__/ [ jpflaum@xxxxxxxxxxxxx ] on Tuesday 14 March 2006 00:21 \__
> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>> <rant>Is it just me who is disturbed by the idea that sites without
>> inbound links don't count whereas those that get them artificially
>> flourish? Many have said this before, but it's probably worth repeating.
>> Where has fairness gone? The search enGine, probably pre-occupied with
>> self-defence mechanisms (due to spam) discriminates against a /huge/
>> majority of the Web and urges Webmasters to waste their time 'link
> Pflaum response:
> Roy, you and Fred are absolutely right; Google's site-ranking process
> is indeed flawed.
> I'm a heavy search engine user. Back in 1999, when I first started
> using Google, it was clearly the Net's best search engine. A few
> years ago, however, I noticed that I was beginning to get a larger
> number of lower quality sites included in my Google keyword search
If you have a minute to spare, see my very recent write-up on that subject:
In short, I believe that Google have gone out of control due to transparency
of their algorithms. It would be hard to alter the algorithms because people
experiment and then exchange the outcomes of such experiments.
Moreover, radical change of the algorithms would mean that they diverge from
theory; analytically-speaking, Google have been doing the correct thing,
historically. They were hoping for all the best MIT papers and the best of
the Web to be linked, not realising that people adapt to a search
Rather than orbiting Earth from the outside and taking snapshots (I use an
analogy from The WSJ here), search engines are more like a filmmakers in the
street. Everyone is trying to get on the big screen and pushes others in
that stampede for 'camera attention'.
> I'm certainly not a search engine expert, that's for sure, but
> there's no doubt in my mind that Google's quality drop in recent
> years has mostly been caused by inherent flaws in its PageRank process.
> During Google's early days, its PageRank worked great because most
> webmasters back then simply didn't realize that Google was using
> back-links as one of its primary site ranking criteria.
Backlinks are an excellent idea, but they can be manipulated, even in
literature. How many people would you find citing Knuth merely because he is
a 'big name' to have among the references? And how many departments will
exchange citations as hint for mutual recognition rather than actual,
> While PageRank was a great way for Google to evaluate a site's
> informational usefulness a few years ago, it's clearly not anymore.
> The problem, of course, is that millions of site owners, many of whom
> operate some pretty terrible sites, have now managed to bump up their
> Google site rankings by exchanging links with other terrible sites. The
> end result is that many of the Net's better sites have now been
> bumped down on Google's site listings just because they have fewer
> back-links. This situation, moreover, has also made Google less useful
> as an info search tool for millions of search engine users like me.
Oddly enough, and despite all the 'noise', Google remains the most powerful
engine. I occasionally check this to confirm, for myself at least. I ought
to point out that *all* major search engines use backlinks (at some capacity
at least). Thus, SEO hacks that are aimed at Google contribute to noise that
affects Google's counterparts.
> As I said earlier, I'm not search engine expert. I do, however have a
> close friend, an MS degreed EE, who recently came up with a nifty new
> idea that will definitely help Google and other search engines
> significantly improve the overall quality level of their keyword site
> listings. A few weeks ago my friend and I both contacted Google to see
> if they might be interested evaluating his idea, but, surprisingly, we
> were told the company no longer evaluates new product ideas that are
> developed by outside inventors like my friend. Not to be deterred, my
> friend has decided to beta test his new site ranking system on his own,
> which brings me to the main reason why we're posting this message to
> your group.
Mine?!?! Heck, no. *smile*
> In order to thoroughly evaluate the idea's merits, we hope to enlist
> the support of at least 200 website operators to participate in the
> idea's beta test. While we haven't worked out all of beta test's
> details yet, those website operators who participate in the idea's
> test will be paid a $200 participation fee and, additionally, receive a
> shared 5% royalty fee, which will be paid out monthly during the 3-year
> period following the idea's commercialization.
> Roy, if you or other members of this group think you might be
> interested in participating in the test, please send me an email at the
> address I've listed with Google Groups. I'm looking forward to
> hearing from you. Thanks!
> P.S. - You may review my brief bio by clicking on the link below.
Thanks, Jim. I'll probably get in touch. I hope the test is not too bandwidth
consuming since my sites are on the verge of being forced a move to
dedicated hosting, which is pricy.
Roy S. Schestowitz
http://Schestowitz.com | SuSE Linux ¦ PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
5:05am up 5 days 21:42, 7 users, load average: 0.34, 0.64, 0.68
http://iuron.com - Open Source knowledge engine project