Comments on: Lots of Search News Today! http://thenoisychannel.com/2009/08/10/lots-of-search-news-today/ Sat, 11 Feb 2012 00:39:47 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Tech http://thenoisychannel.com/2009/08/10/lots-of-search-news-today/comment-page-1/#comment-4163 Tech Wed, 12 Aug 2009 01:39:20 +0000 http://thenoisychannel.com/?p=2423#comment-4163 I think Facebook has bitten off more than it can chew. I think Facebook has bitten off more than it can chew.

]]> By: Daniel Tunkelang http://thenoisychannel.com/2009/08/10/lots-of-search-news-today/comment-page-1/#comment-4156 Daniel Tunkelang Tue, 11 Aug 2009 17:27:27 +0000 http://thenoisychannel.com/?p=2423#comment-4156 I agree on speed--I dismissed that as potentially being from lower user load or my browser having a number of add-ons that could slow down the regular Google response. As for estimated result counts, that's a discussion worth at least an entire post! I agree on speed–I dismissed that as potentially being from lower user load or my browser having a number of add-ons that could slow down the regular Google response.

As for estimated result counts, that’s a discussion worth at least an entire post!

]]> By: jeremy http://thenoisychannel.com/2009/08/10/lots-of-search-news-today/comment-page-1/#comment-4154 jeremy Tue, 11 Aug 2009 05:32:45 +0000 http://thenoisychannel.com/?p=2423#comment-4154 <i>The only difference I see between it and the non-preview Google search is that the estimated result counts tend to be slightly higher. </i> It seems snappier (faster), too. Though if I were to offer my unsolicited opinion, I would prefer more interactivity and dialogue-based search than I would an extra half millisecond off the response time of a static ranked list. And yeah, what is the deal with those inaccurate page counts? They were already incorrect and overestimated. (See: http://www.ryanware.com/2006/02/17/brrreeeport/) Why are they even worse, now? The only difference I see between it and the non-preview Google search is that the estimated result counts tend to be slightly higher.

It seems snappier (faster), too. Though if I were to offer my unsolicited opinion, I would prefer more interactivity and dialogue-based search than I would an extra half millisecond off the response time of a static ranked list.

And yeah, what is the deal with those inaccurate page counts? They were already incorrect and overestimated. (See: http://www.ryanware.com/2006/02/17/brrreeeport/) Why are they even worse, now?

]]>