I don't like it when search engines play the size game: "My index is better than yours, so my search engine is better." I especially don't like it when Google plays that game, shifting focus from the value of its algorithm. Google's history of dominance is based on being smarter, not necessarily bigger. Still, sheer size is impressive, and naturally it's important to be as comprehensive as possible. That's the point driven home by the blog entry of Bill Coughran, a VP of Engineering, in announcing the index's growth.
"So 8 billion pages is a milestone worth noting, but it's not the end of the road. The real test is how well we do in finding what you want from within those pages. We'll keep improving that too."
Many variables determine the legitimacy of index-size claims, not least of which is pasge depth, or the extent to which individual pasges are fully collected by the spider. See this analysis at SearchEngineWatch.








1. Why vaunt about quantity? As I have mentioned elsewhere that since Web Services like the one from Amazon came into existence, a huge lot web pages can be categorized as duplicate pages among the 8 billion pages. Google can proudly display rather something like this: ...billion unique pages listed. This should give more credibility to the search engine user.
Posted at 4:42AM on Dec 19th 2005 by Dilip Samuel