Updating google search results

In October 2016, Gary Illyes, a webmaster trends analyst with Google, announced that the search engine will be making a new, primary web index dedicated for mobile, with a secondary, less up-to-date index for desktop use.

The change is a response from the continued growth in mobile, and a push for web developers to adopt a mobile-friendly version of their websites. Competitors of Google include Baidu and in China; and in South Korea; Yandex in Russia; in the Czech Republic; Yahoo in Japan, Taiwan and the US, as well as Bing and Duck Duck Go.

Google presents a two-line summary and also a preview of each search result, which includes a link to a cached (stored), usually older version of the page.Google's cache link in its search results provides a way of retrieving information from websites that have recently gone down and a way of retrieving data more quickly than by clicking the direct link.This feature is still available, but many users are not aware of this because it has been moved to the previews of the search results presented next to these.This field, called search engine optimization, attempts to discern patterns in search engine listings, and then develop a methodology for improving rankings to draw more searchers to their client's sites.Search engine optimization encompasses both "on page" factors (like body copy, title elements, H1 heading elements and image alt attribute values) and Off Page Optimization factors (like anchor text and Page Rank).

Search for updating google search results:

updating google search results-44updating google search results-84

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

One thought on “updating google search results”

  1. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Id | Operation | Name | Rows | Bytes | Cost (%CPU)| ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 0 | MERGE STATEMENT | | 130K| 9921K| 258K (1)| | 1 | MERGE | TEST | | | | | 2 | VIEW | | | | | | 3 | NESTED LOOPS | | 130K| 11M| 258K (1)| | 4 | TABLE ACCESS FULL | TEST2 | 128K| 6032K| 172 (5)| | 5 | TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID| TEST | 1 | 48 | 2 (0)| | 6 | INDEX UNIQUE SCAN | TEST_PK | 1 | | 1 (0)| --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Id | Operation | Name | Rows | Bytes | Cost (%CPU)| TQ |IN-OUT| PQ Distrib | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 0 | MERGE STATEMENT | | 109K| 8325K| 1880 (1)| | | | | 1 | PX COORDINATOR | | | | | | | | | 2 | PX SEND QC (RANDOM) | : TQ10002 | 109K| 10M| 1880 (1)| Q1,02 | P-P | HYBRID (ROW| | 9 | VIEW | | | | | Q1,00 | PCWP | | | 10 | NESTED LOOPS | | 109K| 10M| 1880 (1)| Q1,00 | PCWP | | | 11 | PX BLOCK ITERATOR | | | | | Q1,00 | PCWC | | | 12 | TABLE ACCESS FULL | TEST2 | 107K| 5062K| 2 (0)| Q1,00 | PCWP | | | 13 | TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID| TEST | 1 | 48 | 0 (0)| Q1,00 | PCWP | | | 14 | INDEX UNIQUE SCAN | TEST_PK | 1 | | 0 (0)| Q1,00 | PCWP | | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This is much easier to do with Data Stage than with native PL/SQL. Parallel PL/SQL 25.3 23.8 Surely no comparison of update methods could possibly be complete without a test of Bitmap index maintenance. The other intesting outcome is the differing impact of the bitmap index on SET-based updates vs transactional updates (SQL solutions vs PL/SQL solutions).