Mikkel Møldrup-Lakjer wrote:
> "Roy Schestowitz" <newsgroups@schestowitz.com> skrev i en meddelelse
> dc77ir$71a$1@godfrey.mcc.ac.uk">news:dc77ir$71a$1@godfrey.mcc.ac.uk...
>>
>> Google is often mentioned as if it is the gold standard. If you do well
>> in Google, any variations of the other algorithm will somehow assimilate.
>
> That's not at all true for the three sites I have worked for. Their
> ranking in Yahoo is considerably lower than their ranking in Google.
>
> I am therefore interested in learning more about the difference in
> criteria between the two.
I know what you mean. My rankings are not quite so similar across the search
engines, but I haven't checked this thoroughly.
>> However, let us wait for the days when MSN search moderates results, e.g.
>> panelise sites that contain the word 'linux' many times.
>
> Penalise? Yes, that would be awful. When I come to think of it, the
> dominance of just two, possibly three, search engines, in an incredible
> concentration of power in very few hands. The people at Google, Yahoo and
> Microsoft will have the power to virtually make "deviant news" disappear.
> At war times, we will have CIA people working within Google and Microsoft
> to control the news flow, as we saw it within the CNN during the Gulf War.
>
> [snip]
That's what I dread. Google have committed to the "Don't be evil" mantra,
but it's business as usual at the Microsoft campus. They also have ties
with the US government. As they vacuum all the cash from governments and
business across the world, why would the Americans voluntarily resist it?
Compare the disposition of a European (e.g. German, Finnish) computer user
with that of an American in Seattle (far from the Bay Area where Mac
prosper a little more).
>> Very right. I commented on this strategy before -- a strategy which I
>> consider to be exploitation of a monopoly. Last month I had more hits
>> from MSNBot than I had from Googlebot, so they have put a lot of money
>> into power and bandwidth.
>
> Lucky you.
>
>> Don't forget that IE7 will only be compatible with Windows XP or later
>> (recently announced). Most businesses still use Windows 2000 and this
>> will motivate them to upgrade to Firefox. Of course, being narrow-minded
>> as some
>> of them might be, they will only realise that better browsers then IE6
>> are out there once they see their mates using IE7.
>
> That's interesting, I didn't know that. When is the IE7 release scheduled?
I think September. I read this today or yesterday, but I can't tell you for
sure. Ask Google and it will tell you the answer. Ask MSN search and it
will tell you that it's ready tomorrow (yeah, right!).
>> CSS will finally be capable of being used at full capacity (without
>> having ~80 of users see a corrupted page layout).
>
> Yes, I am looking forward to the death of IE6 and all of its bugs. I love
> Firefox, wish I could include in it the best of Opera, however. (Like
> automatically saving all open tabs for the next session, for instance).
>
> Mikkel
You can do that with homepages. You can set your homepage to be multiple
tabs by separating addresses with a semi-colon or a pipe... I can't
remember exactly. Tune in to new Firefox extensions:
https://addons.update.mozilla.org/rss/?application=firefox&type=E&list=newest
They appear to have everything that is conceivable.
Regards,
Roy
--
Roy S. Schestowitz
http://Schestowitz.com
|
|
