Google Update Bourbon Part 4
Google Update Bourbon Part 4: "' that one way to flush them out is to tweak the algo to bring them to the forefront so they can be identified? ' 'Put yourself in google's mind. '
Granted I don't claim to be a PhD like some of Google's Folks (only a BS, Comp Sci) and I've only been programming professionally for some 23 years, but even I know you ALWAYS TEST things OFFLINE, in a simulated test-bed scenario before risking putting it out in a LIVE situation where it can cause collateral damage to others and embarassment to yourself. EVERY real company I've ever worked for has always done it that way.
You test it before it goes live AND you have a quick reversal contingency in place if something goes wrong. Even the military requires gov contractors to maintain a second independent system for beta testing new features and debugging old ones. You don't 'tweak' in the field when your profits are on the line and the customer is watching.
Apparently the datacenters are able to run a search independently and have their own copy of the database since they often have different data.
How much can one spare data-center cost compared to how much bad publicity and ill-will alone which they are creating.
Even without additional expenditures and using what they have on hand, they could very simply take one of the umpteen data-center's which they typically use in rotation and reserve it for their own use in DEBUGGING their algorithm BEFORE it GOES LIVE.
And only once it's perfect, upload all the data to the other sites.
Sorry, not convinced their method is sound.
So that leaves only two alternatives, Either it really IS broken and wasn't EXPECTED to act as it is, or they INTEND for these versions to get out for PUBLIC use/comment/feedback, or webmaster reaction, or to discourage the wrong element. That would be more plausible to me. Now on the other hand"
Granted I don't claim to be a PhD like some of Google's Folks (only a BS, Comp Sci) and I've only been programming professionally for some 23 years, but even I know you ALWAYS TEST things OFFLINE, in a simulated test-bed scenario before risking putting it out in a LIVE situation where it can cause collateral damage to others and embarassment to yourself. EVERY real company I've ever worked for has always done it that way.
You test it before it goes live AND you have a quick reversal contingency in place if something goes wrong. Even the military requires gov contractors to maintain a second independent system for beta testing new features and debugging old ones. You don't 'tweak' in the field when your profits are on the line and the customer is watching.
Apparently the datacenters are able to run a search independently and have their own copy of the database since they often have different data.
How much can one spare data-center cost compared to how much bad publicity and ill-will alone which they are creating.
Even without additional expenditures and using what they have on hand, they could very simply take one of the umpteen data-center's which they typically use in rotation and reserve it for their own use in DEBUGGING their algorithm BEFORE it GOES LIVE.
And only once it's perfect, upload all the data to the other sites.
Sorry, not convinced their method is sound.
So that leaves only two alternatives, Either it really IS broken and wasn't EXPECTED to act as it is, or they INTEND for these versions to get out for PUBLIC use/comment/feedback, or webmaster reaction, or to discourage the wrong element. That would be more plausible to me. Now on the other hand"
posted by Hugh W at 8:35 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home