"Roy Schestowitz" <newsgroups@schestowitz.com> wrote in message
d7a5hq$1c16$1@godfrey.mcc.ac.uk">news:d7a5hq$1c16$1@godfrey.mcc.ac.uk...
> Borek wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 28 May 2005 15:57:53 +0200, Ken Benoit <nospam@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Good riddens to Google page rank! I'm sick of watching that damn green
>>> bar moving up and down, fighting with link partners about where their
>>> damn link should be placed because one page has a little more green shit
>>> in it than another.
>>
>> In a few months you will be doing the same, just the bar you will be
>> observing will be different.
>
> That is an interesting thread, but the poster fails to provide any
> information which supports the claim. Also, wouldn't the transition to a
> new ranking system be seamless? Are Google preparing some announcement and
> halt PR in the interim? And if so, why?
>
> Whatever the planned change is (and whenever it may come), it should be a
> step forward. The only ones to suffer will be spammers so I, for once,
> welcome any changes.
The only ones to suffer won't be the spammers as someone in this thread just
said they would be losing money per month. The thing is that is why they
have to change it. Because PR can be bought.
Anyway, here is more to read.
http://blog.searchenginewatch.com/blog/050425-131316
http://blog.searchenginewatch.com/blog/050302-003107 (this one has a 12
page paper on TrustRank)
http://www.masternewmedia.org/news/2005/04/29/future_pagerank_helps_reputation_and.htm
Stacey
|
|
