Slashdot Mirror


Google, Circa 2001

An anonymous reader writes "If you have 10 minutes to spare, take a look at an archive that Google has posted to mark the company's 10th anniversary. The search engine and its results are based on data from 2001, but it's interesting to see what turns up when popular 2008 terms are entered. For instance, iPod generates a reference to Image Proof of Deposit Document Processing System, and the 771 Barack Obama results centered around his duties as an Illinois State Senator."

13 of 355 comments (clear)

  1. This is fucking cool by zappepcs · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Try searching for 'sarah palin' or 'conspiracy theory' for a few minutes of fun

    Now you'll see why snapshots are good :)

    1. Re:This is fucking cool by The+Good+Reverend · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This is odd, though:

      http://www.google.com/search2001/search?q=%22Sarah+Palin%22 ("Sarah Palin") returns no results for me, but http://www.google.com/search2001/search?q=palin+Wasilla (palin Wasilla) returns quite a few, including many with the term "Sarah Palin" in them.

      Any thoughts?

    2. Re:This is fucking cool by religious+freak · · Score: 4, Insightful

      ("Sarah Palin") returns no results for me, but (palin Wasilla) returns quite a few, including many with the term "Sarah Palin" in them. Any thoughts?

      Yeah, I know exactly why this would be the case. Their search algorithm sucked back then (relative to now)... despite the fact that it was miles better than anything else.

      Remember when using alta vista, webcrawler, etc and EVERYTHING was a Boolean search (usually of way too many 'NOT's.

      How we forget so quickly :)

      --
      If you can read this... 01110101 01110010 00100000 01100001 00100000 01100111 01100101 01100101 01101011
    3. Re:This is fucking cool by lawpoop · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Their index wasn't that great at the beginning?

      --
      Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
      -- Pablo Picasso
  2. Nice to see what's missing by Lev13than · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It was so refreshing to search for 9/11 and not have any of the crap from the last seven years show up. A simpler time indeed.

    --
    When you have nothing left to burn you must set yourself on fire
    1. Re:Nice to see what's missing by Fred+Ferrigno · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's not evidence, it's an indictment from the US government. It's on the same level as Colin Powell giving his PowerPoint presentation to the UN and holding up a vial of white powder. The evidence they thought they had to support the allegation is not detailed, but presumably it came from Iraqi defectors like most of the pre-war intelligence. We know now that there were significant caveats to that intelligence which were ignored.

  3. Re:Subtle political trolling by GrimyR · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This how you act everytime you read something about Obama that's not in complete admiration?

  4. Re:Random searches by nbert · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Even topics which don't get much attention anymore score much higher in 2008:

    Napster: (1,130,000) 17.300.000

    Millenium: (1,170,000) 23,900,000

    Kursk: (98,300) 3,040,000

    I guess 3 factors play a role: Google has better spiders, the net is growing and we have more redundancy.

    One thing I haven't figured out yet: Have they filtered results which the current version does not display anymore for legal reasons?

  5. Re:Subtle political trolling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    This how you act everytime you read something about Obama that's not in complete admiration?

    This how you react everytime you read a joke?

  6. A refreshing search by MLCT · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is a useful tool, as well as being a bit of fun.

    In addition to all the standard "wii gives no results!" posts, what I noticed, and what was nice to see when searching for a few things, was the absolute lack of blog/link spam everywhere. Searching for a couple of terms that I still search for now yielded 300 odd results - but 300 *relevant result*. Searching for the same thing with the 2008 engine gives me tens of thousands - but 90% of them are just pollution results. The 2001 engine actually kicked up a few "new" results for things that, while still technically available on the 2008 engine, are on page 152 of it - and so hence essentially lost and I have never seen them before.

    It links in to what I have argued previously - fork search engines. A bleeding edge "just spidered" version for those who want to chase up-to-the-minute things - and a "stable" time-lag version that would defeat the point of spam (if a blog/link spamming campaign has to wait for a couple of years to get their search results in to the stable engine results then they are less likely to bother).

  7. Re:Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac HOLY CRAP by DerekLyons · · Score: 2, Insightful

    As they say, even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

    You can also find in books from the 1970's dire predictions that by the year 2000 the world will have been all but destroyed by: running out of oil, running out of food, running out of $SOME_OTHER_RESOURCE, overpopulation, nuclear war, the Rapture, etc.. etc.. All of which are notable of course for not having happened.

  8. Re:Your search - lolcats - did not match any docum by Clete2 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    No Facebook, MySpace, or 4chan. What a wonderful world. But there was a lot of the 90's MIDI-playing pages and flashing colors.

  9. Re:Your search - lolcats - did not match any docum by supernova_hq · · Score: 2, Insightful

    But there was a lot of the 90's MIDI-playing pages and flashing colors.

    You obviously haven't accidentally clicked on a myspace page recently...