__/ [ Roy Schestowitz ] on Friday 05 May 2006 04:21 \__
> __/ [ www.1-script.com ] on Thursday 04 May 2006 20:37 \__
>> Per-Erik Skramstad wrote:
>>>> I hope it's accessible without login
>>> No, it's not. :-(
>> Well, you don't have to become a paid full member (or "supporter" how they
>> call it). You can register for free and read that and plenty other
>> interesting articles. Highly recommended.
> Full-up Google choking on web spam?
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | Webmasters have been seething at Google since it introduced its
> | 'Big Daddy' update in January, the biggest revision to the way its
> | search engine operates for years.
> | Alarm usually accompanies changes to Google's algorithms, as the new
> | rankings can cause websites to be demoted, or disappear entirely. But
> | four months on from the introduction of "Big Daddy," it's clear that
> | the problem is more serious than any previous revision - and it's
> | getting worse.
> | Webmasters now report sites not being crawled for weeks, with Google
> | SERPS (search engine results pages) returning old pages, and failing
> | to return results for phrases that used to bear fruitful results.
> Hope this helps someone...
It all turned out to be total BS, as of several hours ago:
Orlowski mis-reports it again
,----[ Quote ]
| You have to wonder about any publication that employs a fact challenged
| guy like Andrew Orlowski. Have a look at the latest article he has,
| which made it to Digg today. In a discussion about supposedly bad
| search results from Google (I hadn't noticed, and this is the first I've
| seen anyone talk about it), he says this:
| Boy, it sure sounds different when you actually put it in context,
| doesn't it? This seems to be Orlowski's stock in trade though - pulling
| stuff out of context and making wild assumptions - sometimes he just
| makes crap up.
So Google is not really "full".