I did a google search on the name of one of my story characters, embedded in quotes, to see whether anyone had half-inched the story. To my surprise, there were absolutely no hits.
I repeated the search, only making it site-specific to storiesonline.net, and google returned two matches.
Why does google find less matches on the whole internet than it does on SOL alone?
AJ
Why does google find less matches on the whole internet than it does on SOL alone?
Actually, why wasn't SOL included in the "whole internet" search?
btw, what's "half-inched" mean?
btw, what's "half-inched" mean?
half-inched - pinched (ie stolen) - cockney rhyming slang.
AJ
Actually, why wasn't SOL included in the "whole internet" search?
SOL probably wasn't included because you have to be logged in to have access to the stories, access which a search robot doesn't have. I think you can configure a robots.txt on the site to allow access but I don't know if I'm correct about this. Following on what I presume, Google can only index that part which is accessible without a login, which isn't much.
So it's more strange to have 2 results with a SOL site search then having no results over the whole internet.
I'm not very knowledgeable about search algorithms but maybe Google performs a new index search if you specify a specific site and the last indexing of that site was a little outdated. Just guessing here. You're probably better of using the SOL search facilities while being logged in if you want to search SOL.
ETA: That leaves the question about why the difference in results. Now I'm curious about that to ;)
SOL probably wasn't included because you have to be logged in to have access to the stories, access which a search robot doesn't have.
You are probably right about that being why SOL's results weren't included the total Internet search.
Which also means that Awnlee's search was probably intended to retrieve results from all story sites on the net, but since they also require a login, no results were returned.
SOL probably wasn't included because you have to be logged in to have access to the stories, access which a search robot doesn't have.
Then why did the second search find it? When he made it site-specific.
Then why did the second search find it? When he made it site-specific.
That's why added an ETA to my post:
ETA: That leaves the question about why the difference in results. Now I'm curious about that to ;)
The only reason I can think of is that the 'whole internet' search did find those results too but way down in the results list so you wouldn't see them on the first few pages. If not that I would really like to know why too.
The only reason I can think of is that the 'whole internet' search did find those results too but way down in the results list so you wouldn't see them on the first few pages. If not that I would really like to know why too.
For the 'whole internet' search, Google reported finding no matches to the string in quotes and instead returned the results of a search without quotes.
The site-specific search found two matches to the string in quotes.
AJ
I'm not very knowledgeable about search algorithms but maybe Google performs a new index search if you specify a specific site and the last indexing of that site was a little outdated. Just guessing here. You're probably better of using the SOL search facilities while being logged in if you want to search SOL.
ETA: That leaves the question about why the difference in results. Now I'm curious about that to ;)
Unless the SOL search is orders of magnitude better than the average site search a Google site specific search will always give you more and better results.
Google's general web searches are getting less and less useful all the time; and that has been found to be intentional.
Unless the SOL search is orders of magnitude better than the average site search a Google site specific search will always give you more and better results.
No it won't because Google can't access the full contents of SOL to index.
Actually, why wasn't SOL included in the "whole internet" search?
And can I have any confidence that sites hosting stolen stories (eg Amazon) wouldn't also be omitted?
AJ
And can I have any confidence that sites hosting stolen stories (eg Amazon) wouldn't also be omitted?
No, Amazon is probably indexed completely. Commercials interests make it a requirement to be indexed as fully as possible, unless you want to hide something of course but that wouldn't make any sense for a commercial site.
No, Amazon is probably indexed completely. Commercials interests make it a requirement to be indexed as fully as possible, unless you want to hide something of course but that wouldn't make any sense for a commercial site.
Alas, that argument makes sense, but it only extends to the parts of the book used in the description or reviews. For what's actually IN the book, it would only include snippets (at most) from the 'sample read' pages, which for many Amazon books are simply random pages. :(
Amazon indexes their commercial offerings, but not their books, as if they did, anyone could then copy the book from the html indexes, which are freely accessed via most standard browsers.
Alas, that argument makes sense, but it only extends to the parts of the book used in the description or reviews. For what's actually IN the book, it would only include snippets (at most) from the 'sample read' pages, which for many Amazon books are simply random pages. :(
Amazon indexes their commercial offerings, but not their books, as if they did, anyone could then copy the book from the html indexes, which are freely accessed via most standard browsers.
Correct, you can't read a complete book on-line on Amazon so a search robot can't read it either, just the publicly available descriptions, previews, pricing etc.
Lazeez,
You probably know more about search engines than anyone here. And you know more about SOL's architecture than anyone in the world.
If a story's character name is not in the story title or description, but only within the story itself, would a Google search see it and report it in its results? I assume the story itself is inside a database and not viewable outside of SOL.
If a story's character name is not in the story title or description
How would a Google search find the name in a story title or description? It is my understanding that the title and description are saved as part of the database you reference.
How would a Google search find the name in a story title or description?
I was thinking because it's on the webpage and the robots scan webpages.
Okay, I can understand what you were thinking of.
I was logged in and tried a search of text strings present on SOL's webpages.
Try what I did. Assume a robot can scan SOL's webpages and do a search on a text string that should be easy to find. Let me know if you get a hit on SOL's site.
ETA: I use Bing as my search engine. Maybe your SE will be more successful.
Let me know if you get a hit on SOL's site.
Yes and no. I Googled "post your stories" with and without the quotes and "random story from the archives" (also with and without). Did not get an SOL hit. Got many other sites, like wattpad and instagram.
But when I Googled "switch blayde", my SOL story page was returned and what looked like an SOL result page for an SOL search by story name. It didn't matter if I put it in quotes or not.
Remember that not-logged-in get a sample of chapters here, so the searched-for content could be in the sample.
Remember that not-logged-in get a sample of chapters here
Are you sure that is true? I tried several searches on the internet that I believe should have returned a hit. I got nothing from the SOL site and I was logged in.
If a story's character name is not in the story title or description, but only within the story itself, would a Google search see it and report it in its results?
Google can see what anybody can see when not logged in. So if a word occurs at the beginning (first half) of the text, then google can see it.
The discrepancy is because SOL is on google's bad side. I have no clue why, but Google doesn't like SOL. Search for 'sex stories' for example. Even though SOL is one of the top 5 sites on the internet size wise and history wise, we end up on page 6 or 7 of google's results.
Google doesn't keep enough of SOL's pages in its index for some reason. Every 5 days Google scans SOL and accesses roughly 75,000 page, from listings to story text. Yet when I check the indexed pages using Google's webmaster tools, it tells me that it has 29,000 pages (out of over 300,000 in SOL's engine).
So when you search for something that you know is on SOL using google, odds are google won't show it to you. But if you do a site search on Google using the site: command, then google does show it. I think that the site: command forces google to show you anything from the site's pages that it crawled even when it doesn't show it in normal search results.
I've heard that you can pay Google to increase your site's visibility, meaning that your site will appear higher in the list when results are displayed. If that's true, it may be that those other sites pay for being listed higher. Money talks.
I've heard that you can pay Google to increase your site's visibility, meaning that your site will appear higher in the list when results are displayed.
I believe that's true. I believe it's true for Amazon too.
I've heard that you can pay Google to increase your site's visibility, meaning that your site will appear higher in the list when results are displayed. If that's true, it may be that those other sites pay for being listed higher. Money talks.
Look up 'Google Adwords'. If you refuse to use the program you can be sure that your site gets indexed at a lower ranking.
I didn't know Google was biased or censored.
...and sometimes just plain wrong, in a weird way, as I've noted before
...and sometimes just plain wrong, in a weird way, as I've noted before
Google can't search exact strings, they also ignore most punctuation and special characters. Even the "Verbatim" tool fails to respect exact matches.
Yandex does a much better job at finding exact matches if you know how to format your search query: Yandex match operators.
Actually that's rather disturbing. It means that a 'vanity search' will likely only turn up instances of story thievery from sites which are on Google's good side.
AJ
SOL is on google's bad side. I have no clue why, but Google doesn't like SOL.
I was talking to my wife about that. She used to work for a not-for-profit HR association focusing on compensation and benefits. Definitely nothing objectionable. Yet Google blocked their site.
Their IT department contacted Google to find out why and had to make many changes to their site. She doesn't know or remember what the changes were.
Their IT department contacted Google to find out why and had to make many changes to their site. She doesn't know or remember what the changes were.
It has become a whole new field in IT business: SEO, Search Engine Optimization. Not only Google but also Bing etc. have set up rules about how a web page should be constructed to get a higher ranking. Search for SEO and you will find hundreds if not thousands of pages with advise on how to optimize your web site. Whole new companies have been setup just to offer the service of SEO. There's a reason that a lot of the crazy creative sites of old have disappeared. They just can't fit in such a set of rules.
Yet another reason I don't use google.
There's absolutely no reason to use Google and many reasons to actively avoid anything Google. There are multiple alternatives: Alternative Search Engines 2018. Check out the specialized CC engine for royalty free content.
Google also discriminates. How so? It orders it's search result using algorithms that have a preference for sites that use Google-api's. I'm not an expert but I will try to explain.
To index a page Google first renders a page much like a browser does. This means it loads css and javascript and renders the page completely. Now here comes the 'dirty' part. Google sets a higher value to sites using cloud based javascript libraries. Guess what the most used libs are? Yep, the Google apis (maps, fonts, etc). Google states several reasons to justify that but they are all baloney of course. They just want you to use as much Google as possible and they make it very easy for lazy web developers. fonts.googleapis.com is maybe the worst of them. Try blocking that (like I do) and most pages will suddenly have all kinds of strange characters displayed. You are almost forced to pass a Google station just to see correct fonts.
Start using DuckDuckGo as your search engine. It won't help much for searching on SOL because I did some research and SOL just isn't as well known as other erotica story sites. Why I have no idea since in my opinion it's one of the very best around.
Start using DuckDuckGo
I tried that one. And others. I use Google because it gives me the best results. It finds what I'm looking for.
Start using DuckDuckGo as your search engine.
I just tried it by searching on "switch blayde" and "s. w. blayde" (without the quotes) on both duckduckgo and Google.
Google results were much much better. Actually, the duckduckgo results were awful.
Google results were much much better. Actually, the duckduckgo results were awful.
Did you switch off the default family filter in DDG?
Check and save the settings and it will be better.
Did you switch off the default family filter in DDG?
Yes, that made it better. I'm insulted that it thinks I'm objectionable.
Yes, that made it better. I'm insulted that it thinks I'm objectionable.
LOL, you have no idea what the stupid world out there thinks what is objectionable or not.
Start using DuckDuckGo as your search engine.
I gave up on DuckDuckGo a long time back.
It was the default search engine for a lightweight alternative browser I was trying out and every time I used it to search the browser would crash. Used Google with the same browser and no crash.
I gave up on DuckDuckGo a long time back.
It was the default search engine for a lightweight alternative browser I was trying out and every time I used it to search the browser would crash. Used Google with the same browser and no crash.
If it's a long time ago try it again. Even then it probably wasn't a DDG problem, after all it's just a web page.
