Tuesday, September 30, 2003

Google Page Rank, fubar?

I've just been reading an article by Andrew Orlowski, over at The Register. Google has aquired a search engine (Kaltix). Maybe they want to develop certain technologies already thought up by this little start up? More interesting is discussion about the Google Page Rank and how it has died a death. I suppose different people have different views about why. Then others, will of course think everything is in order. We're getting back to the discussion (as is Andrew Orlowski's article) about how Google defines content and more importantly how it gets indexed for all to seach & see. At the moment at least Google seems to like new content over old. In some respects this is a good thing but in other cases not. Old content (old links) may now just be a sea of 404's. You're probably less likely to find this with new pages so that's a good thing to start off with.

This method of indexing that Google uses doesn't allow for moderation of content so the quality might not be very good, but how is an engine that searches so many pages going to easily automate quality assurance? I think the simple answer is, no search engine is going to be able to do this, even with some advanced AI. I suppose you could have a method by where humans search submitted links or links that the spiders have found, but this would be a lengthy process. Most engines have some sort of directory which uses this method anyway, so the massive unmoderated database is another addition! When people say that bloggers are filling up search engines with "noise", I think it is a bit harsh. Fair enough when a blog is just used like a personal diary then that would be a good point, but the fact is most blogs about all different kinds of subjects are not simply people having their say.

You can find out information and ways of solving problems which other people have already solved and then documented their methods on blogs, for example.

Maybe for people that don't want to see blog based stuff, search engines could have an option to filter out blogs. But I think this option would have to be turned off by default and people enable it if they wish. I reckon that most average web users, who may know what a blog is, wouldn't think they have a dominant place in most search engine results pages. I don't and I run a lot of searches (mainly only on Google) and I can't say that I see blogs listed on the first page or even first few pages for most things I search for. So the "noise" factor statement is a bit over the top.

Regardless of what we think, Google and the others, are still great tools and we would be lost without them!

The Dictionary.COM entry for fubar is pretty good... "Utterly botched or confused, and below that -
"[f(ucked) u(p) b(eyond) a(ll) r(ecognition).]" I wonder if that appears in a printed version?

Post ID: 76, posted by jase at 11:52 PM
Permalink | TrackBack ID: 77, (5) | Category: Internet | Google Search
Comments

Im Comming from Germany and really want to now what the hell is "fubar"?

Best regards
http://www.sms-fotokontakte.de

Posted by: sms fotokontakte at November 14, 2003 07:12 PM

Hi,

The dictionary.com entry for it is at the end of the post.

Posted by: jasun at November 15, 2003 12:03 AM

The dictionary.com entry for it is at the end of the post.

Posted by: xasa at April 28, 2004 12:12 PM
Post a comment

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved before your comment will appear.)


Remember me?


Valve Media Ltd
Search Engine Compliance