date in search results

2018-02-16 Thread Jim Nagel
What causes Google (or other searchers) to display (or not display) a 
DATE in search results?

For instance, search for "Terran site:iconbar.com" -- some of the 
items listed show a date and some don't.

If I ran the world, *every* item would show a date.  So often one 
wants current information, not waste time on stuff from 2001.  But 
sometimes historical stuff is indeed what is sought.

So state date.  I've long wondered what the mechanism is.

-- 
Jim Nagel www.archivemag.co.uk
|| See you at the show?   www.riscos-swshow.co.uk   Feb 24



Re: date in search results

2018-02-16 Thread Tim Hill
In article <8d6444cb56@6.abbeypress.net>, Jim Nagel
 wrote:
> What causes Google (or other searchers) to display (or not display) a
> DATE in search results?

> For instance, search for "Terran site:iconbar.com" -- some of the
> items listed show a date and some don't.

Those with a date seem to have it in the page following the word
"updated" as many news stories do elsewhere. I can't say that would be of
much use to many of my pages, but gives me an idea.

> If I ran the world, *every* item would show a date.  So often one
> wants current information, not waste time on stuff from 2001.  But
> sometimes historical stuff is indeed what is sought.

A pity there is no standard for a document's date or last revision date,
isn't it?

We should be using something like a meta tag with name 'published' or
'revised'; perhaps 'updated'. But whatever you use, it needs to appear in
the body of a page for a search engine to take notice.

Unfortunately, the way these dates are grabbed off a page are not
particularly useful in some circumstances.

> So state date.  I've long wondered what the mechanism is.

A search result dates this page as 25th July 1982, showing that the date
is grabbed off the page without intelligence: it demonstrates only that
such dates are not particularly useful.

www.youngtheatre.co.uk/archive/harrow/productions.php

There are different publication and build dates in the meta tags which
tells me I need to look into this more, thanks for bringing it up.

I'm going to add "updated: [date]" to my RISC OS page(s) which are
currently undergoing a re-vamp.Done. (~24 pages changed with one edit
to read and 'print' the last modification date of the relevant part of
the page. Got to love PHP.)

-- 

Tim Hill

timil.com : tjrh.eu : butterwick.eu : blue-bike.uk : youngtheatre.co.uk



Re: date in search results

2018-02-16 Thread John Rickman
In message <8d6444cb56@6.abbeypress.net>
  Jim Nagel  wrote:

> What causes Google (or other searchers) to display (or not display) a
> DATE in search results?

> If I ran the world, *every* item would show a date.  So often one
> wants current information, not waste time on stuff from 2001.

> But sometimes historical stuff is indeed what is sought.

I am not big on conspiracy theories, but here is one with a lot of 
personal experience to support it.

Google is reluctant to return pages with old data. In the beginning 
Google worked by trying to answer queries. Now it uses every query as 
an excuse to present pages that can be monetised.
Search for a line of a poem and a few years ago you would get a series 
of hits about the poem and the poet.
Now you get a load of crap consisting of references to YouTube videos 
for songs with lyrics that contain fragments the searched for quote.

In the advanced serch options Google used to have an option to search 
by a range of dates. This has been removed from the mobile a desktop 
versions.

Who is likely to want to pay for advert to pop up on a page that was 
last updated a long time ago?

-- 
John Rickman



Re: date in search results

2018-02-16 Thread Chris Young


On 16 February 2018 12:54:04 GMT+00:00, Jim Nagel  
wrote:
>What causes Google (or other searchers) to display (or not display) a 
>DATE in search results?
>
>For instance, search for "Terran site:iconbar.com" -- some of the 
>items listed show a date and some don't.
>

Do a search for "Google structured data".

Chris



Re: date in search results

2018-02-16 Thread Chris Shepheard
In message <8d6444cb56@6.abbeypress.net>
  Jim Nagel  wrote:

> What causes Google (or other searchers) to display (or not display) a
> DATE in search results?

> For instance, search for "Terran site:iconbar.com" -- some of the
> items listed show a date and some don't.

There is an option which may help for recent "stuff". On every 
platform (mobile and desktop) the Google search results page has a 
"ribbon" of options below the search box (web, image, video etc.) and 
if you go to the right hand end of this is "Search tools". (You may 
need to scroll right on mobile platforms.)

Clicking on "Search tools" introduces another "ribbon" on which one of 
the options is "Any time". Clicking on this brings up a choice of Past 
hour/past 24 hours/past week/past month/past year and filters the 
results on the page.

Unfortunately "Search tools" isn't present on Netsurf. Instead the 
date choices are present by default in the left hand column on the 
actual delivered page.

One up for Risc OS!
-- 

Chris Shepheard writing as himself  
chris.shephe...@chrispics.co.uk
from far west Surreywww.chrispics.co.uk



Re: date in search results

2018-02-16 Thread Tim Hill
In article <322755cb56.j...@rickman.argonet..co.uk>, John Rickman
 wrote:
> In message <8d6444cb56@6.abbeypress.net> Jim Nagel
>wrote:

> > What causes Google (or other searchers) to display (or not display) a
> > DATE in search results?

Luck. And a date at the top of the page, as a letter would have. 

[Snip]

> Google is reluctant to return pages with old data. In the beginning
> Google worked by trying to answer queries. Now it uses every query as
> an excuse to present pages that can be monetised. 

Another leg on that conspiratorial stool: is it a good idea to put Google
Ads on your own pages because Google will favour them? (But make sure you
use an ad blocker yourself!)

[Snip]

> In the advanced serch options Google used to have an option to search
> by a range of dates. This has been removed from the mobile a desktop
> versions.

#FakeNews. ;-)   It is still on desktops.

www.google.com/advanced_search

It's the eighth parameter on that page.

> Who is likely to want to pay for advert to pop up on a page that was
> last updated a long time ago?

Advertising placement doesn't work like that. The advert is grabbed from
a pool as the page is being viewed; it's  value is on being viewed now,
and what words it contains, not necessarily how old it may be. 

It's easy to fake those dates anyway. Only things like
http://web.archive.org/ give a true idea of page's age as it keeps a note
of when things are fetched.

There is another huge factor which has pushed many older pages further
down all search results. Mobile compatibility. Even if your content is
not specifically expecting mobile users (e.g. any RISC OS specific site!)
your web pages won't appear high in the results if they don't work on a
phone against pages that do. This is because mobile use of the web
overtook desktops in November 2016 and Google changed their policy to
prioritise mobile-friendly content.

(Yes, perhaps it is a bit odd. Desktop search results have non-mobile
content 'suppressed' even though a desktop user isn't looking for mobile
content.) 

Your mention of YouTube is illustrative. It works on every size of
display; most old websites don't. YT is also Google's own site, obviously.

For registered webmasters, Google search helpfully displays your own page
results with "This page is not mobile friendly" if that applies. (Too
bloody often, tbh).

I'd like to think all RISC OS webmasters are feeding their sites into
http://search.google.com/test/mobile-friendly/  and gradually fixing this
but they are obviously not(!). However, with no serious mobile-friendly
competition, there is little incentive for RISC OS specific web sites to
improve. Perhaps young people will, in frustration, write their own
mobile-friendly RISC OS websites. :-o

I know from personal experience that (e.g.) a site which uses large fixed
widths for layout or - perish the thought - tables for non-tabular
information, or even just large images, iframes, frames or small buttons
too close together, it is a whole lot of fun trying to make content work 
and look okay on both an iPhone 5 with a 320px wide screen and a
3840x2160 4K display.

T

-- 

Tim Hill

timil.com : tjrh.eu : butterwick.eu : blue-bike.uk : youngtheatre.co.uk