Posted June 19, 2007 6:00 pm by with 4 comments

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare on Google+Share on FacebookBuffer this page

This week I’ve been doing more testing on Universal Search and the relevancy of its results. Today I decided to Google “Danny Sullivan” to see what results come up in the new Universal Search. Here’s the result I received:

So my question is — who the heck is Danny Hill? And why did his phone book entry in Chittenango, NY come up as the top result? Surely there are at least guys named Danny Sullivan in the phone book in the US…

This just illustrates the point further that Google Universal Search isn’t quite ready for prime time. Sadly, when I Googled Andy, Jordan and me, no interesting phone book entries. In fact, there were no phone book entries for any of us.

However, on a brighter note on Universal Search, I think Google may be hearing our cries on Universal Search relevancy! I did a search for Paris Hilton today, and images of Paris Hilton were the top result. Maybe there’s hope for better relevancy after all?

  • Perhaps you should call Mr. Hill and find out?

    On a serious note, I would hate to have my phone number coming up for queries. I am sure that if someone wanted to find it, they could. At the same time, I don’t leave my home phone number laying around at the subway.

  • AEF

    On a interesting note – A reverse search of the phone number on, you get the name Danny S. and Joann Hill. it could be that his middle name is Sullivan.

  • No wonder you didn’t find anything when you searched for the three of you…the links are bad. 🙂

  • Jordan McCollum

    Hardly surprising for me; I’m not listed in the phone book. We’re an all-cell family for almost two years. 😀

    @Mike–I fixed the links. I promise, we’re all real people, even if our links don’t work or Google hasn’t listed our phone number or social security numbers (yet)!