> First result [scb.co.th] ... Google thinks is from 2003-03-15, except it mentions COVID-19 so it obviously isn't.
Interesting catch, seems Google grossly mistagged its date. IA confirms it was actually published 2021-09-06 [0], but that isn't tagged or referenced anywhere in the article text or HTML. I'm assuming Google misinferred the date as "2003-03-15" because the first two paragraphs talk about the SARS crisis, which was declared by the WHO around 2003-03.
> I don't doubt that some of those results are from 1998 to 2005, but the millions of results number specifically is meaningless.
Yes, seems there's not much QC on Google's date-inferencing of "old" articles. Hence the date-range is hit-and-miss, and search hit counts (which Google is eliminating anyway). I mean if anyone wanted to QC it, just search "old" internet for telltale terms like "COVID", "Nicki Minaj", "President Zelenskyy" etc. that should hardly generate any hits.
Interesting catch, seems Google grossly mistagged its date. IA confirms it was actually published 2021-09-06 [0], but that isn't tagged or referenced anywhere in the article text or HTML. I'm assuming Google misinferred the date as "2003-03-15" because the first two paragraphs talk about the SARS crisis, which was declared by the WHO around 2003-03.
> I don't doubt that some of those results are from 1998 to 2005, but the millions of results number specifically is meaningless.
Yes, seems there's not much QC on Google's date-inferencing of "old" articles. Hence the date-range is hit-and-miss, and search hit counts (which Google is eliminating anyway). I mean if anyone wanted to QC it, just search "old" internet for telltale terms like "COVID", "Nicki Minaj", "President Zelenskyy" etc. that should hardly generate any hits.
[0]: https://web.archive.org/web/20210601000000*/https://www.scb....