[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
On 15/05/14 10:58, Philip Hudson wrote: > > Google *should* have added some smarts to PageRank, but that's not in > their interest because it would slow down the algorithm overall in the > interest of accuracy for only a tiny minority of results. Google have added tonnes of "smarts", PageRank is hardly relevant any more, and the conclusion of those "smarts" is that this was the second most important item for that search term - probably because it appeared in a large circulation newspaper, and so was relevant. You clearly have no idea how complex Google's search engine is. It will adapt searches depending who you are, what your previous searches were (if you let it), what results you have clicked, your Google search preferences. Indeed you can't really say any result is 1st or 2nd for a term, except under stringent conditions (e.g. in a browser with no cookies, not logged into Google, from this IP address in Spain, at this date and time, this search returned X). The ruling is insane in my view. It is the logical equivalent of letting readers reorder the library cards in a library, and not letting the librarian fix them. Let's say Google apply a manual downgrade to this result. Let's say the person involved goes bankrupt again, because it turns out he is reckless with money and not just unlucky in the past, no one will tell Google, people dealing with him won't now find both results, only the later bankruptcy. Just let Google get on with searching and indexing, if you think you can do better it is (mostly) a free market, and very lucrative. -- The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG http://mailman.dclug.org.uk/listinfo/list FAQ: http://www.dcglug.org.uk/listfaq