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

Re: (Article) Worthless Content Blamed on Search Engines

  • Subject: Re: (Article) Worthless Content Blamed on Search Engines
  • From: Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 05:05:01 +0000
  • Newsgroups: alt.internet.search-engines
  • Organization: schestowitz.com / MCC / Manchester University
  • References: <du4men$ahd$1@godfrey.mcc.ac.uk> <5WmNf.4314$972.168237@news20.bellglobal.com> <du5nqd$jq7$1@godfrey.mcc.ac.uk> <87of12tg54h3ekdpqaq8r4tmp2ihutobp8@4ax.com> <dv8rb5$25c5$1@godfrey.mcc.ac.uk> <1142446982.288884.11080@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
  • Reply-to: newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • User-agent: KNode/0.7.2
__/ [ Fritz M ] on Wednesday 15 March 2006 18:23 \__

> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>> I can't say that's a good thing. Prepare for the 'avalanche'.
> Thanks for starting this discussion and the insights it has generated.
> I have to admit to a chuckle -- I haven't seen an earnest "Death of the
> Net Predicted -- Film at 11" post in several years now.

I was not suggesting that the Net would die. I was only suggesting an
overhaul or a change of browsing habits should be predicted. Wikipedia has
this effect already. It still goes upwards.

> Some websites are more "trusted" than others, and academics hopefully
> know how to evaluate the trustworthiness of a source of information.
> Just because a peer-reviewed journal publishes its content online
> doesn't dilute the value of the information.

Unfortunately, there will always be baffled users, lazy users and sites that
deceive. See the recent thread where I tell Fred about parked domain that
pretend to be actual sites by showing up as extensive directories.

People like my mom and dad, who may have entered a typo'd domain in the
address bar (one should rarely use that bar), will most likely navigate
through that organic content and generate traffic (yes, off parked domains
which are mistaken to be the actual intended destination).

> The gobs of randomly-generated "original content" is indeed a problem,
> but that's where trust of backlinks comes in. Google, for example,
> evaluates links partly on the "neighborhood" or topical relevance of
> the sites.

Intersting point w.r.t. randomly-generated "original content":


> Oh, and speaking of journals, trust, and search engines:
>   http://scholar.google.com/

That's bull. They have picked up some sketchy, semi-cooked report off my
site. I don't know the selection criteria, but it should /not/ be trusted.


> http://www.cyclelicio.us/

Nice site. I can't quite understand what CMS drives it, which is a good

Best wishes,


Roy S. Schestowitz      |    Useless fact: 111111 X 111111 = 12345654321
http://Schestowitz.com  |    SuSE Linux    ¦     PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
  4:55am  up 7 days 21:32,  7 users,  load average: 0.59, 0.75, 0.61
      http://iuron.com - next generation of search paradigms

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