mpetach at netflight.com
Tue Aug 20 05:29:38 UTC 2013
I'm curious; do people really think that the difference in material
indexed between Google, Yahoo/Bing, and others is really that
big? I don't mean the heuristics and algorithms used to return
the results in a particularly useful order; I mean the sheer raw
set of indexed pages. I don't debate that Google found a
particularly useful page ranking system; but I question the
notion that the loss of Google was akin to the loss of your
On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 10:12 PM, Jimmy Hess <mysidia at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 9:48 PM, Randy Bush <randy at psg.com> wrote:
> > > Without Google, how do you know where anything even *is*?
> > ask that to 20% of the world's population
> Turning off Google is essentially doing a rm -rf http://
> www-wide analog to rm -rf / or temporarily loss of the root directory,
> pending a fsck.
> The important stuff is still there, somewhere... it's just becomes a real
> chore to get to your files without a useful directory provided by the
> indexing system, until you can get your superblock repaired.
> Webcrawler, Gopher sites, and Archie search engine become viable options.
> There's also backup on some stacks of tapes somewhere labelled Bing, DMOZ,
> Yahoo, and a few other misc. unlabelled stacks, various well-known .COM
> and .EDU domains, which you could probably use to find your materials if
> you downloaded the old Hosts.txt files; if you look long and hard enough,
> you can still find the filesystem data you need to relink the directory
> and get at the files you need; it can just be darn inconvenient sorting
> out all the spam.
More information about the NANOG