11–20 of 114 posts
My pet theory is that Google actually developed chrome as a web crawler and that consumer release was to ensure that Google would always be able to crawl pages (since sites would always want to work properly with chrome) It also explains why they effectively killed flash and Java applets. They were competing technologies that weren't owned by Google and not crawlable. If they would have taken off, Google's position a…
My pet theory is that part of the anonymous usage data Chrome sends back, is digested page contents that go into pagerank. And such browser level digesting would be on rendered pages (after JavaScript execution.) I have no other reason to believe it is true other than it's what I would do to distribute the job of crawling the web to my users if i were Google :-)
Yeah, it would make sense. There has to be more reason to giving people a free web browser other than just that it uses Google search.
My pet theory is that Google actually developed chrome as a web crawler and that consumer release was to ensure that Google would always be able to crawl pages (since sites would always want to work properly with chrome) It also explains why they effectively killed flash and Java applets. They were competing technologies that weren't owned by Google and not crawlable. If they would have taken off, Google's position a…
My pet theory is that Google actually developed chrome as a web crawler and that consumer release was to ensure that Google would always be able to crawl pages (since sites would always want to work properly with chrome) It also explains why they effectively killed flash and Java applets. They were competing technologies that weren't owned by Google and not crawlable. If they would have taken off, Google's position a…
What do I mean with “the threat of Facebook”? In the old days, before today’s large “social media” sites, people made their own web pages on places like GeoCities or on simpler social-media-like sites like LiveJournal, etc. Those sites all had content and linked to each other. This is the web which the Google search engine and its algorithm was meant to find things in, and it worked very nicely, as it took advantage of the links other people had made to your site as a proxy for relevance in search results for your site. People making small web pages about their favorite topics (with lots of links to other people’s pages, since information was hard to find) could slowly and easily transition into making larger and larger reference web sites with lots of information, thereby attracting lots of incoming links from others, which in turn enabled people to find the information using Google’s search engine.
Compare this to now. Firstly, people having a Facebook account have no place to simply place information, no incentive to simply make a web page about, say, tacos or model trains, because that’s not what Facebook is about. Facebook is about the here-and-now, and whatever is yesterday is forgotten. As I understand it, there is no real way, in Facebook, to make a continuously updated page with a fixed address for people to go to as a reference point about some subject, or at least people are not directed towards doing this as part of their online activity (as opposed to in the past, when it was basically the only thing which people could do). Secondly, this makes it so that people have no natural path going from using Facebook to creating a larger web site with information, and there are no smaller model train or taco Facebook “pages” which could have links to your larger site and thereby validate its relevance. Thirdly, even if this second point was false, Google could not use these Facebook pages, because Google cannot crawl them. These pages are all internal to Facebook, and Facebook has every incentive to not allow Google to crawl and search this information. Facebook would much rather people used their own site to search, and thereby gaining all of Google’s sources of income: User monitoring and advertising.
My pet theory is that Google actually developed chrome as a web crawler and that consumer release was to ensure that Google would always be able to crawl pages (since sites would always want to work properly with chrome) It also explains why they effectively killed flash and Java applets. They were competing technologies that weren't owned by Google and not crawlable. If they would have taken off, Google's position a…
And here I was thinking that it was Apple and the iPhone that effectively killed Flash. Silly me.
The offical reasons were speed and security, which was obviously a farce since all the major browser vendors wrote their own PDF viewers which is both slow and known for tons of security issues as well.
They could have just as easily wrote their own fast and secure implementations of flash and Java instead of disabling them. Especially for Java given Google's deep experience with it and that they already have their own runtime.
Apple may have fired first on flash but google recently disabled all NPAPI plugins in chrome as well. The reason... "Security". I guess code not made by Google isn't secure enough to be used on the internet?
One random thought... Google goes to SomeWebsite.com. The site has only enough HTML to load a big ol' JavaScript app, which Google slowly crawls. Well, that JS app makes a bunch of AJAX calls. There's no reason I can think of that would prevent Google from remembering which AJAX calls were made, and then just crawling the URLs for those calls on subsequent visits. Why load SomeWebsite.com's JavaScript.com every time…
My pet theory is that Google actually developed chrome as a web crawler and that consumer release was to ensure that Google would always be able to crawl pages (since sites would always want to work properly with chrome) It also explains why they effectively killed flash and Java applets. They were competing technologies that weren't owned by Google and not crawlable. If they would have taken off, Google's position a…
If that was true, you would think they would have responded better to the threat of Facebook than with Google+ and their distasteful pushing of it on all their platforms. What do I mean with “the threat of Facebook”? In the old days, before today’s large “social media” sites, people made their own web pages on places like GeoCities or on simpler social-media-like sites like LiveJournal, etc. Those sites all had conte…
Putting walled gardens around large portions of the net will inevitably result in endless mergers and an eventual "website fee" that users pay to one of three highly entrenched monopolies that control all the content. It will be back to the cable TV days in no time
My pet theory is that Google actually developed chrome as a web crawler and that consumer release was to ensure that Google would always be able to crawl pages (since sites would always want to work properly with chrome) It also explains why they effectively killed flash and Java applets. They were competing technologies that weren't owned by Google and not crawlable. If they would have taken off, Google's position a…