Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> Amir Michail wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > Google rankings are great most of the time but sometimes you want
> > something different. The CollaborativeRank search engine allows
you to
> > improve Google rankings:
> >
> > http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~amichail/collabrank
> > http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~amichail/collabrank/collabrank.pdf
> >
> > Basically, it uses a hubs and authorities style analysis to
encourage
> > timely and helpful ranking suggestions. See the paper for details.
>
> You have already posted this here a month ago. Why again?
>
Some improvements have been made including a new method for rewarding
helpful and timely suggestions. Moreover, Google rankings are used as
a starting point now, so the search engine is immediately useful.
> The reason I am skeptic about the idea is that it involves extra
traffic,
> thereby getting slower. Also, the last time you mentioned a manual
> component to it; the net is too enormous and corrupt for this. Also
see the
> recent Google improvement:
>
> http://www.google.com/googleblog/2005/04/just-facts-fast.html
>
We are basically fixing up problems with Google's rankings for popular
queries. This requires less work than coming up with rankings from
scratch.
BTW, Google also requires a manual component: namely the manual
creation of hyperlinks which is essential to the PageRank measure.
Note that unlike PageRank, CollaborativeRank actually encourages people
to give timely and helpful rankings suggestions. (See the paper.)
PageRank does not encourage people to link to other sites.
Indeed, one might wonder whether the whole idea of PageRank is
sustainable. Google's success has probably led to a decrease in links
to other sites since one could just search using Google instead. And
yet, such links are critical to Google's quality rankings.
Amir
> --
> Roy S. Schestowitz
> http://Schestowitz.com
|
|
