4 ms·
>That's assuming that it's a simple process to publish a huge list. >In this case an API would be more up-to-date, and less computationally expensive than serv
by ksk 9y ago
>That's assuming that it's a simple process to publish a huge list.
>In this case an API would be more up-to-date, and less computationally expensive than serving large, always-changing lists.
Like Google search?
I fail to see whats hard about returning a large list of items. Its their entire organizations' core competency.
- SquareWheel 9y agoGoogle Search works like an API. You search the keyword, they run it through their algorithms. There's no download of their entire search index because that would be impossible.
- ksk 9y agoThe website here: https://transparencyreport.google.com/safe-browsing/search https://transparencyreport.google.com/safe-browsing/search Makes you type-in a single URL. There is no way to use a keyword to get a list of items back. My point is that it should be trivial for google to do this, since this is their core competency. I fail to understand whats so special about maintaining a tiny list of website URLs that anybody can access at any time? I'd wager you can fit 10+ million URLs per GB. The wayback machine has 300 billion+ pages of full page historical content and you can access all of it. This is entirely within Google's wheelhouse. Certainly, there could be other factors to not handout the list, but I'm merely speaking about the engineering aspect here.