geekfiend writes "Today Google updated their website to indicate over eight billion pages crawled, cached and indexed. They've also added an entry to their blog explaining that they still have tons of work to do."
More pages v.s more relevant pages
by
xiando
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Personally I find that the lack of relevant pages if the biggest problem with search engines, not the lack of pages with information. It seems I always find what I'm looking for eventually, what I need improved is the time I spend looking though spam-bomb pages before I find a page with the correct information.
These spam-pages seem to be increasing; I mean those pages with just a buch of keywords or the output of some search system.
Re:More pages v.s more relevant pages
by
Kithraya
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
I'm especially irritated by the increasing number of highly-ranked pages that are nothing more than another search engine's results. If Google could find some way to identify and remove these from my result set, Google's usefulness to me would increase 10 times over.
Re:More pages v.s more relevant pages
by
jez9999
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
One thing that would really help me sometimes would be if Google allowed you to do an 'exact match' search. No, I don't mean enclosing something in double quotes, that still ignores capitalization, whitespace, and most non-letter characters. I'd like to be able to search for pages that have the EXACT string '#windows EFNET', for example, or '/usr/bin/' or whatever. '/Usr/biN' wouldn't match, and nor would '#windows^^EFNET' (where ^ is equal to a space:-) ).
I sent an e-mail to Google about this and the guy who replied didn't seem to think it was possible... anyone know if it is?
Re:More pages v.s more relevant pages
by
PsychoSlashDot
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
What I've read on the Google help pages seems to indicate that they don't index punctuation or capitalization. When you search for something, your string is looked for within an existing index, and appropriate reference materials are shown. Including punctuation wouldn't result in any hits within their index, meaning no results.
Now, obviously, it is theoretically possible to do just about anything. But in this case, with the architecture they have in place, anyone ever doing what you're asking would require a full-text search through their multi-TB dataset, which I suspect is highly impractical.
My point is that as I understand it, Google has coded a number of shortcut tricks which allow reasonable search times, and full-text string-exact searching would prevent them from using those shortcuts, resulting in search times they don't seem to think is reasonable.
-- "Oh no... he found the.sig setting."
Re:More pages v.s more relevant pages
by
Erasmus+Darwin
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
"But in this case, with the architecture they have in place, anyone ever doing what you're asking would require a full-text search through their multi-TB dataset, which I suspect is highly impractical."
Actually, they could cut that down considerably. For example, say we were doing an exact search for '#windows EFNET' as in the original example. The first thing they could do is start with a traditional search on "#windows EFNET". At that point, they've cut their multi-TB dataset down to just a few megs or less of likely matches (in this case, only 10 pages matched). Then they could do a full-text check on each result, looking for an exact match and discarding all the rest.
Do this affect how fresh their index will be?
by
Jugalator
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
I wonder if it'll take longer to index twice as many pages? Or if they, along with this change, improved their spider and/or added hardware. Otherwise I'm not sure this change is for the better, unless you like to search for really obscure topics.
-- Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
What is new about this.
by
hanssprudel
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
What the article does not point out is why this something important. For just about forever google's store has been coverging on 2**32 documents. Some people have speculated that Google simply could not update their 100,000+ servers with a new system that allowed more. Apparently they have now done the necessary architecture changes to allow for identifying documents by 64 bit (or more identifiers) and back in the business of making their search for comprehensive.
Good timing to conincide with MSN attempt to start a new searchengine too!
Re:What is new about this.
by
Jugalator
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Good timing to conincide with MSN attempt to start a new searchengine too!
Yes, they'd better fight back, as they now have a serious competitor in MSN. It's giving very accurate results.
Doesn't anyone find it strange that Google gave the same top result there a while back?
MSN must be using a very similar algorithm.
Maybe a bit too similar...?
*tinfoil hat on*
-- Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
Re:What is new about this.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
For just about forever google's store has been coverging on 2**32 documents. Some people have speculated that Google simply could not update their 100,000+ servers with a new system that allowed more. Apparently they have now done the necessary architecture changes to allow for identifying documents by 64 bit (or more identifiers) and back in the business of making their search for comprehensive.
As someone who routinely follows these things, I couldn't agree more with your statement. My company operates a number of sites, and over the past 6 months, we've seen an obvious trend. Sites with, say, 5000+ pages, which used to be entirely indexed in Google, gradually had pages lost from Google. A search for site:somesite.com would return 5000 results 6 months ago. 3 or 4 months ago, the same search gave maybe 1000 results. This month maybe 500 or 600. We were definitely of the opinion that Google's index was "maxxed out" and was dropping large portions of indexed sites in favor of attempting to index new sites.
Now after seeing this story, I did a search and found literally all 5000+ pages are indexed once again. This is a huge step forward for webmasters everywhere. If your site had been slowly edged out of Google's index it's most likely back in its entirety now.
Thanks G.
Re:What is new about this.
by
bighoov
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Probably not short sighted, but rather an space and cpu efficiency issue. Space - If you have 64-bit doc ids, even if you index 2^48 documents you're still wasting 16 bits per stemmed word per document. CPU - dealing with 64-bit integers on 32-bit hardware usually involves multiple loads, and decreases what can fit in the hardware data caches.
no update on the images
by
bvdbos
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Google makes minor change to website - news at 11!
by
Sanity
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Does every minor Google or Apple related thing deserve a slashdot story? Can slashdot create a "Fanboy" section for insignificant stories advocating Google (with their software patent) and Apple (with their iTunes DRM)? That way I could filter them out more easily.
Quality - not quantity
by
seanyboy
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Google needs to stop obsessing about the number of indexed pages, and start concentrating on the quality. Since pagerank was switched off, 2 out of 5 searches now seem to be jammed with pages full of nothing but random words and adverts. It's even more galling when the adverts are Google Ads. Much as I love Google, they're becoming increasingly less effective as a tool.
-- Training monkeys for world domination since 1439
Re:Quality - not quantity
by
Ingolfke
·
· Score: 3, Funny
I agree search engines are so 1990. I rely exlusively on word of mouth to find websites. If Firefox would add a button to the toolbar that said 'Cool Sites', maybe with an icon of a pair of glasses, and have the button link to a webpage with links to the latest cool sites on the net, that would certainly be the end of Google and their 8 billion pages. Pah!
Re:Quality - not quantity
by
dabadab
·
· Score: 3, Informative
"[i]Since pagerank was switched off[/i]"
Since when is Pagerank switched off?
-- Real life is overrated.
Re:Quality - not quantity
by
seanyboy
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
My bad. I'd skimmed a few things on the web, and assumed that it had been switched off. Looks instead as though Google have changed how it works. See PageRank is dead. I need to investigate further.
-- Training monkeys for world domination since 1439
Re:This is news ?
by
PerpetualMotion
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
A bigger index does not equal better search results, however, with the press this will generate, it will equal profits.
-- This sig is in Spanish when you're not looking....
Re:This is news ?
by
dotmike
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Yeah, but it'd be news if the sun set twice in one night or rose twice as bright.
It's more the exponential increase in the size of the index rather than the piecemeal addition.
Makes you wonder...
by
manmanic
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Does this mean that I've been missing a huge amount of important information until now? I'd just assumed that Google covered the entire relevant web but now it seems to cover the whole same amount again. My Google alerts also seem to have started producing a lot more results which suggest that a lot of these new pages are rated quite highly. Who knows how much more quality content on the web we're just not seeing?
Re:Makes you wonder...
by
jlar
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
"Does this mean that I've been missing a huge amount of important information until now?"
Maybe the steep increase is due to all the new file formats they are indexing now. That might be useful for some people (although I sometimes find it kind of annoying that a search returns MS-Word documents).
Re:Google thieves my bandwidth
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 5, Informative
A lot of people have been asking what the point of the artical is, why does it matter, well possibly because Microsoft announced the launch of their search engine http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4000015.stm and are claiming more pages index than google (5 billion) so google have responded by effectivly doubling their pages indexed.
Mine is bigger than yours!!!
by
ayjay29
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Now it's going to be even harder to get my name in the top spot. Why was I cursed with the surname Smith!
-- I used to have a better sig but it broke.
Searching LiveJournal.com
by
hackrobat
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Looks like they've added a gazillion LiveJournal pages to their index. I used to have a Google search box on my LJ that didn't throw up relevant results until last week or so. Now it works perfectly, just like builtin search (like what you see in MT and WordPress).
Doubled? Wait a minute...
by
't+is+DjiM
·
· Score: 5, Funny
From 4 to 8 billion pages... I guess they just indexed the google cache...
-- --Use ant to make.war
Competing with Microsoft's 5bn?
by
Richard+W.M.+Jones
·
· Score: 4, Informative
On the same day that
this story hits the BBC. In that
story Microsoft claim that they have
5 billion pages indexed, more than
the 4.2 billion pages indexed (at that
point) by Google. The BBC have just
updated the story with the 8bn figure.
Yes, this is probably a troll, but anyway... I take it you've never heard of the robots.txt file? You sound like you might want to read up on it. It's designed to help control the spidering of your pages for whatever reason, particularly cases like yours or situations where a spider would get confused and end up doing something stupid (recursive stuff, etc).
-ReK
-- md5sum -c reality.md5
reality: FAILED
md5sum: WARNING: 1 of 1 computed checksum did NOT match
Re:Google needs your cookie badly
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 3, Informative
You can still save those settings but google refuses to use them when you block their cookie. In my case I get 10 search results although I like to receive 100.
Give it the keyword 100, then type 100 search_term in the address bar to use it.
meta-no-archive
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
apparently my sites will never get a good ranking on google because I don't want the search engine to cache the site. So I'm using meta no-archive tags. That's the only thing I can figure out why the sites rank so poorly on google, when they come up in the top 10-20 hits on yahoo and other search engines. The keywords for the searches are valid, the sites are relevant to the keyword searches, yet the sites don't show in the top 100-300 on google.
I've avoided all the usual spam type of tags (auto refreshing, hidden text, cloaking, etc.) and the sites are legitimate and on the up and up, and yet the only page or two that google is spidering are the one or few that appear to be without the no-archive tags and possibly the revisit/expire tags.
Is google's policy, allows us to cache your site, or get penalized? Anyone else run into a similar problem or can shed some light on this? The only other thing I can think of is the robots text file, that keeps googlebot, and then other spiders through a *, from entering images directories. The spiders, including googlebot, aren't restricted from entering any other directories, they are given free reign.
Anyone else with problems with no-cache, no archive, tight revisit/expire times, or similar non-spam tags that result in penalties in google ranking?
I've been using google exclusively for a few years now. But the poor page ranking of sites on my server got me wondering about other sites that may be relevant to my own searches which may be exluded or penalized by google. So I've started using Yahoo search again, as much as I hate Yahoo (what they do with advertising to Yahoo groups and Yahoo mail is a shame). It appears that Yahoo is including better results because other sites show up with higher ranking that actually are relevant. So I've learned that Google isn't as perfect as I thought it was, which was disappointing in itself. It was easy using one search site. Now I have to use two to make sure I'm getting good results. Anyone know if there is a plugin for Firefox with both Google and Yahoo search boxes on the toolbar?
Re:Google thieves my bandwidth
by
jvj24601
·
· Score: 5, Informative
Well, if you know that Google is indexing your site and "stealing" your bandwidth, then you must have looked at the server logs, right? You'd see the name of the search bot is googlebot. Search for it, and you'll find that the first relevant link explains how to prevent googlebot from accessing your site.
The logs would probably also show failed attempts to find the file/robots.txt. Similar info is gained from searching on that term as well.
Search terms: oriental rice recipe asian spice Search Results: Results 1 - 10 of about 254,000 for oriental rice recipe asian spice . (0.40 seconds) Search Effectiveness: REASONABLE. good list of relivent items matched.
Search terms: recipe+"oriental rice"+spice Search Results: Your search - recipe+"oriental rice"+spice - did not match any documents. Search Effectiveness: UTTER SHITE
The user wants SIMPLICITY. If google cannot give decent results for simple search criteria, then people will go elsewhere.
Its the KISS principle in effect.
-- liqbase:: faster than paper
So, to sum up...
by
kahei
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
I am feeding this troll because there are people who really _do_ think like that and I wish I could yell at them to their faces:)
You put content in a place where it is publically accessible. You explicitly and proactively made that content available to everyone, including 'the average surfer' and googlebots. You took no steps to make it available only to the select few of whom you approve.
Now you are all cross and bothered because average surfers / googlebots have read / copied your content, such as it is.
The solution is to drown yourself in a bucket. I have a bucket.
-- Whence? Hence. Whither? Thither.
Proximity search will help
by
Sai+Babu
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
This is why I've been begging google folks to implement NEAR operator!
Erm, that's only because of the bizarre plus signs the grandparent poster put in - try this. Note to grandparent: Just about any modern search engine assumes words not prefixed by anything are to be included in the Boolean search query. No need for +.
Just tried the beta of the new MSN Search
by
Mostly+a+lurker
·
· Score: 3, Funny
I received this response:
This site is temporarily unavailable, please check back soon.
Didn't get the results you expected? Help us improve.
It is not clear to me how I can help them improve. Suggest they switch their servers to Linux?
Re:Read more carefully.
by
Mant
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Robots.txt isn't some thing that only applies to Google, it is (supposed) to be honoured by all search engines, and uses the Robots Exclusion Standard. So, when you claim these are Google's arbitary rules, you are in fact wrong. They are neither Google's nor arbitary (at least no more than any web standard).
So your clue, not so much of clue, as robots.txt doesn't fit your description.
As for why you should know about it, you are putting up a web site, it is part of running a web site. You might as well complain why you need to know about HTML, CSS or registering a domain name. Quite what coming from the UK has to do with it (something I also do), I have no idea.
"I simply do not want the average surfer to be able to visit my site, I am not interested in serving my pages to them, they simply would not appreciate or understand what it is I am showing."
Then a publicly accessable webiste is the wrong place. It is not your personal space, and it isn't private. You made it available to the world, nobody made you. To turn around and complain when (some of) the world visits it is hypocracy.
It's like putting up posters around a town, then running around complaining all these people are looking at them, won't appreciate them, and you don't want them too. It's also comes across as condescending and arrogant, which probably explains the nastiness of some of the responses.
You opted in when you put up the publicly accessable website. If all search engines had to be opt in, nobody could find anything on the web, and it would use a lot of its utility. Your assumed to want them crawling becuase the vast majority of people do, they want their site to be found. If you don't though, no problem, just use the standards for stopping searches, or password protect the site. No scandal at all, just hysterics.
Showing the low res thumbnail of your image isn't violating your copyright either. The only legitimate claim you have is the amount of time it took to remove something from the cache.
The "thieves" accusation is even more ridiculous. If you put something up on the web people can see for free, you can't complain. There are options if you want to protect it. Google doesn't claim you work as theirs (which would be 'stealing' or at least copyright violation), they help people find you public web site.
If you don't want a public website but made one, whose fault is that? If you are going to run a website and can't be bothered to find out how to do it properly, you can't blame Google.
Slashdot Mirror
Have they updated image search yet?
Personally I find that the lack of relevant pages if the biggest problem with search engines, not the lack of pages with information. It seems I always find what I'm looking for eventually, what I need improved is the time I spend looking though spam-bomb pages before I find a page with the correct information.
These spam-pages seem to be increasing; I mean those pages with just a buch of keywords or the output of some search system.
9/11: Never forget it was a false-flag operation
8 billion pages and not a single link to my blog.
/.
Can't figure of I should just shoot my self or maybe just open a subscription to
TC - My Photos..
I wonder if it'll take longer to index twice as many pages? Or if they, along with this change, improved their spider and/or added hardware. Otherwise I'm not sure this change is for the better, unless you like to search for really obscure topics.
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
What the article does not point out is why this something important. For just about forever google's store has been coverging on 2**32 documents. Some people have speculated that Google simply could not update their 100,000+ servers with a new system that allowed more. Apparently they have now done the necessary architecture changes to allow for identifying documents by 64 bit (or more identifiers) and back in the business of making their search for comprehensive.
Good timing to conincide with MSN attempt to start a new searchengine too!
Unfortunately they didn't update the image-search yet.
Does every minor Google or Apple related thing deserve a slashdot story? Can slashdot create a "Fanboy" section for insignificant stories advocating Google (with their software patent) and Apple (with their iTunes DRM)? That way I could filter them out more easily.
Google needs to stop obsessing about the number of indexed pages, and start concentrating on the quality. Since pagerank was switched off, 2 out of 5 searches now seem to be jammed with pages full of nothing but random words and adverts. It's even more galling when the adverts are Google Ads. Much as I love Google, they're becoming increasingly less effective as a tool.
Training monkeys for world domination since 1439
A bigger index does not equal better search results, however, with the press this will generate, it will equal profits.
In case of slashdotting use this mirror.
In Soviet America the banks rob you!
Yeah, but it'd be news if the sun set twice in one night or rose twice as bright.
It's more the exponential increase in the size of the index rather than the piecemeal addition.
Does this mean that I've been missing a huge amount of important information until now? I'd just assumed that Google covered the entire relevant web but now it seems to cover the whole same amount again. My Google alerts also seem to have started producing a lot more results which suggest that a lot of these new pages are rated quite highly. Who knows how much more quality content on the web we're just not seeing?
Google respects the robots.txt file. Use it.
A lot of people have been asking what the point of the artical is, why does it matter, well possibly because Microsoft announced the launch of their search engine http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4000015.stm and are claiming more pages index than google (5 billion) so google have responded by effectivly doubling their pages indexed.
From BBC News here.
In a statement Microsoft said its search engine returned results from five billion web pages - more than any other search engine.
But this quickly won a response from Google which announced that its index has now grown to more than 8 billion pages.
Prior to the Microsoft announcement, Google was only indexing 4,285,199,774 web pages.
Steve Ballmer is soon to announce that his daddy is one hundrad years old, and kan kick your daddy's ass...
Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated up.
Now it's going to be even harder to get my name in the top spot. Why was I cursed with the surname Smith!
I used to have a better sig but it broke.
Looks like they've added a gazillion LiveJournal pages to their index. I used to have a Google search box on my LJ that didn't throw up relevant results until last week or so. Now it works perfectly, just like builtin search (like what you see in MT and WordPress).
From 4 to 8 billion pages... I guess they just indexed the google cache...
--Use ant to make
I smell competition!
Rich.
libguestfs - tools for accessing and modifying virtual machine disk images
Does this mean twice as many pages with "Search for 'printer problem linux' on Kelkoo"?
Yes, this is probably a troll, but anyway... I take it you've never heard of the robots.txt file? You sound like you might want to read up on it. It's designed to help control the spidering of your pages for whatever reason, particularly cases like yours or situations where a spider would get confused and end up doing something stupid (recursive stuff, etc).
-ReK
md5sum -c reality.md5
reality: FAILED
md5sum: WARNING: 1 of 1 computed checksum did NOT match
Create a keyword bookmark with the URL
Give it the keyword 100, then type 100 search_term in the address bar to use it.
apparently my sites will never get a good ranking on google because I don't want the search engine to cache the site. So I'm using meta no-archive tags. That's the only thing I can figure out why the sites rank so poorly on google, when they come up in the top 10-20 hits on yahoo and other search engines. The keywords for the searches are valid, the sites are relevant to the keyword searches, yet the sites don't show in the top 100-300 on google.
I've avoided all the usual spam type of tags (auto refreshing, hidden text, cloaking, etc.) and the sites are legitimate and on the up and up, and yet the only page or two that google is spidering are the one or few that appear to be without the no-archive tags and possibly the revisit/expire tags.
Is google's policy, allows us to cache your site, or get penalized? Anyone else run into a similar problem or can shed some light on this? The only other thing I can think of is the robots text file, that keeps googlebot, and then other spiders through a *, from entering images directories. The spiders, including googlebot, aren't restricted from entering any other directories, they are given free reign.
Anyone else with problems with no-cache, no archive, tight revisit/expire times, or similar non-spam tags that result in penalties in google ranking?
I've been using google exclusively for a few years now. But the poor page ranking of sites on my server got me wondering about other sites that may be relevant to my own searches which may be exluded or penalized by google. So I've started using Yahoo search again, as much as I hate Yahoo (what they do with advertising to Yahoo groups and Yahoo mail is a shame). It appears that Yahoo is including better results because other sites show up with higher ranking that actually are relevant. So I've learned that Google isn't as perfect as I thought it was, which was disappointing in itself. It was easy using one search site. Now I have to use two to make sure I'm getting good results. Anyone know if there is a plugin for Firefox with both Google and Yahoo search boxes on the toolbar?
Well, if you know that Google is indexing your site and "stealing" your bandwidth, then you must have looked at the server logs, right? You'd see the name of the search bot is googlebot. Search for it, and you'll find that the first relevant link explains how to prevent googlebot from accessing your site.
/robots.txt. Similar info is gained from searching on that term as well.
The logs would probably also show failed attempts to find the file
I see the difference...
Search terms: oriental rice recipe asian spice
Search Results: Results 1 - 10 of about 254,000 for oriental rice recipe asian spice . (0.40 seconds)
Search Effectiveness: REASONABLE. good list of relivent items matched.
Search terms: recipe+"oriental rice"+spice
Search Results: Your search - recipe+"oriental rice"+spice - did not match any documents.
Search Effectiveness: UTTER SHITE
The user wants SIMPLICITY. If google cannot give decent results for simple search criteria, then people will go elsewhere.
Its the KISS principle in effect.
liqbase
I am feeding this troll because there are people who really _do_ think like that and I wish I could yell at them to their faces
You put content in a place where it is publically accessible. You explicitly and proactively made that content available to everyone, including 'the average surfer' and googlebots. You took no steps to make it available only to the select few of whom you approve.
Now you are all cross and bothered because average surfers / googlebots have read / copied your content, such as it is.
The solution is to drown yourself in a bucket. I have a bucket.
Whence? Hence. Whither? Thither.
This is why I've been begging google folks to implement NEAR operator!
Here is an example msn search: http://search.msn.com/results.aspx?FORM=SMCRT&q=f
Now I'm the grandest Tiger in the Jungle!
Erm, that's only because of the bizarre plus signs the grandparent poster put in - try this. Note to grandparent: Just about any modern search engine assumes words not prefixed by anything are to be included in the Boolean search query. No need for +.
== Jez ==
Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
It is not clear to me how I can help them improve. Suggest they switch their servers to Linux?
Robots.txt isn't some thing that only applies to Google, it is (supposed) to be honoured by all search engines, and uses the Robots Exclusion Standard. So, when you claim these are Google's arbitary rules, you are in fact wrong. They are neither Google's nor arbitary (at least no more than any web standard).
So your clue, not so much of clue, as robots.txt doesn't fit your description.
As for why you should know about it, you are putting up a web site, it is part of running a web site. You might as well complain why you need to know about HTML, CSS or registering a domain name. Quite what coming from the UK has to do with it (something I also do), I have no idea.
"I simply do not want the average surfer to be able to visit my site, I am not interested in serving my pages to them, they simply would not appreciate or understand what it is I am showing."
Then a publicly accessable webiste is the wrong place. It is not your personal space, and it isn't private. You made it available to the world, nobody made you. To turn around and complain when (some of) the world visits it is hypocracy.
It's like putting up posters around a town, then running around complaining all these people are looking at them, won't appreciate them, and you don't want them too. It's also comes across as condescending and arrogant, which probably explains the nastiness of some of the responses.
You opted in when you put up the publicly accessable website. If all search engines had to be opt in, nobody could find anything on the web, and it would use a lot of its utility. Your assumed to want them crawling becuase the vast majority of people do, they want their site to be found. If you don't though, no problem, just use the standards for stopping searches, or password protect the site. No scandal at all, just hysterics.
Showing the low res thumbnail of your image isn't violating your copyright either. The only legitimate claim you have is the amount of time it took to remove something from the cache.
The "thieves" accusation is even more ridiculous. If you put something up on the web people can see for free, you can't complain. There are options if you want to protect it. Google doesn't claim you work as theirs (which would be 'stealing' or at least copyright violation), they help people find you public web site.
If you don't want a public website but made one, whose fault is that? If you are going to run a website and can't be bothered to find out how to do it properly, you can't blame Google.