__/ [ Logician ] on Wednesday 11 October 2006 13:29 \__
>
> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>> __/ [ Logician ] on Wednesday 11 October 2006 02:49 \__
>>
>> > http://blogs.zdnet.com/micro-markets/index.php?p=528
>> >
>> > "Google portrays its PageRank as reinforcing the "democratic" Web.
>> >
>> > In reality, however, Google PageRank is little more than a Google
>> > created formula which ends up further entrenching Web pages it has
>> > deemed, in its infinite wisdom, to be "important.""
>> >
>> > Hardly news or even controversial, but the ZDNET article's view is a
>> > view held by many Internet users. Searches always drift towards the
>> > large corporate websites often resulting in countless duplicates on the
>> > first search page of results - eg answers.com (Google partner) and
>> > wikipedia.com.
>>
>> PageRank is a chicken-and-egg thing. How does one earn (as opposed to buy)
>> links without any visitors (readers)? And since search engines are the
>> Internet gateway to many of us (directories are slower to navigate), there
>> needs to be a mechanism that gives way to small businesses (such as
>> Google, only 8 years ago). Citations and buzz suffer from the same thing.
>> Highly-reputed authors can earn references quite easily, but the solution
>> to this is a blind peer-review process and a barrage to entry. Maybe
>> search engines should look into it...
>
> I'm no SEO, and I think the whole way ranking is done will be
> re-thought by the SE's.
I wholeheartedly agree. Look, for example, at how social bookmarking sites
(gateways, sometimes with discussions) already squeeze 'energy' out f the
respective sources. In the realms of SEM, there are a few titans who
exchange and trade links to sustain their position.
|
|
