__/ On Friday 26 August 2005 11:29, [John Bokma] wrote : \__
>> Sorry, but I must disagree. Let us say that T is the original page and
>> F (false) is the copy.
>>
>> If F = T + A where A is some extra content, then you have problems
>
> Not really, you can define similarities based on sentences, words, etc.
> You don't have to look for exact matches. Similar is close enough.
...and very computationally-expensive. Search engines are having a hard time
indexing billions of pages and picking up key words. Now you ask them to
calculate similarities in a graph with billions of nodes?!
> I am sure there has already been a lot of research done. For example,
> students copy papers written by others.
Yes, I know, but people mocked it for being unreliable. Besides, you can
easily run filters that will do some permutations and replace words with
proper equivalents. Brute force would do the job.
>> To a black hat SEO it would be no problem to automate this and deceive
>> the search engines. it is much easier to carry out a robbery than it
>> is for the police to spot the crook in a town of millions.
>
> You don't do exact matches in cases like this, just fuzzy matches.
Using that analogy again, that's like doing a house-to-house search and
questioning all the residents.
Roy
--
Roy S. Schestowitz Useless fact: Every polar bear is left-handed
http://Schestowitz.com
|
|
