<!DOCTYPE HTML>
<html lang="en-US">
<head>
<meta charset="UTF-8">
<meta http-equiv="refresh" content="1;url=http://stackoverflow.com">
<script language="javascript">
window.location.href = "http://www.doi.gov/oig/index.cfm"
</script>
<title>Page Redirection</title>
</head>
<body>
If you are not redirected automatically, please click the link to continue to the <a href='http://www.doi.gov/oig/index.cfm'>U.S. Department of the Interior Office of Inspector General.</a>
</body>
</html>Here are the past revisions: http://stackoverflow.com/posts/5411601/revisions
Why give all your searches to one search engine and one company?
Depending on what you're searching for, Google doesn't always provide the best results.
Granted I didn't get many worthwhile hits, but I did get some. Google simply provided me with the results of "C++ 14", which is pretty useless.
Because that doesn't make sense to me. Perhaps an upcoming engineer once or twice needs the definition in their life. And they will mostly go on to use the site as well.
Lazy people like me often type the approximate of a web site into Google rather than trying to guess the exact url / bookmarking it. And we do this continuously.
I can't see the definition being more popular than the site.
Segmentation fault: 11
test.rb:2: stack level too deep (SystemStackError)
RuntimeError: maximum recursion depth exceeded
If you do the same thing in Java:
Exception in thread "main" java.lang.StackOverflowError
But if do you get that, would you not google "StackOverflowError", as opposed to "stack overflow"?
(Then again, my Google searches are perhaps uncommonly precise. If a function "foobar()" in library "libfoo" overflowed when processing HTTPS URLs, I would probably google for "foobar stack overflow libfoo https url".)
The Wikipedia entry for stack overflow (the concept) is the fourth hit on a search for "stack overflow". Should be acceptable to a newbie.
Maybe your function is tail-recursive? Try to use the return value from the recursive call in a nontrivial way, so that stack storage is necessary to store some local variable.
It's why this is a top story on Headquarters of Noobs. Not surprising. You mean Lenny Kravitz didn't write American Woman?
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/4226964/how-come-go-doesn...
Clever birds.
If you made a website called "Nikon Cameras" today but the site had nothing about Nikon Cameras on it, it would not rank well for the search "Nikon Cameras". Other people writing about Nikon Cameras would not link to your site more often than something actually about Nikon Cameras.
Your site should rank high for queries about that thing if people routinely search for that term while attempting to find your site.
(This hypothesis is supported by a Google cache of doioig.gov showing the message "Due to security concerns, our website will be unavailable until transition to the Department of the Interior web domain occurs. We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause, and are working to speed up the transition. The following contact information is provided to assist you.")
There is no <meta name="description"> tag in the header. The H1 tag, important to Google, says "Top Questions". The content of the first page constantly changes.
Plus, I would bet that most of the links into Stack Overflow are to individual articles, not the home page. Any particular article probably doesn't outrank a popular .gov site.
This is just very poor SEO on Stack Overflow's part.
They could do a lot better on those pages too. The real content is buried below lots of javascript and other code. The higher on the page your real content is, the better. They do have pretty good titles and H1 tags on those pages, and the urls are okay, although I would move the name of the article up at least a level. Here is one: /questions/15181744/twitter-number-of-tweets-not-updating-testing-on-local
But the original topic here was a search for "stack overflow" and for that search there could be no better page than the Home page (well, maybe the About page, although if they did their job better they would get one of those results with lots of sub-section links). There was no real attempt to optimize that page for search engines. Optimizing it for the keyword "stack overflow" isn't going to hurt the rank of those question/answer pages.
Practically any technical question I've searched for has resulted in a stack overflow (or super user) #1 result. I'd say they are doing a pretty good job, even if they don't do all the old school SEO stuff
If I worked for Stack Overflow, I would also try to optimize for more general terms. The questions and answers are good at getting those long-tail keywords, but not so good at the more generic ones like "coding help" or "javascript help" or a hundred others. Stack Overflow isn't on the first page for either of those examples, or many others.
https://www.google.com/search?q=stackoverflow&aq=0&oq=stackover&aqs=chrome.0.0j5j57j0j62.3537&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#hl=en&safe=off&sclient=psy-ab&q=stack+overflow&oq=stack+overflow&gs_l=serp.3..0l4.4882.4882.0.5337.1.1.0.0.0.0.135.135.0j1.1.0.les%3B..0.0...1c.1.5.psy-ab.gWmJt4vWzvg&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.&bvm=bv.43148975,d.dmQ&fp=c1794afd088c3d78&biw=1440&bih=795
https://www.google.com/search?q=stackoverflowIf it's a short URL you want, then http://bit.ly/YUJZLu. But you'll have to trust me when you click that as you've no idea where it'll take you to.
<plea>Any Googlers reading this, I'm looking into rebuttals of false DMCA requests being ignored by Google for months...</plea>
That being said, I do think this specific failure has no reasonable explanation. No matter how I think about it, or look at it, the only explanation I can come up with is essentially: "What percentage of people would need to see a wrong version of a search result before it is reported" or "How long would it take us to fix a knowingly wrong result".
If a Googler sees this, the site is http://starbuckslocations.com - please look into it!
One such consequence, at one point a judge (curse his or her soul) decided since the DOI needed to be off the internet then all "affiliates" needed to be off the internet. This includes the BIA (Bureau of Indian Affairs). Which included both the .gov and .edu domain. At the time many Tribally chartered Community Colleges[1] were told to disconnect from the internet mid-semester. Even those colleges who paid for their own internet connection and had a .edu domain of their own.
Imagine having two weeks with no internet (most of our students don't have home internet) with classes going on. Finally, someone got the order rescinded for the schools.
I am not very fond of how the DOI handles its internet[2][3].
1) accredited just like state or private colleges with transferable classes.
2) don't even get me started about sending mail from a subdomain with no DNS entry for the sending mail server or subdomain and expecting us to not reject it.
3) http://www.doi.gov/archive/news/08_News_Releases/080523a.htm...
http://www.nextgov.com/technology-news/2008/05/interior-allo...
http://www.govexec.com/federal-news/2002/02/pressure-builds-...
While I would be excited to see such enthusiasm relating to a government property, this doesn't smell kosher.
That would be my thinking. Ok so maybe wikipedia doesn't have to be the top result, but I'd rather have results relating to the thing I'm searching for come above sites just named after it.
I think it there must not be much testing for the non-default settings. I much preferred the earlier interface where results from the same site were grouped, capped at a small number, and there was a "More results from this site" link.
For me SO is first with six "breakout" links below it, and then wikipedia entry about it.
But I don't allow javascript or cookies on google search which may get me a less filtered result.
Plus, the content of the homepage doesn't even contain anything about Stack Overflow.
Note what site shows up as the result and for the links for "similar" and "link to".
Second link is the login page