ImVoiZe

Saturday, October 1, 2011

Technology Overview Of Google

Because it would be tough to describe all of the technology we’ve built for our many products and services in just one page, here’s a glimpse of some key technologies and technical principles behind our products.
Co-founder Larry Page once described the “perfect search engine” as something that “understands exactly what you mean and gives you back exactly what you want.” We can’t claim that Google delivers on that vision 100 percent today, but we’re always working on new technologies aimed at bringing all of Google closer to that ideal.
Before you even enter your query in the search box, Google is continuously traversing the web in real time with software programs called crawlers, or “Googlebots”. A crawler visits a page, copies the content and follows the links from that page to the pages linked to it, repeating this process over and over until it has crawled billions of pages on the web.
Next Google processes these pages and creates an index, much like the index in the back of a book. If you think of the web as a massive book, then Google‘s index is a list of all the words on those pages and where they‘re located, as well as information about the links from those pages, and so on. The index is parceled into manageable sections and stored across a large network of computers around the world.
When you type a query into the Google search box, your query is sent to Google machines and compared with all the documents stored in our index to identify the most relevant matches. In a split second, our system prepares a list of the most relevant pages and also determines the relevant sections and bits of text, images, videos and more. What you get is a list of search results with relevant information excerpted in “snippets” (short text summary) beneath each result.
As Larry said long ago, we want to give you back “exactly what you want.”
Describing the basic crawling, indexing and serving processes of a search engine is just part of the story. The other key ingredients of Google search are:
  • Relevance. As Larry said long ago, we want to give you back “exactly what you want.” When Google was founded, one key innovation was PageRank, a technology that determined the “importance” of a webpage by looking at what other pages link to it, as well as other data. Today we use more than 200 signals, including PageRank, to order websites, and we update these algorithms on a weekly basis. For example, we offer personalized search results based on your web history and location.
  • Comprehensiveness. Google launched in 1998 with just 25 million pages, which even then was a small fraction of the web. Today we index billions and billions of webpages, and our index is roughly 100 million gigabytes. We continue investing to expand the comprehensiveness of our services. In 2007 we introduced Universal Search, which made search more comprehensive by integrating images, videos, news, books and more into our main search results.
  • Freshness. In the early days, Googlebots crawled the web every three or four months, which meant that the information you found on Google typically was out of date. Today we’re continually crawling the web ensuring that you can find the latest news, blogs and status updates minutes or even seconds after they’re posted. With Realtime Search, we’re able to serve up breaking topics from a comprehensive set of sources just moments after events occur.
  • Speed. Our average query response time is roughly one-fourth of a second. In comparison, the average blink of an eye is one-tenth of a second. Speed is a major search priority, which is why in general we don’t turn on new features if they will slow our services down. Instead, search engineers are always working not just on new features, but ways to make search even faster. In addition to smart coding, on the back end we’ve developed distributed computing systems around that globe that ensure you get fast response times. With technologies like autocomplete and Google Instant, we help you find the search terms and results you’re looking for before you’re even finished typing.
Back to top

Ads

Online advertising has come a long way since the first banner ads appeared on the web. In the last 15 years, online advertising has evolved more than any other form of traditional advertising as the Internet and its users evolved—including keyword search advertising, rich media display ads and streaming video ads. While Google’s advertising programs have evolved with the industry, we stay committed to providing ads that are so useful and relevant that they serve as a form of information on their own. With AdWords, for example, advertisers select words and phrases that are relevant to their business as keywords. When people use Google to search for keywords, relevant ads may be displayed alongside the search results. We use an auction to price these ads, which runs automatically every time a user enters a query. Advertisers pay only when a user clicks on their ad, and our system guarantees that they pay the minimum amount necessary to maintain their ad position. They can also immediately track the results of their campaigns.
We give marketers constant feedback so they no longer have to guess how their campaigns are performing or what consumers want. This feedback comes directly from visitors, anonymously and in aggregate, who vote with their clicks on what they‘re looking for and whether they‘re satisfied. With Google Analytics, advertisers get sophisticated aggregate measurements of how visitors arrive to their website, what they do when they‘re there, whether they make a purchase or sign up, and where they go when they‘re done. This data enables marketers to experiment and improve their campaigns continuously: They can try different keywords and ad text, track the value of their keywords and test different layouts of their landing pages to present consumers with relevant information and a high-quality experience. With these insights into customer behavior and customer trends, advertisers can optimise the path from search to sale, so that they reach and satisfy their customers, reach new audiences and improve value on their spend. And in tough economic climates, when value matters more than ever, our measurement tools can help marketers allot their spend to the initiatives that have proven to be most effective.
We’re putting similar technology to work with display ads and other ad formats. In this area, our goal is to build tools that simplify the process of buying and selling ads, make it more effective and measurable, and open the ecosystem to more players. For example, the Google Display Network has grown from simple text ads to include a range of formats including rich media, video, image and Flash, and enables advertisers to reach users across over a million partner AdSense and DoubleClick Ad Exchange websites, and Google properties like Google Finance and YouTube. We automatically match ads to publishers’ webpages in a variety of ways, including by matching ads to the content of the page. As with AdWords, an automatic process determines which ads show up where and how much each advertiser pays.
We’ve also built tools like the DoubleClick Ad Exchange, a first-of-its-kind real-time auction marketplace for display ad space. The Ad Exchange brings together major ad networks, agency trading desks and large publishers. It enables advertisers to bid for ad space in real-time on an impression-by-impression basis, so they can deliver the right display ad at the right time at the right price. And using technology called “dynamic allocation,” it enables publishers to maximise their revenue across both ad space sold directly through their sales force and ad space sold indirectly through ad networks, impression by impression. Across billions of impressions, this can mean significantly increased returns for online publishers.
Back to top

Apps

In the past, the computer applications that people used to connect, communicate and collaborate with others—like email, word processing, calendars and spreadsheets—would have to be “installed” on your computer. This software would live on your computer, jamming it up with old files and outdated versions of the same software. If you spilled coffee on your computer, your files were done for. And you’d continually have to upgrade your programs manually whenever a new version came on the market. These are the kinds of problems that cloud computing technology avoids altogether.
With cloud computing, the apps themselves live “in the cloud”: on the web, so you don’t need any special software or hardware to use them as long as you have an Internet connection. As a result, you can access your stuff from anywhere, using any device with a browser: smartphones, netbooks, laptops. You don’t need to worry about whether an app is compatible with your computer or about upgrades and downloads. Your files are safe from any hard-drive-meets-coffee-cup disaster, and you can invite anyone to share your files or keep them private. If you’re collaborating on something, each of you can work in the same document, without having to save, attach and email version after version, risking the loss of important updates.
For individuals, this can make everyday tasks easier and faster: Imagine planning a wedding, and being able to access your guest list, budget and other important information at work as well as at home, and being able to share everything with your fiancee and family to get input and share planning tasks. For businesses both large and small, cloud computing saves money by removing the need to purchase and maintain software for each client machine, while at the same time enabling employees to be more productive.
This is all possible because the applications and the data associated with them is stored on Google’s machines, rather than on your desktop hard drive or on servers maintained by your company. We keep live copies of your data on multiple servers in each of multiple locations, meaning that there’s no scheduled downtime and your data is backed up and secure.

Mobile and Android

Mobile devices are fast becoming the world‘s portal to information, and we’re committed to developing our products so they can be used on these small computing devices. For many, a mobile phone is the primary or even the only means of accessing the web, so designing our products to be accessible on mobile devices is a key part of making information available to more people around the world. Our goal is to build mobile applications, such as Google Maps and Gmail, that work across multiple devices and locations.
Android is a free, open source mobile platform that any developer can use and any handset manufacturer can install. By opening up mobile devices to all developers, we believe we can drive greater innovation and more choice for the benefit of mobile users everywhere.
Back to top

Google Chrome

We introduced Google Chrome in September 2008 because we believed that a modern browser, designed to handle today’s complex, dynamic web, would be better for users and would help spur greater innovation. We built Google Chrome based on three ideas: speed, simplicity and security.
We built Google Chrome based on three ideas: speed, simplicity and security.
The design of Chrome is sleek and minimal, letting you focus on what you’re doing online rather than taking up valuable screen real estate with unnecessary menus and icons. Meanwhile, every aspect of the browser is optimised for speed, and our powerful JavaScript engine, V8, which was built from the ground up, lets Chrome handle complex web applications at lightning speeds. And Chrome was designed with security in mind, isolating each page in its own “sandbox” for an additional layer of security, automatically updating when new bug fixes and security patches are available. On top of all this, we’ve built in robust support for HTML5 and an extensions gallery for you to personalize and enhance your browsing experience.
Finally, with Chrome as a foundation we’re building Google Chrome OS, an operating system for a new generation of devices that will share Chrome’s focus on speed, simplicity and security.
Back to top

And more…

We’re always looking for the next great innovation, the next way to make something you never thought could be better or easier to use… better and easier to use. Sometimes our work will result in a tiny improvement you may not notice, like a new way of displaying some part of a search result. Other times, we tear up all we‘ve learned in order to start from the beginning.
Sometimes we combine a few technologies to make them even more useful. Google Translate, for example, is the largest machine translation engine in the world, with more than 50 language pairs; using voice recognition, the mobile version of Google Translate can transcribe your voice, translate what you’ve said into another language, and then speak it back to you in another language. This is just one example of the things that are becoming increasingly possible. And we’re always looking ahead for more.

Da Vinci Mona Lisa Mystery; Real Secret Codes Discovered

Leonardo Da Vinci’s mysterious Mona Lisa has just gotten even more intriguing. The Italian genius apparently painted tiny numbers and letters into the eyes of the enigmatic painting, but their meaning is unclear.
The 500-year-old Renaissance masterpiece has long puzzled art historians, from Mona Lisa’s wry smile to the identity of the woman in the painting. Some believe it is Da Vinci himself, painted as a woman.
As for Da Vinci, he was a fan of riddles and secret codes and his paintings formed the basis of the best selling fictional work “The Da Vinci Code.”
[ad#Google350x250]
The book by Dan Brown and the 2006 movie based on it starring Tom Hanks claimed the Mona Lisa contained secrets about the life of Jesus Christ.
The book postulated that Christ had a child with Mary Magadelene and established a blood line that exists to this day.
The real codes in Mona Lisa’s eyes may not be quite so consequential, but they are mystifying, nonetheless, not only for what they may mean, but also because of that fact that Da Vinci was able paint them so small.
The letters and numbers cannot be seen with the naked eye.
Italy’s National Committee for Cultural Heritage said the symbols were detected through high resolution images of the painting.
“To the naked eye the symbols are not visible, but with a magnifying glass they can clearly be seen,” said Committee President Silvano Vinceti.
“In the right eye appear to be the letters LV which could well stand for his name Leonardo Da Vinci, while in the left eye there are also symbols, but they are not as defined,” he said.
“It is very difficult to make them out clearly but they appear to be the letters CE or it could be the letter B. You have to remember the picture is almost 500 years old so it is not as sharp and clear as when first painted,” he added.
In the arch of the bridge in the background the number 72 can be seen or it could be an L and the number 2, he said.
The clue to the codes was found in a 50-year-old book about the painting that was discovered in an antique shop. It mentions the codes and symbols, Vinceti said.
“It’s remarkable that no-one has noticed these symbols before and from the preliminary investigations we have carried out we are confident they are not a mistake and were put there by the artist,” Vinceti said.

Top 10 Worst Technological Failures

Sometimes even the best can fail and at the most inappropriate of times, leaving you stunned and confounded; Zidane’s legendary headbutt in the 2006 world cup surprised even the casual fan. Technology isn’t invincible either; it can leave Bill Gates speechless in face of a blue screen of death in Windows 98 in front of hundreds. Here we are with Top 10 worst technological failures that left lawsuits to near-mayhem in their wake.

10. Hubble Space Telescope


A 2.5 Billion dollar device, which finally goes to space, sends back some pictures and which shockingly enough, are all blurry. The problem was with the telescope’s calibration instruments, as later it was found out. The problem was fixed using corrective lenses three years later.

9. Dell laptop explosions


At a conference in Japan, Dell’s laptop suddenly burst into flames. There were multiple explosions and the fireworks continued for a good 5 minutes or so. It turned out that batteries were the ones that exploded and eventually Dell announced recall of 22 thousand of their notebook batteries. Fortunately, there were no casualties.

Video:





Windows 7 Wallpapers 2011 and Themes 2011

Windows 7 Wallpapers 2011 and Themes 2011

The 2011 theme for Windows 7 is created by Tim Heuer, and was created using 2011 desktop wallpapers released by Smashing Magazine. The theme consists of 35 “2010″ desktop wallpapers which are of really high quality.
Installing the 2011 theme for Windows 7 is easy, just download the .theme file and double click on it to use it in Windows 7.
Latest Windows 7 Themes From Here
Download 2011 Wallpapers for your Desktop

Turtle Beach XP500 Gaming Headset for Xbox360 Gaming Console

Turtle Beach XP500 Gaming Headset Now Available for Pre-Order at Headphones.com - Turtle Beach expands on their hugely successful PX5 gaming headphone to give maximum Xbox 360 compatibility with the new XP500.

Headphones.com, a leading internet retailer of headphones, earphones, gaming headsets, and headphone accessories is proud to announce the availability of the Turtle Beach XP500 gaming headset, specifically for use with the Xbox360 gaming console.


The predecessor of the XP500, the Turtle Beach PX5 which was originally made for the popular PlayStation3, has been one of Headphones.com's top selling gaming headsets. The demand for a pure wireless surround sound gaming headset has increased as technology advances, and Turtle Beach has introduced the perfect solution to integrate with multiple devices.

The XP500 introduces itself as a multifunctional surround sound gaming headset with the ability to connect to mobile phones, laptops, and any other Bluetooth enabled device. This gives it the ability to stream music, chat or watch videos with sound on any of these devices.

Gamers will be most impressed with features which enhance the gaming experience. Turtle Beach offers a fully customizable interface which users can connect to through the Turtle Beach website and download different game profiles. These game profiles will eliminate unnecessary background noise for the specific game and improve the accuracy of the sound of the games virtual environment, pulling the gamer deeper into the game.

“Here at Headphones.com, we are very excited to be able to offer consumers the Turtle Beach Earforce XP500 in time for the holiday season,” stated Brian Gluck, Manager of Headphones.com. “We have seen great success with the previous top rated Turtle Beach headset and are looking forward to bringing the XP500 to the Xbox 360 user base.”

Users will be able to connect to the base of the XP500 via optical TOSLINK input which preserves the quality of the game’s audio. Because the XP500 transmits sound at 150MIPS, game sound will reach the user’s ear as the game was meant to be heard. [Source]

Slimmest 1TB USB 3.0 Portable Hard Drives - Oyen Digital U32 Shadow™

Oyen Digital Introduces U32 Shadow™ 2.5" USB 3.0 Portable Hard Drive Series - Oyen Digital offers the slimmest 1TB USB 3.0 portable hard drive on the market

Oyen Digital LLC, a leading provider of high-performance storage solutions, announced the newest member to its family of portable hard drives - the U32 Shadow™ 1TB USB 3.0 Portable Hard Drive. The U32 Shadow™ is the slimmest 1TB USB 3.0 hard drive on the market today. The series features an attractive aluminum housing, measuring 4.9-inches x 0.48-inches x 2.9-inches, while providing reliable protection and maximum heat dissipation.
Oyen Digital U32 Shadow 1TB USB 3.0 Portable Hard Drives
"We're pleased to offer the new U32 Shadow, which is designed for ultra-portability while delivering ultra-fast USB 3.0 transfer speeds," said Steve Oyen, Owner of Oyen Digital.

Oyen Digital's U32 Shadow™ is bundled with a free 7GB Online Cloud Storage account from SpiderOak with additional cloud storage available at a 10% discounted rate.

The U32 Shadow™ is stocked and shipped by Amazon.com. The product can also be purchased directly through Oyen Digital's website as well as authorized resellers.

U32 Shadow™ USB 3.0 Product Details:

Capacities: 250GB to 1.0 TB
Dimensions: 4.9" x 0.48" x 2.9"
Guaranteed: 3 year warranty
Connection: USB 3.0
MSRP: starting at $64.95

Visit Oyen Digital for more information regarding the U32 Shadow™ USB 3.0 Portable Hard Drive Series as well as the full line of Oyen Digital external hard drives and RAID systems. [Source]

THE World University Rankings 2010

World RankOrdered by this column, descending Institution Country / Region Overall score change
1 Harvard University United States
96.1
2 California Institute of Technology United States
96.0
3 Massachusetts Institute of Technology United States
95.6
4 Stanford University United States
94.3
5 Princeton University United States
94.2
6 University of Cambridge United Kingdom
91.2
6 University of Oxford United Kingdom
91.2
8 University of California Berkeley United States
91.1
9 Imperial College London United Kingdom
90.6
10 Yale University United States
89.5
11 University of California Los Angeles United States
87.7
12 University of Chicago United States
86.9
13 Johns Hopkins University United States
86.4
14 Cornell University United States
83.9
15 Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich Switzerland
83.4
15 University of Michigan United States
83.4
17 University of Toronto Canada
82.0
18 Columbia University United States
81.0
19 University of Pennsylvania United States
79.5
20 Carnegie Mellon University United States
79.3
21 University of Hong Kong Hong Kong
79.2
22 University College London United Kingdom
78.4
23 University of Washington United States
78.0
24 Duke University United States
76.5
25 Northwestern University United States
75.9
26 University of Tokyo Japan
75.6
27 Georgia Institute of Technology United States
75.3
28 Pohang University of Science and Technology Republic of Korea
75.1
29 University of California Santa Barbara United States
75.0
30 University of British Columbia Canada
73.8
30 University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill United States
73.8
32 University of California San Diego United States
73.2
33 University of Illinois - Urbana United States
73.0
34 National University of Singapore Singapore
72.9
35 McGill University Canada
71.7
36 University of Melbourne Australia
71.0
37 Peking University China
70.7
38 Washington University Saint Louis United States
69.9
39 Ecole Polytechnique France
69.5
40 University of Edinburgh United Kingdom
69.2
41 Hong Kong University of Science and Technology Hong Kong
69.0
42 Ecole Normale Superieure, Paris France
68.6
43 Australian National University Australia
67.0
43 University of Göttingen Germany
67.0
43 Karolinska Institute Sweden
67.0
43 University of Wisconsin United States
67.0
47 Rice University United States
66.9
48 École Polytechnique Federale of Lausanne Switzerland
66.5
49 University of Science and Technology of China China
66.0
49 University of California Irvine United States
66.0
51 Vanderbilt University United States
65.9
52 University of Minnesota United States
65.6
53 Tufts University United States
65.2
54 University of California Davis United States
65.0
55 Brown University United States
64.9
56 University of Massachusetts United States
64.7
57 Kyoto University Japan
64.6
58 Tsinghua University China
64.2
59 Boston University United States
64.0
60 New York University United States
63.9
61 University of Munich Germany
63.0
61 Emory University United States
63.0
63 University of Notre Dame United States
62.8
64 University of Pittsburgh United States
62.7
65 Case Western Reserve University United States
62.2
66 Ohio State University United States
62.1
67 University of Colorado United States
61.6
68 University of Bristol United Kingdom
61.4
68 University of California Santa Cruz United States
61.4
68 Yeshiva University United States
61.4
71 University of Sydney Australia
61.2
72 University of Virginia United States
61.1
73 University of Adelaide Australia
60.7
73 University of Southern California United States
60.7
75 William & Mary United States
60.4
76 Trinity College Dublin Ireland
60.3
77 King's College London United Kingdom
59.7
78 Stony Brook University United States
59.6
79 Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology Republic of Korea
59.5
79 University of Sussex United Kingdom
59.5
81 University of Queensland Australia Australia
59.1
81 University of York United Kingdom
59.1
83 Ruprecht Karl University of Heidelberg Germany
59.0
83 University of Utah United States
59.0
85 Durham University United Kingdom
58.9
86 London School of Economics and Political Science United Kingdom
58.3
87 University of Manchester United Kingdom
58.0
88 Royal Holloway, University of London United Kingdom
57.9
89 Lund University Sweden
57.8
90 University of Zurich Switzerland
57.7
90 University of Southampton United Kingdom
57.7
90 Wake Forest University United States
57.7
93 McMaster University Canada
57.6
94 University College Dublin Ireland
57.5
95 University of Basel Switzerland
57.3
95 George Washington University United States
57.3
95 University of Arizona United States
57.3
98 University of Maryland College Park United States
57.2
99 Dartmouth College United States
57.1
100 ENS de Lyon France
57.0
101 Technical University of Munich Germany
56.9
102 University of Helsinki Finland
56.6
103 University of St. Andrews United Kingdom
56.5
104 Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute United States
56.4
105 Rutgers the State University of New Jersey United States
56.3
106 Purdue University United States
56.2
107 University of Cape Town South Africa
56.1
107 National Tsing Hua University Taiwan
56.1
109 Seoul National University Republic of Korea
56.0
109 Pennsylvania State University United States
56.0
111 Hong Kong Baptist University Hong Kong
55.6
112 Tokyo Institute of Technology Japan
55.4
112 Bilkent University Turkey
55.4
114 Eindhoven University of Technology Netherlands
55.3
115 National Taiwan University Taiwan
55.2
115 University of Hawaii United States
55.2
117 University of California Riverside United States
55.1
118 University of Geneva Switzerland
55.0
119 Catholic University of Leuven Belgium
54.8
120 Nanjing University China
54.6
120 Queen Mary, University of London United Kingdom
54.6
122 Technical University of Denmark Denmark
54.5
122 Michigan State University United States
54.5
124 Ghent University Belgium
54.4
124 Leiden University Netherlands
54.4
124 Lancaster University United Kingdom
54.4
127 University of Alberta Canada
54.3
128 University of Glasgow United Kingdom
54.2
129 Stockholm University Sweden
54.0
130 University of Victoria Canada
53.4
130 Osaka University Japan
53.4
132 University of Freiburg Germany
53.3
132 Tohoku University Japan
53.3
132 University of Iowa United States
53.3
135 University of Bergen Norway
52.7
136 University of Lausanne Switzerland
52.6
137 University of Sheffield United Kingdom
52.5
138 University of Montreal Canada
52.4
139 VU University Amsterdam Netherlands
52.3
140 Pierre and Marie Curie University France
52.2
140 University of Dundee United Kingdom
52.2
142 University of Barcelona Spain
52.1
143 Utrecht University Netherlands
52.0
144 Wageningen University and Research Center Netherlands
51.9
145 University of Auckland New Zealand
51.8
145 University of Birmingham United Kingdom
51.8
147 Alexandria University Egypt
51.6
147 Uppsala University Sweden
51.6
149 Hong Kong Polytechnic University Hong Kong
51.4
149 University of Aberdeen United Kingdom
51.4
151 Delft University of Technology Netherlands
51.3
152 University of New South Wales Australia
51.2
152 Birkbeck, University of London United Kingdom
51.2
152 Newcastle University United Kingdom
51.2
155 Pompeu Fabra University Spain
51.1
156 Indiana University United States
51.0
156 Iowa State University United States
51.0
158 Medical College of Georgia United States
50.7
159 Erasmus University Rotterdam Netherlands
50.4
159 University of Delaware United States
50.4
161 Arizona State University United States
50.3
161 Boston College United States
50.3
163 National Sun Yat-Sen University Taiwan
50.2
164 Georgetown University United States
50.1
165 University of Amsterdam Netherlands
50.0
165 University of Liverpool United Kingdom
50.0
167 Aarhus University Denmark
49.9
168 University of Würzburg Germany
49.8
168 University of Leeds United Kingdom
49.8
170 University of Groningen Netherlands
49.7
171 Sun Yat-sen University China
49.6
172 Johann Wolfgang Goethe University Frankfurt am Main Germany
49.4
173 Bielefeld University Germany
49.3
174 Nanyang Technological University Singapore
49.0
174 University of East Anglia United Kingdom
49.0
174 University of Nottingham United Kingdom
49.0
177 University of Copenhagen Denmark
48.8
178 Monash University Australia
48.5
178 Humboldt University of Berlin Germany
48.5
178 University of Bonn Germany
48.5
181 National Chiao Tung University Taiwan
48.3
182 RWTH Aachen University Germany
48.2
183 Middle East Technical University Turkey
47.7
184 University of Exeter United Kingdom
47.6
185 University of Twente Netherlands
47.5
186 University of Konstanz Germany
47.3
187 University of Innsbruck Austria
47.2
187 Karlsruhe Institute of Technology Germany
47.2
189 Eberhard Karls University, Tübingen Germany
47.0
190 Yonsei University Republic of Korea
46.9
190 Drexel University United States
46.9
190 University of Cincinnati United States
46.9
193 Dalhousie University Canada
46.8
193 Royal Institute of Technology Sweden
46.8
195 University of Vienna Austria
46.7
196 Kent State University United States
46.5
197 Zhejiang University China
46.4
197 University of Illinois - Chicago United States
46.4
199 Simon Fraser University Canada
46.2
199 Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences Sweden
46.2
Editor’s note.
A key principle of our revised rankings system in its first year is that it includes only institutions that have assented to join the profiling process and have provided and verified the data we sought.
Unfortunately, when the rankings list was published in September 2010, the University of Oslo contacted Times Higher Education to inform us that, because of an error on its part and an oversight in the data quality-control process, some of the data it supplied were incorrect.
A reanalysis of the data by Thomson Reuters has found that Oslo would have been ranked at 186th in the world.
Also, after the launch of the World University Rankings 2010 it became apparent that, owing to a data processing error, the ranking positions of two Australian universities in the top 200 list were incorrect — the University of Adelaide and Monash University.
Both universities remain in the top 1 per cent of world universities.
Thomson Reuters regrets this error and any impact this issue has on the institutions involved as well as on Times Higher Education. Thomson Reuters has taken corrective action to ensure that these errors will not be repeated. Thomson Reuters and Times Higher Education sincerely apologise.