__/ [Big Bill] on Thursday 10 November 2005 14:32 \__
> On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 21:18:30 +0800, "Timmermans"
> <steventimmermans@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>"Roy Schestowitz" <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>> __/ [Timmermans] on Wednesday 09 November 2005 17:18 \__
>>> > "Will Spencer" <will.spencer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
>>> > message news:b6mdne4Dw_r1YuzenZ2dnUVZ_sWdnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> >> Interesting results (possibly the next phase of Jagger) on
>>> >> http://126.96.36.199/
>>> >> Will
>>> > Massively horrible and incorrect!!!
>>> > It rewards fairly irrelevant 1 to 5 page sites to up-to-date and larger
>>> > sites with hundreds of pages for no obvious reason.
>>> > Lets hope Google commes to it's sences soon!
>>> It reflects on what could be seen across a few datacentres earlier this
>>> It often tends to reflect on pre-Jagger results, but just as often it
>>> irrational prioritisation, which is worrying (if not to me, then to
>>I'm all for giving smaller and new sites a chance and all, but for the love
>>of it... I'm starting to see pages last updated between 1999 and 2003, now
>>how relevant can these page be? How much weight does Google/Jagger place
Can that be ever estimated without Webmaster deceiving the algorithm(s) or
take away indication of date? Is that not what sandboxing is for?
>>You think they might reverse it if it turned out a severe mistake?
It would probably be risky. Remember that senior pages, and especially
*popular* senior pages, enable Google to leave that tail of spam behind.
If you wish to know how noisy the Web truly is, try Yahoo search. It seems
as though half the pages which are public could be utter grabage. Fortu-
nately, not all get crawled or even indexed.
I searched for a term today and decided to go all the way to the last
diplaybale results pages. The last 10-20 results were random text with the
words "dildo", "alcoholic enema" and the like at the <title>.
> Absolutely. My understanding is that's partly why they're doing this
> thing in stages, so they don't unintentionally leave a shell-shocked
> client-base when they're done.
> It would be useful if someone with more daylight hours than I have
> could read Matt Cutt's blog and report back. I've had my night-time
> snooze, I've had my morning snooze...synchronise watches, kids, I'm
> feeling kind of stretchy-yawny...
I started syndicating Matt's blog. He spreads some valuable information
when he doesn't talk about personal matters. He is like the 'Google Insid-
er' or a spokesman.
Roy S. Schestowitz | Bottom-post: as English goes from top to bottom
http://Schestowitz.com | SuSE Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
2:50pm up 7 days 10:48, 4 users, load average: 0.37, 0.38, 0.42
http://iuron.com - next generation of search paradigms