On the speed of Google

So, after my last post, about 5 minutes ago, talking about the minimum carbon price, I thought I\’d go to Google and see if I could try and work out more about how it would work.

Looking through the results I found that my post of 5 minutes ago was the number two entry for \”minimum carbon price\” in Google.

Highly efficient indexing there guys but not really all that helpful in this specific case…..

5 comments on “On the speed of Google

  1. Something similar happened to me.

    I was looking through the essays submitted by my classmates for a course i do (Long Run Analysis of Firms and Industries; it really is as good as it sounds, and yes, I’m being serious, its awesome) as they are all published on lse’s internal system for our use. I found one of my course mates had referenced my blog in something they submitted to class as I’d written on it the week before.

    Google directing them all round the interwebs to someone they (don’t know) they sit next to.

  2. Left Outside, could you summarise the findings of the course in a line or two? Are all companies dead in the long run or just people? My understanding is that there are only one or two companies in the world that have lasted a thousand years or so, both in Japan, no??

  3. I actually think that is a weakness of google. I preferred it when things took a couple of days to appear on google because it meant when a big story broke you could use it to search what was being said about this particular thing before the story broke.

  4. The google search I did revealed that your article has also been linked to from a site called “Celebrity Mommys” [sic].

  5. “Left Outside, could you summarise the findings of the course in a line or two? ”

    Well basically no. But… see this paper.

    http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/20363/

    “This essay examines the fate of the 100 largest industrial firms in the world in 1912 over the period to 1995. Disappearance and decline were the most common outcomes, but a few outstanding performers ù firms like Burmah / BP and Procter & Gamble ù left descendants eight or nine times their initial size, in “real stock exchange price” terms. There were no significant differences between the performance of giant German, British and American firms, other than a slightly greater tendency to disappear among American firms. The convergence of national performance of giant firms is probably related to converging strategies and structures of such firms in advanced industrial countries. Long-run differences in national economic performance in the twentieth century, at least among industrial leaders, are rooted elsewhere: in non-industrial sectors of the economy or smaller industrial firms. The analysis of the long-run evolution of giant firms also suggests that, while firms in “old” industries on average performed worse than those in “new” ones, the 1912 population included equal numbers of each and there was, in any case, greater variability of outcomes within than between industries. No simple formula enables us to discriminate ex ante between long-run corporate success and failure, for reasons inherent in the nature of modern corporate capitalism”s success as an economic system.”

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.