Re: WTF - Yahoo?

On Wed, 09 Aug 2006 12:18:08 +0100, Roy Schestowitz
<newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

__/ [ Phil Payne ] on Wednesday 09 August 2006 12:10 \__

This could be a coincidence. Your conclusion is based on a
statistically-invalid case.

Hence my "furtlingly trivial" opening.


True. I missed that one *smile*.


Everything is statistically valid until it's misused, which I accept in
this case is likely to be the norm.



True. But too much lenient statistics lead to "damn lies".
Was it Stalin who said that?

Lies, damn lies and statistics. Samuel Clemens - Mark Twain to you.


With all of the search engines, indexing is an unpredictable process -
days are wonderful, weeks are normal, and months are frustrating.
Every now and then, the usuall months' delay has to be compensated by a
quickie.

It's neat to see such a rapid response. It's irritating that I get
this on a hobby site and not on a business one.


A nicer model for the Internet would involve pinging
everything. There were some talks last year about submitting
our Web pages directly to search engines (notably Google)
rather than publish them independently. it saves traffic and
makes updates quicker. This make you want to take a shower.
*smile, shivirs* The private Web, with no neutrality?

Google nor the other engines will want to be indexing every crap
little site that's out there. Nor, as residents on this spinning ball,
would we want them to be so doing. Running server farms uses up an
awful lot of environment-unfriendly juice, and there's no point
screwing up the environment (and paying big bucks to do it, if you're
an engine) just to index every shitty little site (that no-one wants
to link to anyway), pointless (read "thin") affiliate sites,
content-less Adsense sites, and soon I'm guessing all the duplicated
book content sites for the same reasons. You might suggest that Google
won't de-index many of these as it makes money from Adsense but it
makes more money overall from the continued existence of the web as a
useful information resource and that's being threatened now by all the
useless sites that are out there clogging up the indexes. We've seen
Adsense sites taken to what might be their logical conclusion with
Smarticle Composer sites where the only way out of a site, once you
innocently stumble into it, is to click on an Adsense link. People
could navigate out using the back button in their browser but I doubt
that the majority of surfers would think of that first if at all. The
only way to fight these is not to de-index them and the sites that
link to them. As they have no merit in themselves, any Smarticle
Composer site that shows up high in the ranks must necessarily be
linked to by parties owning them or having an association with their
owners so the PR they accrue is falsely generated and acts like a
beacon to Google saying,"Lookee here: something not right going on!"
and by tracing the backlinks Google can work out who the link-spammers
are. This, I think, is one of the real reasons we still have page rank
in any shape or form.
So, for obvious reasons and in obvious ways, Google are cleaning
house. Can't blame them, really, can you?

BB
--
http://www.here-be-posters.co.uk/marilyn-monroe-pictures.htm
http://www.kruse.co.uk/seo-maintenance.htm
http://www.crystal-liaison.com/artis-orbis/amici-della-luna-glass.html
.