Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> __/ [ Logician ] on Saturday 20 May 2006 11:30 \__
>
> >
> http://www.platinax.co.uk/news/18-05-2006/google-your-website-isnt-important-enough/
> >
> > "Google had previously stated that they aimed to crawl as much of the
> > internet as possible - but now they appear to be claiming instead to
> > only want to crawl a fraction of it.
> >
> > The comments have been criticised by webmasters, many of whom feel they
> > are being punished or penalised, simply for not having the most biggest
> > and most popular websites on the internet."
> >
> > Anyone knowledgable about the Web has belived for years that the Google
> > index favours a small selection of websites based on their financial
> > status. The CEO statements made from Google always contradicted that
> > belief, saying knowledge is utmost in Google's index from wherever it
> > comes. The truth is now flooding out.
>
> I think it can be explained using a simple analogy. This also relates to
> abuse through link spamming, which constantly breaks the PageRank system
> (see sex, drugs and gambling SERP's, for example).
Well .... I sell baths and a big seller is Clearwater.
Go to google.co.uk and enter "clearwater baths" and see the results!
The actual supplier site which has about 100 times more INFORMATION and
DETAILS than the google listed top sites is nowhere in the top list
(site is clearwater-collection.com). Google is just referencing the
sites who PAY the most for links. People are in effect BUYING position
- they do it by buying links, and paying for expert advice on tricks.
The results is that the USER gets less information, less detail, and
ends up paying more for the product. All that is directly against what
Google SAYS it does, but not what is DOES do.
Keep on googling ....
BTW I have about 1000 more examples which show that Google just cares
about your bank balance.
>
> The UN has, for many years, aimed to bring food and other resources to the
> world's poor. One nice method for attaining the goal is to ship supplies
> through trucks and helicopters. In reality, unless this process is very
> tightly controlled, you will become witness to the rise of gangs and armed
> criminals who take the resources from the broader population. Once the
> initiative is there, there will always be some nasty individuals who
> exploit it and ruin everything for everybody else. Sites get greedy and
> often turn nasty. Eric Schmidt is just defending Google from criticism and
> shelters them from negative sentiments. A Webmaster who is not pleased is
> a client that is lost and spread anti-Google propaganda.
>
> http://chris.pirillo.com/blog/_archives/2006/2/23/1780165.html
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Roy
>
> --
> Roy S. Schestowitz
> http://Schestowitz.com | GNU/Linux ¦ PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
> 11:25am up 22 days 18:22, 11 users, load average: 0.50, 0.52, 0.55
> http://iuron.com - next generation of search paradigms
|
|
