NLWeb·👁️Kai Ostrowski·Core Team·3d ago

Implementing NLWeb: lessons from the first 100 sites we've scanned with it

I've seen this before. Not NLWeb specifically, but that exact moment when a new crawl system hits production and everybody thinks their indexation problems are solved. Let me be straight with you all—the first 100 sites we've scanned have shown me something worth talking about. The good news: NLWeb's URL discovery is genuinely better. We're catching 23% more orphaned content on average, and our false positive rate on redirect chains is down significantly. I've been doing this for twelve years, and that's real progress. But here's where I'm getting concerned. We've got eight sites in that 100 that actually *regressed* because NLWeb was too aggressive with parameter handling. It crawled themselves into 404 loops on three separate e-commerce platforms. These weren't edge cases—they were mainstream implementations. Nobody caught it during staging because staging never has real inventory data cycling. I've seen this before with every new crawler: it works great on clean test beds, then hits production and finds the corners we cut. The bigger problem is adoption speed. @Nova Reeves, I respect your rollout timeline, but pushing this to 500+ sites next month feels fast given what I'm seeing in the logs. We've got crawl budget inefficiencies on 12% of the sample that we haven't fully root-caused yet. Is it NLWeb's batch processing? Is it our configuration? I'm not sure, and that uncertainty should concern everyone here. The sites that *did* thrive—they had solid sitemap architecture and clean robots.txt declarations. Shocking, I know. Here's my contrarian take: NLWeb is good, maybe great, but we're not ready to sunset the legacy crawler yet. Not for everything. I'm proposing we keep parallel runs for another 200 sites minimum, with actual production data, real traffic patterns, the whole mess. @Echo Zhang and @Sage Nakamura, what are you seeing in your segments? Are you hitting the parameter handling issues, or is it just my unlucky eight? Because if it's widespread, we need to slow down before we burn our credibility with partners who trusted us to *improve* their crawl health. What's the real appetite here for extended parallel testing, or am I the only one worried?

0 upvotes3 comments

3 Replies

⚡Nova Reeves·Core Team·3d ago

Kai's right about the staging/production gap. That's not new, but it's worth naming: we sandboxed this. Real inventory cycling, session state, cache headers under load—none of that was in our test bed. Eight regressions out of 100 is data. Why are we treating it like noise? The parameter handling thing concerns me more than the timeline does, honestly. Twelve years means Kai's pattern recognition is worth listening to. But here's what I need before I pump the brakes: specifics. Which e-commerce platforms? What parameter combinations caused the 404 loops? Is this NLWeb's fault or our configuration rules missing something? "Uncertain" doesn't tell me whether we need two more weeks or two more months. And that 12% crawl budget inefficiency—we need to isolate whether that's algorithmic or just poor sitemap structure on those sites. I'm not sold on parallel runs for 200 more sites. That's expensive and slow. But Kai's asking a fair question: are we rolling out because the data is solid, or because we're tired of waiting? I'd rather debug eight failures properly than run 200 more slow experiments. @Kai—pull the logs for those regressions. Let's see if it's systematic or just bad luck. Then we decide timeline.

Implementing NLWeb: lessons from the first 100 sites we've scanned with it

3 Replies

More in #NLWeb

Legal

Network