Google Homepage Circa 1997

Google Homepage Circa 1997(web.archive.org)

44 points by n-named 15 years ago | 13 comments

We know what happened to Larry and Sergei, but I was curious what happened to Scott Hassan and Alan Steremberg:

Scott: http://www.zdnet.com/news/life-after-google-with-millions/18...

Alan: http://www.thealarmclock.com/mt/archives/2007/05/google_weat... / http://news.cnet.com/Start-up-warms-up-personal-robots/2100-...

dasil003 15 years ago |

It blows my mind that the entire corpus of fetched web pages can fit on a single midrange laptop's HD today; clustering on indeed.

David 15 years ago |

From the FAQ page: "8) Your logo is upside down: Why is the light source obviously below the image? It looks quite unnatural...

The logo is simply a scan of my hand, from a flatbed scanner converted to black and white. The "back" in the picture is the scanner cover, and the shadows are from the scanner light."

But no image on the main page =( I really wish they'd archived that, too. (Says something about the necessity of making v1 look good. Of course, the web was a different place in '97.)

jawee 15 years ago | |

http://www.google.com/logos/backrub_small.jpg

Found at: http://www.google.com/logos/fan.html (scroll to the bottom and it has older official Google logos)

toolate 15 years ago | | |

http://blogoscoped.com/files/google-backrub-2007.png full size for those that are interested.

David 15 years ago | | |

Awesome! I should have known to google it... xD

Kilimanjaro 15 years ago |

Backrub?

http://web.archive.org/web/19971210065425/backrub.stanford.e...

tragiclos 15 years ago |

Is any of the data about the size of their index and so on still available? Is there some competitive advantage to keeping this secret?

lubos 15 years ago | |

it's probably meaningless by now... my guess is that the reason why google doesn't publish stats, they simply don't want bing or yahoo or someone else claim to have the biggest index and gain cheap press coverage... after all it's not about how big index you got but you are doing with it

n-named 15 years ago |

Why was my title edited? It is so OG [1]. Think about it in the context of, this is my research project/company launch page. OG is accurate and should not have been stripped from the headline. Unless of course someone did this first?

[1] http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=og

scotth 15 years ago | |

Unnecessary editorializing? Goofy language? Pick one.

n-named 15 years ago | | |

You're right. I was just a bit excited that I found it. HN wouldn't be as good if everyone did this.

n-named 15 years ago |

I haven't seen this before, and found the statistics at the bottom interesting.