Home Messages Index
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index

Re: (Article) Search Engines Lead to Site Monopolies?

__/ [ John A. ] on Friday 18 August 2006 14:09 \__

> On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 09:36:20 +0100, Roy Schestowitz
> <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
>>__/ [ Big Bill ] on Friday 18 August 2006 07:53 \__
>>
>>> On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 04:33:40 +0100, Roy Schestowitz
>>> <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> 
>>>>Is there a googlearchy?
>>>>
>>>>,----[ Snippet ]
>>>>| The Proceedings of the National Academies of Science isn't the place
>>>>| you'd typically go for a discussion of PageRanks and surfing behavior.
>>>>| But the emergent complexity of the web provides the raw material for
>>>>| studies ranging from network dynamics to social psychology. A study
>>>>| released online in advance of publication looks into how the influence
>>>>| of search engines is affecting the accessibility of online information.
>>>>| The authors are examining fears that search engines will create a
>>>>| situation where a self-reinforcing cycle of popularity will create
>>>>| an Internet in which a limited number of information sources
>>>>| predominate:
>>> 
>>> What, they've only just worked that out? Some big-domes they are.
>>> 
>>>> "[S]earch engines bias the traffic of users according to
>>>>| their page ranking strategies, and it has been argued that they create
>>>>| a vicious cycle that amplifies the dominance of established and
>>>>| already popular sites. This bias could lead to a dangerous monopoly
>>>>| of information."
>>> 
>>> It did already! It'll stay that way till Google changes its algo.
>>
>>Well, the Web is built in a layered form, so it'll be hard to change. Old
>>sites like Netscape get linked to and, in turn, some new sites link to
>>their predecessors. It's a matter of how early you enter and how
>>aggressively you enter. Many sites with wonderful content will rarely have
>>the chance to be seen. Even spyware-type analysis for SEPR's will fail.
>>It's cyclic if you think about it. Popular sites get more visits, so their
>>ranks improve, which brings them / more visits. Like in that previous
>>article -- deadlock...
> 
> I think Google should offer some sort of "rogue search" option in
> advanced search, allowing a searcher to boldly choose not to have PR
> be a factor in the results of a particular search, but rather go on
> pure relevancy and whatever other factors Google uses. That way a
> searcher can "break free of the herd" if they so choose.


I once thought about the same thing. If I search for something very generic
(even for the purpose of buying), I try to avoid simplified common phrases,
which are most likely spammed for (e.g. excessive inbound links with anchor
text). I intentionally try to avoid those who thrive on and capitalise on
optimisation. They are like 'SERP trolls' in my eyes. But it's hard to avoid
these. Even if you add some extra words, their PR counts as a major factor.
And there are factors like artificial design of a page that still unfairly
contribute to and assist certain Web sites. Sometimes I just go through
directories, which do not require payment for inclusion (forget about
Yahoo). Still, there is a chicken-and-egg scenario here because large
companies can sustain growth.

This happens to remind me of a pet peeve. If I look at an alphabetic list, I
try not to start looking at it from the start or the very end. You will
always find some f***wits with company names like Aardvark or AAA
consultants. See the imbalance in company names by looking at any list that
is vital to a corporation...


> UI-wise it would be dead simple. Not knowing how their internal search
> mechanics work, though, it could either greatly simplify a search
> computationally, require a complete second index, or something in
> between.

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index