[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
On 15/05/14 11:28, Philip Hudson wrote: > > No; in relative terms, they did no work at all to create their search > engine. The effort involved is virtually zero compared to the returns, > which, I reiterate, are all a (relatively, in context) negligible > transformation of, or rather a trivial function taking as its only > input, other people's work. PageRank is smart, it's good, it's fast, > it scales, it's better than anyone else's... and it's vanishingly > cheap to develop and maintain, in context. Repeat after me "PageRank is dead". "PageRank" is still a factor in Google Search, but it is likely unrecognisable from the original algorithm, and plenty of other factors apply. It is probably winning through if you search for "Click here" or other neutral terms, but it is not the be all and end all of how Google ranks results. The web index spammers (SEO) have put an end to that, similarly keywords are ignored, and word density is no longer a big factor. Google do a lot of work to maintain the quality of their search results. Note search itself has zero returns for Google, the returns are all from advertising, which is a whole separate system that Google developed and maintains, and merely piggy backs on top of search. The only financial reason to maintain search is to keep eyeballs. Try the "Bing" challenge (5 searches in Google, 5 in Bing, compare results blinded), and you'll see how far behind Microsoft are on search. If it were simple, trivial, etc, Microsoft would be close behind. It is not 1998. -- The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG http://mailman.dclug.org.uk/listinfo/list FAQ: http://www.dcglug.org.uk/listfaq