I was expecting "classic" to mean papers like Part-time Parliament, Mathematical Theory of Communication, Unix Time-Sharing System, etc. Certainly was in for a surprise...
They certainly do have data prior to 2006, based on Google Scholar results. It seems like an odd choice, but it's explicitly stated that these articles were chosen because they're roughly 10 years old.
I do find some of their choices a bit odd, though. Surely they can come up with better examples? The BigTable paper (OSDI '06) out of Google itself has far more citations (~4x per google scholar citation counts) of the highest-ranked DB paper, and I'd say it's much higher impact than any of them, being one of the early papers of the NoSQL movement. I'd understand if the algorithm in play were more nuanced, but the introductory page explicitly states that these are the most-cited papers of 2006, which doesn't seem to be the case.
Obligatory disclaimer: despite my current employment status, these views don't represent Google's.
They certainly do have data prior to 2006, based on Google Scholar results. It seems like an odd choice, but it's explicitly stated that these articles were chosen because they're roughly 10 years old.
I do find some of their choices a bit odd, though. Surely they can come up with better examples? The BigTable paper (OSDI '06) out of Google itself has far more citations (~4x per google scholar citation counts) of the highest-ranked DB paper, and I'd say it's much higher impact than any of them, being one of the early papers of the NoSQL movement. I'd understand if the algorithm in play were more nuanced, but the introductory page explicitly states that these are the most-cited papers of 2006, which doesn't seem to be the case.
Obligatory disclaimer: despite my current employment status, these views don't represent Google's.