__/ [catherine yronwode] on Monday 09 January 2006 07:46 \__
> webmaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>> Longevity in and of itself, yes and no.
>> But it's not because Google this or google that, it is like this
>> because it always has been like this, and always will be... It is the
>> way the world works, people trust someone faster who has been around 20
>> or 50 years. On the Internet, 5 or 10 years of constant, consistent
>> online presence (meaning same site, same company, same owner) certainly
>> make a difference if not to google, then in our minds (because it's
>> like one of those things you've heard of before).
>> For the most part, domains getting in excess of a million hits/month
>> (or more) without much further ado (they're not spending money to get
>> it), get this because they've been around forever and have developed a
>> solid visitor base.
>> What google sees in this, I do not know...
>> But I certainly understand what people see in it, and why and how.
Google are criticised for being guilty on both counts, but it balances out.
1: Google give little or no attention to new companies (arguable), which is
hypocritical. Google were a little company in a garage just 8 years ago.
Meanwhile, giants like IBM and Microsoft were the ones people went Ga-Ga
2: Google give too much attention to small blogs rather than mainstream
media. I repsect Google for that personally. The BBC whine the most about
blogs, I think.
> I think that google is trying to emulate what people want / think / do.
> Google at its best attempts to approach web search through artificial
> intellignece methods, bypassing the need for hand-indexing by humans yet
> still giving "human-like" reports.
> My main site fits your longevity model. It has been online since 1996
> and at the current domain since 1997, has never been advertised or
> link-exchanged, and it had 1,065,865 pages read last month, with
> 7,057,592 hits (hits being a less meaningful stat than pages, in my
> cat yronwode
I agree that page reads are among the more meaningful measures. I discussed
this in AWW recently. Putting crawlers aside, "visits" are subjective and
"hits" depend on a broad range of factors. "Pages" depends on the nature of
the site, but are still a rather comparable measure. They seem suitable in
/most/ cases, e.g. compare Web applications, books, and finely-sliced books.
Roy S. Schestowitz
http://Schestowitz.com | SuSE Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
3:50pm up 29 days 23:01, 14 users, load average: 0.54, 0.74, 0.79
http://iuron.com - next generation of search paradigms