Re: Not sure how useful this is ... but ...

From: Thomas Hallgren
Subject: Re: Not sure how useful this is ... but ...
Date: ,
Msg-id: 44812943.2050401@tada.se
(view: Whole thread, Raw)
In response to: Re: Not sure how useful this is ... but ...  (Robert Treat)
List: pgsql-advocacy

Tree view

Not sure how useful this is ... but ...  ("Marc G. Fournier", )
 Re: Not sure how useful this is ... but ...  ("Marc G. Fournier", )
  Re: Not sure how useful this is ... but ...  ("Joshua D. Drake", )
  Re: Not sure how useful this is ... but ...  ("Guido Barosio", )
   Re: Not sure how useful this is ... but ...  (Robert Treat, )
    Re: Not sure how useful this is ... but ...  (Thomas Hallgren, )
    Re: Not sure how useful this is ... but ...  (Josh Berkus, )
    Quick Reference Software Guide  (Michael Dean, )
     Re: Quick Reference Software Guide  (Josh Berkus, )
      Re: Quick Reference Software Guide  ("Joshua D. Drake", )
     Re: Quick Reference Software Guide  (Chander Ganesan, )
  Re: Not sure how useful this is ... but ...  (Kaare Rasmussen, )
 Re: Not sure how useful this is ... but ...  (Dirk Riehle, )
  Re: Not sure how useful this is ... but ...  (Ned Lilly, )
 Re: Quick Reference Software Guide  (Chris Browne, )
  Re: Quick Reference Software Guide  (Darcy Buskermolen, )
   Re: Quick Reference Software Guide  ("Jim C. Nasby", )
    Re: Quick Reference Software Guide  ("Marc G. Fournier", )
     Re: Quick Reference Software Guide  ("Jim C. Nasby", )
      Re: Quick Reference Software Guide  ("Guillaume Lelarge", )
      Re: Quick Reference Software Guide  (Michael Dean, )
       Re: Quick Reference Software Guide  (Robert Treat, )
        Re: Quick Reference Software Guide  (Michael Dean, )
         Re: Quick Reference Software Guide  (Robert Treat, )
 Re: Quick Reference Software Guide  (Chris Browne, )

Reading that the trends are "based upon just a portion of our searches" makes me believe
that the trend is based on sampling, and thus relative to the number of Google searches
overall (and thus *not* relative to its own history). That would explain a lot. There has
been a vast increase in Google overall usage over the last couple of years.

Another reason might be that the more common a term gets, the more pointless it becomes to
use it verbatim in a search. Using it phrases is a different matter of course but I doubt
the reflects fragments of phrases.

Google Labs admit that the product is "in the early stages of development". They probably
have a long way to go before the "trend" becomes meaningful to look at. In my opinion, the
"News Reference Volume" diagram is far more interesting the "Search Volume". That diagram
should be the major one.

My conclusion. This is not useful at all. Not yet.

Regards,
Thomas Hallgren


pgsql-advocacy by date:

From: Thomas Hallgren
Date:
Subject: Re: Not sure how useful this is ... but ...
From: Dirk Riehle
Date:
Subject: Re: Not sure how useful this is ... but ...