying principals.

"Google indexes pages on the Web by using what are commonly known as "spiders", "crawlers", or "robots".

So?

x86] link=topic=5045.msg58547#msg58547 date=1141566817]
Google's famous search engine spider, GoogleBot, uses links on web pages as a sort of freeway. It travels from site to site by following links. When Google finds a new web page, Google will "crawl" the code on the page and transport it back to its datacenter. Google's "FreshBot" may visit "indexed websites" everyday in order to keep the index fresh. How often this is done varies wildly, is often speculated, and varies from site to site.

So?

x86] link=topic=5045.msg58547#msg58547 date=1141566817]
Drive more traffic to your websiteGoogle's database maintain billions of pages. They use a proprietary formula (or alogorithm) to "score" the relevancy of websites for each search query. The highest ranking, or "most relevant" websites for a specific query are listed first in the search results. "

So?

x86] link=topic=5045.msg58547#msg58547 date=1141566817]
It indeed does crawl webpages and stores them by keyword, if you would look closely to google pages it searches them by integrity and by each individual keyword. I don't know what you're getting at.

I'm getting at the fact that they can sort an index billions of webpages in basically no time.  SQL can't do that.  Thus, they aren't using standard SQL.  Thus, they have their own technology.  Isn't that what you've been arguing against?

x86] link=topic=5045.msg58547#msg58547 date=1141566817]
Here is some information on the PageRanking technology they use, it's nothing exclusive to them and nothing super secret. My point still stands, this and most technologies can be replicated and refined pretty easily.

To further help my position:

    *  Keyword-rich, visible, on-page content in the form of paragraphs of complete sentences (not keyword after keyword separated by commas. This should be informative, descriptive text using words pertaining to your business.)
    * Keywords in the title tag
    * Keywords in the description tag
    * The number of web pages out on the Web that are linking to your site
    * The quality of the web pages out on the Web that are linking to your site
    * The number of links on a page
    * The keyword density of any particular section of text

For more information on how google ranking works to further my point that most of their technology is public knowledge:
http://blog.case.edu/bcg8/2006/02/24/how_does_google_ranking_work

Now to tackle the SQL issue further:

Google's Query Processor

The query processor has several parts, including the user interface (search box), the "engine" that evaluates queries and matches them to relevant documents, and the results formatter.

Here is even more information proving that google indeed handles their database like I said it does

To quote from that article

We add and update new sites to our index each time we crawl the web, and we invite you to submit your URL here. We do not add all submitted URLs to our index, and we cannot make any predictions or guarantees about when or if they will appear.

They crawl the web periodicly and update their known database of websites with keywords. It's known and accepted but somehow you're stating that they use something else?

You're full of shit.

None of that matters!  Google has special proprietary technology that it uses that isn't SQL.  You don't know exactly how it works, and nobody outside of Google does.  Would you just give it up?

[Sidoh]

x86] link=topic=5045.msg58547#msg58547 date=1141566817]
Let's see here, first it's been shown that google uses gzip to compress
it's webpages. That can account for most of it's speedy results along with indexed.

... That's HTTP compressing; it saves bandwidth, not speed.  I think the "time" saved would be minuscule, since it has to compress the results (that's right, it's already done its searching/sorting, this compressing is after-the-fact).  That takes time

x86] link=topic=5045.msg58547#msg58547 date=1141566817]
They don't use SQL to order by relevance, they use a technology they developed called "PigeonRank" or something along those lines to order the data returned in an SQL fashion, I'm not saying they use a public solution. I'm saying whatever solution they have developed is based on the same underlying principals.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA AT THE PIGEON RANK AHAHAHAH.  Warrior, perhaps you should check this out: http://www.google.com/technology/pigeonrank.html

Feel dumb?  Good, you should.

Of course it uses the same underlying principals.  They fetch some results from a database, sort them and show them to you.  My point is they do it faster with more results than anyone on the market.

x86] link=topic=5045.msg58547#msg58547 date=1141566817]
"Google indexes pages on the Web by using what are commonly known as "spiders", "crawlers", or "robots".

Google's famous search engine spider, GoogleBot, uses links on web pages as a sort of freeway. It travels from site to site by following links. When Google finds a new web page, Google will "crawl" the code on the page and transport it back to its datacenter. Google's "FreshBot" may visit "indexed websites" everyday in order to keep the index fresh. How often this is done varies wildly, is often speculated, and varies from site to site.

Drive more traffic to your websiteGoogle's database maintain billions of pages. They use a proprietary formula (or alogorithm) to "score" the relevancy of websites for each search query. The highest ranking, or "most relevant" websites for a specific query are listed first in the search results. "

It indeed does crawl webpages and stores them by keyword, if you would look closely to google pages it searches them by integrity and by each individual keyword. I don't know what you're getting at.

Honestly, Warrior, I don't know what you're getting at either.  I've established several times that I understand how the spiders work.

x86] link=topic=5045.msg58547#msg58547 date=1141566817]
Here is some information on the PageRanking technology they use, it's nothing exclusive to them and nothing super secret. My point still stands, this and most technologies can be replicated and refined pretty easily.

To further help my position:

    *  Keyword-rich, visible, on-page content in the form of paragraphs of complete sentences (not keyword after keyword separated by commas. This should be informative, descriptive text using words pertaining to your business.)
    * Keywords in the title tag
    * Keywords in the description tag
    * The number of web pages out on the Web that are linking to your site
    * The quality of the web pages out on the Web that are linking to your site
    * The number of links on a page
    * The keyword density of any particular section of text

Sadly, pagerank isn't the only thing Google is using to sort your results.  It has to be dynamic.  If you honestly think they can pre-order the search results, you're an idiot.

x86] link=topic=5045.msg58547#msg58547 date=1141566817]
Now to tackle the SQL issue further:

Google's Query Processor

The query processor has several parts, including the user interface (search box), the "engine" that evaluates queries and matches them to relevant documents, and the results formatter.

Here is even more information proving that google indeed handles their database like I said it does

What are you talking about?  Are you an idiot?  That's common fucking sense.  We all know the general concept; in fact, we've all explicitly stated it during this argument.  You're just too busy not paying attention to our points to notice.

x86] link=topic=5045.msg58547#msg58547 date=1141566817]
To quote from that article

We add and update new sites to our index each time we crawl the web, and we invite you to submit your URL here. We do not add all submitted URLs to our index, and we cannot make any predictions or guarantees about when or if they will appear.

They crawl the web periodicly and update their known database of websites with keywords. It's known and accepted but somehow you're stating that they use something else?

....... FOR FUCKING CHRISTS' SAKE WARRIOR OPEN YOUR MOTHER FUCKING EYES.

Please, go re-read my argument.  I've explicitly, openly, without hesitation said that Google uses this general idea.  I'm saying that the underlying technology is much more advanced and efficient than anything anyone else has.

x86] link=topic=5045.msg58547#msg58547 date=1141566817]
You're full of shit.

Obviously, that's what your brain is made out of.

x86] link=topic=5045.msg58548#msg58548 date=1141567030]
I think I stated pretty much how google works above if you want any more information please post. Good luck.

No you didn't.  You stated the obvious once again (the pagerank thing was good, but irrelevant.  It's not the only factor that google accounts for when it orders search results).

x86] link=topic=5045.msg58548#msg58548 date=1141567030]
Hey, give me proof - proof and I'll drop my argument. You have offered nothing and I have offered plenty. See above.
You're just poking at nothing now Sidoh.

I'm going to switch my research paper and study you.  You will never cease to amaze me in your oblivious state of mind.  I'm done wasting time on you.  It's obviously hopeless.

x86] link=topic=5045.msg58548#msg58548 date=1141567030]
Young life? I'm 17 and 18 in a few days. Years of progress? I've made more progress in a few years than people have made in plenty.

Sadly, that's not going to get you many places by itself.  You need a college degree, work experience and opportunities before you can do anything with your new-found knowledge.  Sorry to break it to you, but most everyone here has done the same things you have.  They've found a passion for some area of technology, decided it was interesting enough to pursue on their own and have done it.  True, most people have chosen different areas of study, but in a general way, we're all in the same boat.

x86] link=topic=5045.msg58548#msg58548 date=1141567030]
I've read more manuals, PDFs, tutorials, articles, blog posts, magazines and been tutored by more people you can count.

Good for you.  So have I.

x86] link=topic=5045.msg58548#msg58548 date=1141567030]
Me defending Microsoft isn't going to change than and you saying something isn't going to change that.

You defending Microsoft is never going to change.  Ever-vigilant.  Ever-stubborn.  Ever-ignorant.  Ever-blind.

x86] link=topic=5045.msg58548#msg58548 date=1141567030]
Try actually addressing something instead of going "OH GOOD ONE IAGO", dolt.

I did.  I addressed every single one of your points with great accuracy.  Not surprisingly, you completely missed the points in every single one of my arguments.  Good job.

[Warrior]

x86] link=topic=5045.msg58547#msg58547 date=1141566817]
They don't use SQL to order by relevance, they use a technology they developed called "PigeonRank" or something along those lines to order the data returned in an SQL fashion, I'm not saying they use a public solution. I'm saying whatever solution they have developed is based on the same underlying principals.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA AT THE PIGEON RANK AHAHAHAH.  Warrior, perhaps you should check this out: http://www.google.com/technology/pigeonrank.html

Feel dumb?  Good, you should.

It's not a far stab off of their actual technology, it was a spinoff of their technology soon realized after I posted the article.

Of course it uses the same underlying principals.  They fetch some results from a database, sort them and show them to you.  My point is they do it faster with more results than anyone on the market.

My point is: Not.For.Long. If it's the same underlying principals then there is no reason why they can't be surpassed.

x86] link=topic=5045.msg58547#msg58547 date=1141566817]
"Google indexes pages on the Web by using what are commonly known as "spiders", "crawlers", or "robots".

Google's famous search engine spider, GoogleBot, uses links on web pages as a sort of freeway. It travels from site to site by following links. When Google finds a new web page, Google will "crawl" the code on the page and transport it back to its datacenter. Google's "FreshBot" may visit "indexed websites" everyday in order to keep the index fresh. How often this is done varies wildly, is often speculated, and varies from site to site.

Drive more traffic to your websiteGoogle's database maintain billions of pages. They use a proprietary formula (or alogorithm) to "score" the relevancy of websites for each search query. The highest ranking, or "most relevant" websites for a specific query are listed first in the search results. "

It indeed does crawl webpages and stores them by keyword, if you would look closely to google pages it searches them by integrity and by each individual keyword. I don't know what you're getting at.

Honestly, Warrior, I don't know what you're getting at either.  I've established several times that I understand how the spiders work.

That wasn't directed to you numbnuts.

x86] link=topic=5045.msg58547#msg58547 date=1141566817]
Here is some information on the PageRanking technology they use, it's nothing exclusive to them and nothing super secret. My point still stands, this and most technologies can be replicated and refined pretty easily.

To further help my position:

    *  Keyword-rich, visible, on-page content in the form of paragraphs of complete sentences (not keyword after keyword separated by commas. This should be informative, descriptive text using words pertaining to your business.)
    * Keywords in the title tag
    * Keywords in the description tag
    * The number of web pages out on the Web that are linking to your site
    * The quality of the web pages out on the Web that are linking to your site
    * The number of links on a page
    * The keyword density of any particular section of text

Sadly, pagerank isn't the only thing Google is using to sort your results.  It has to be dynamic.  If you honestly think they can pre-order the search results, you're an idiot.

Why not? It's certainly possible, like I said until you show me proof of these "Technologies" I can go ahead and state any company has a super technology but it's shit withought proof. You seem to be avoiding that.

x86] link=topic=5045.msg58547#msg58547 date=1141566817]
Now to tackle the SQL issue further:

Google's Query Processor

The query processor has several parts, including the user interface (search box), the "engine" that evaluates queries and matches them to relevant documents, and the results formatter.

Here is even more information proving that google indeed handles their database like I said it does

What are you talking about?  Are you an idiot?  That's common fucking sense.  We all know the general concept; in fact, we've all explicitly stated it during this argument.  You're just too busy not paying attention to our points to notice.

iago obviously stated otherwise, when I'm talking to you then you address the points.

x86] link=topic=5045.msg58547#msg58547 date=1141566817]
To quote from that article

We add and update new sites to our index each time we crawl the web, and we invite you to submit your URL here. We do not add all submitted URLs to our index, and we cannot make any predictions or guarantees about when or if they will appear.

They crawl the web periodicly and update their known database of websites with keywords. It's known and accepted but somehow you're stating that they use something else?

....... FOR FUCKING CHRISTS' SAKE WARRIOR OPEN YOUR MOTHER FUCKING EYES.

Please, go re-read my argument.  I've explicitly, openly, without hesitation said that Google uses this general idea.  I'm saying that the underlying technology is much more advanced and efficient than anything anyone else has.

FOR CHRISTS'  SAKE SIDOH, I'M NOT TALKING TO YOU.

x86] link=topic=5045.msg58547#msg58547 date=1141566817]
You're full of shit.

Obviously, that's what your brain is made out of.

You're full of shit.

x86] link=topic=5045.msg58548#msg58548 date=1141567030]
I think I stated pretty much how google works above if you want any more information please post. Good luck.

No you didn't.  You stated the obvious once again (the pagerank thing was good, but irrelevant.  It's not the only factor that google accounts for when it orders search results).

Proof please.

x86] link=topic=5045.msg58548#msg58548 date=1141567030]
Hey, give me proof - proof and I'll drop my argument. You have offered nothing and I have offered plenty. See above.
You're just poking at nothing now Sidoh.

I'm going to switch my research paper and study you.  You will never cease to amaze me in your oblivious state of mind.  I'm done wasting time on you.  It's obviously hopeless.

Then you lose. Loser.

x86] link=topic=5045.msg58548#msg58548 date=1141567030]
Young life? I'm 17 and 18 in a few days. Years of progress? I've made more progress in a few years than people have made in plenty.

Sadly, that's not going to get you many places by itself.  You need a college degree, work experience and opportunities before you can do anything with your new-found knowledge.  Sorry to break it to you, but most everyone here has done the same things you have.  They've found a passion for some area of technology, decided it was interesting enough to pursue on their own and have done it.  True, most people have chosen different areas of study, but in a general way, we're all in the same boat.

Right, probably only person here who can show me up here is Myndfyre. You can say you've done everything but it's nothing
But he's Myndfyre and that warrants excuse.

x86] link=topic=5045.msg58548#msg58548 date=1141567030]
I've read more manuals, PDFs, tutorials, articles, blog posts, magazines and been tutored by more people you can count.

Good for you.  So have I.

It's pretty obviously you havn't, you still think on a highlevel. You're in the box and it's flipped upsidedown on the sidewalk.

x86] link=topic=5045.msg58548#msg58548 date=1141567030]
Me defending Microsoft isn't going to change than and you saying something isn't going to change that.

You defending Microsoft is never going to change.  Ever-vigilant.  Ever-stubborn.  Ever-ignorant.  Ever-blind.

"Wait till Vista", we'll see. I'll be laughing.

x86] link=topic=5045.msg58548#msg58548 date=1141567030]
Try actually addressing something instead of going "OH GOOD ONE IAGO", dolt.

I did.  I addressed every single one of your points with great accuracy.  Not surprisingly, you completely missed the points in every single one of my arguments.  Good job.

You seem to be dodging and saying it isn't worth your time lately. You suck and so do your "points with great accuracy"

[Sidoh]

HAHAHAHAHAHA YOU THINK PIGEONS PECKING ON KEYBOARDS POWERS GOOGLE AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA

AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA

Edit I'm not done yet.

AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA

That seriously made me bust up laughing.  Warrior, you're hopeless.  You tried to find a way to validate an APRIL FOOLS article as PROOF OF YOUR ARGUMENT.

[iago]

I wholly agree with Sidoh that you're a complete waste of time to talk to. 

x86] link=topic=5045.msg58566#msg58566 date=1141579231]

I'm going to switch my research paper and study you.  You will never cease to amaze me in your oblivious state of mind.  I'm done wasting time on you.  It's obviously hopeless.

Then you lose. Loser.

Giving up on somebody who is too dense to understand is not the same as admitting defeat.  The fact that you're willing to take such a victory shows that you are indeed in the weaker position.

x86] link=topic=5045.msg58566#msg58566 date=1141579231]
You seem to be dodging and saying it isn't worth your time lately. You suck and so do your "points with great accuracy"

Again, that's not dodging, it's giving up on somebody.  It's like when a kid is going through school and not learning anything, eventually the teachers give up and work on useful people. 


Here's the bottom line: perhaps Microsoft's technology is better.  I don't know that.  But you totally suck at defending it.  Your arguments are completely meaningless.  Why can't you find somewhere else to spew.  There are plenty of forums with dumb people who'll believe what they're told, why don't you find one of them?