"Roy Schestowitz" <newsgroups@schestowitz.com> wrote in message
dd7v5g$2s9v$1@godfrey.mcc.ac.uk">news:dd7v5g$2s9v$1@godfrey.mcc.ac.uk...
> small mouse wrote:
>
> >> >I agree with maintenance being a pain, but diluting pagerank isn't a
> > problem
> >> >at the moment. I'm finding that the more outbound links I put on each
> > page
> >> >(to good quality sites) the better my rankings improve.
> >>
> >> Rankings in the engines, meaning you're going up in them, or you're
> >> getting greener in the toolbar? We'll be arguing about this forever
> >> unless you explain further (in which case, I won't have to argue,
> >> because - hey! I'll have won! Probably.)
> >>
> >> BB
> >
> > Umm, I mean going up in Google. PR has dropped from a PR5 down to PR4
> > since last year,
> >
> > And the best thing is that our site is ranking above a competitor who
has
> > been paying for about 12,000 backlinks for the last two years and has a
> > PR7.
> >
> > I think the way Google relied on inbound links for rankings in the 90's
> > changed the face of the web, and encouraged spammy links pages/doorway
> > pages
> > etc. Imagine what it would be like if your ranking was based on how
many
> > good sites you link out to, instead of how many poor sites are linking
in
> > to
> > you. Websites would be informative and useful and free of spam.
> >
> > Or perhaps I'm just dreaming and it wouldn't work?!
>
> True it is, but pointing the finger at Google (I do not suggest you did
> that, but generally speaking) is unfair. PageRank was based on the idea of
> citations in research (
> http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.08/battelle.html ) and since Larry
> Page's dad was a professor, I bet this somehow influenced the method.
>
> It is a sad and disturbing truth that sites can buy popularity. Commercial
> are a similar case. People opt for a certain brand of beer because more
> advertisements for that beer were viewed and that gives a falsified
> perception of value.
>
> We can only hope that Google will find a successful algorithm for
discerning
> spammy link from worthy ones. Because of the size of the Internet, doing
> this perfectly is impossible. It's like a government gathering all the
> millions of citizens that reside in a country and then deciding, based on
> just the appearance, who is likely to commit a crime and must be jailed
> immediately. It is tactful to leave the criminals out (=spammy links) than
> to jail innocent people (=penalise benevolent sites).
>
> Roy
>
> --
> Roy S. Schestowitz
> http://Schestowitz.com
>
Nicely put Roy, I totally agree
I'd also just like to add that I've drunk lots of rubbish beer on account of
advertising spending. I guess my idealism still hasn't been beaten out of
me yet, I just need to get used to the fact that Google and the internet in
general are never going to be perfect.
|
|
