Gary Price notes that Google's claimed number of images in the Images index (listed on the home page) suddenly grew immediately after Yahoo!'s announcement of its index size updates. Oh, brother. This pissing contest is tedious to the extreme, but at least Google's update was quiet, unannounced. But in the interest of real benefit to users, I'd like to see announcements of quality breakthroughs, not size breakthroughs. The discussion should always be about how the indexes can be used in newly effective ways, not about incremental size upgrades, which are meaningless to most people.
Size of Google's Image Index Suddenly (Almost) Doubles
Reader Comments
(Page 1)2. Size doesn't matter? We all know the kind of guys who say that ...
But you do get the sense that most announcements coming out of the Big Boys of Search are driven more by which of the other two may have made the same announcement or may be planning to.
3. I agree that at this point, size of the webpage index is rather meaningless. However, I do think an image index boost is a very good thing. When you're searching for lots of images on a particular subject, whether it's a celebrity, scenes from a movie, etc., you very often run into cases where Google only lists one or two images (even when you add "&filter=0") from a page that has fifty images on the subject. Their image search certainly isn't the best available, and one of the reasons is index size.
Posted at 4:42AM on Dec 19th 2005 by David Hammond
4. Did anyone see this analysis of Google vs. Yahoo indexing size? Would be interested to hear anyone's thoughts about this.
http://vburton.ncsa.uiuc.edu/indexsize.html
Posted at 4:42AM on Dec 19th 2005 by Frederick Glasser
1. My index is bigger than yours.
Posted at 4:42AM on Dec 19th 2005 by Randy Charles Morin