| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Vincent Granville" |
| Date: |
19 Jan 2004 07:32:42 PM |
| Object: |
Re: Google's rankings |
(1) http://www.nakedteens.com ==> 4/10
(2) http://www.datashaping.com ==> 0/10
(1) has multiple invading pop-ups and crudly displays poor quality
pornographic material without asking your age
(2) has none of the above -- it's just a website for mathematicians
(1) is better than (2) according to Google's page ranking algorithm.
Visit (1) and (2) and judge by yourself.
Vincent Granville wrote:
http://www.scientology.com ==> 4/10
http://www.datashaping.com ==> 0/10
This gives you an idea on how biased Google's ranking is, favoring
criminals over legitimate businesses.
.
|
|
| User: "GreyWyvern" |
|
| Title: Re: Google's rankings |
19 Jan 2004 11:11:45 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 01:32:42 GMT, Vincent Granville <paris63@pacbel.net>
wrote:
[snip endless whining]
Vincent, you were busted for referrer log spamming. Google is providing a
service as a business, and if they want to weed out creeps like you than
they are 100% within their rights to do so. It doesn't matter if your
site is the most legitimate piece of net real estate on the planet. You
did something Google thought was naughty, and now you whine and complain
because somehow it's your *right* to be listed.
This has nothing to do with inefficiencies in the Google PageRank
algorithm, and has *everything* to do with www.datashaping.com being
banned from the Google database. Comparing your site to others with
higher PageRank than yours means nothing except that they are listed and
you are not.
Everyone else can prove it for themselves:
http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Awww.datashaping.com+-sdsdfsdf
Perhaps if you cleaned up your act and asked nicely, you'd be given your
precious PageRank back again. On the other hand, it's awfully amusing
watching you humiliate yourself by bearing this grudge like a
grade-schooler who had his pencilcase stolen. Because despite all your
degrees (which you listed in a previous rant a few months ago) you still
haven't grown up.
Grey
--
The technical axiom that nothing is impossible sinisterly implies the
pitfall corollory that nothing is ridiculous.
- http://www.greywyvern.com - ORCA - Camouflaged PHP Web Scripts.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Vincent Granville" |
|
| Title: Re: Google's rankings |
21 Jan 2004 11:36:22 PM |
|
|
It doesn't matter if your
site is the most legitimate piece of net real estate on the planet. You
did something Google thought was naughty, and now you whine and complain
because somehow it's your *right* to be listed.
We perfectly agree on this: it doesn't matter the intrinsic value of the
website, which makes Google's ranking totally useless and their proprietary
ranking algorithm a joke.
After inquiring as why I was removed, Google (they are a bunch of arrogant
people) did not reply, even though I am a customer who possesses a weapon
capable of destroying their business (see below). So I have three solutions.
(1) Create a new website with same contents and wait for it to be picked up by
Google webcrawlers, assuming it would change something.
(2) Make public Google's business practices by posting in places like this and
purchasing keywords such as "internet censorship" on other search engines.
Ironically, this brings considerably more traffic than I used to receive
freely from Google. So I will continue to use this option in the future.
(3) Retaliation by legal means. This will come soon. Look at the "doomsday
scenario" section at http://www.datashaping.com/security.shtml . By legal, I
mean "legal" with respect to the local laws where the action is taking place
(outside US). In a nutshell, I am taking about a large scale project to
deliver undetectable fraudulent clicks, using IP masquarading, simulated human
browsing and other advanced techniques.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Radford Neal" |
|
| Title: Re: Google's rankings |
22 Jan 2004 11:51:19 AM |
|
|
In article <400F5FAE.7F67D1C3@pacbel.net>,
Vincent Granville <vincentg@datashaping.com> wrote:
After inquiring as why I was removed, Google (they are a bunch of arrogant
people) did not reply, even though I am a customer who possesses a weapon
capable of destroying their business (see below)....
(3) Retaliation by legal means. This will come soon. Look at the "doomsday
scenario" section at http://www.datashaping.com/security.shtml . By legal, I
mean "legal" with respect to the local laws where the action is taking place
(outside US). In a nutshell, I am taking about a large scale project to
deliver undetectable fraudulent clicks, using IP masquarading, simulated human
browsing and other advanced techniques.
Interesting. Where is this jurisdiction outside
the U.S. where extortion is legal?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Radford M. Neal
Dept. of Statistics and Dept. of Computer Science
University of Toronto http://www.cs.utoronto.ca/~radford
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tim Smith" |
|
| Title: Re: Google's rankings |
23 Jan 2004 03:03:43 AM |
|
|
In article <400F5FAE.7F67D1C3@pacbel.net>, Vincent Granville wrote:
We perfectly agree on this: it doesn't matter the intrinsic value of the
website, which makes Google's ranking totally useless and their
proprietary ranking algorithm a joke.
Experiment proves you wrong: millions of people have made Google the first
place they go to search for information, usually find what they want on the
first page of results, and rarely find a need to go to other search engines.
People have done this because Google *works*, and works much *better* than
any of the previous search engines.
--
--Tim Smith
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeremy C. Morgan" |
|
| Title: Re: Google's rankings |
24 Jan 2004 01:44:32 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 23 Jan 2004 09:03:43 GMT, Tim Smith
<reply_in_group@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
In article <400F5FAE.7F67D1C3@pacbel.net>, Vincent Granville wrote:
We perfectly agree on this: it doesn't matter the intrinsic value of the
website, which makes Google's ranking totally useless and their
proprietary ranking algorithm a joke.
Experiment proves you wrong: millions of people have made Google the first
place they go to search for information, usually find what they want on the
first page of results, and rarely find a need to go to other search engines.
People have done this because Google *works*, and works much *better* than
any of the previous search engines.
I would have agreed with you before the "Florida" update. Google used
to be really good for searches. Of course, in an effort to thwart
SEOs, google made a drastic algorithm change.
While it sucks for those of us who make our money on the net, its also
negative for the users of google. Have you tried finding something
lately? It seems most searches are quite skewed now. I find myself
having a harder time finding things on google now. And the funniest
part is, those sites that used to be top for terms like "hardcore sex"
are still at the top, so apparently the algorithm isn't affecting
spammers as much as they liked.
This is probably the reason some have concocted conspiracy theories
that google did it to sell more adwords. After all, those most likely
to buy adwords (legitimate small businesses) are the ones most
affected by florida.
Just my two cents.
:: Jeremy Morgan ::
Self Proclaimed Expert
Web Developer
http://www.webfootcentral.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Henry" |
|
| Title: Re: Google's rankings |
24 Jan 2004 10:35:02 PM |
|
|
"Jeremy C. Morgan" <jmorgan@cybcon.com> wrote in message
news:ati5101564g9pslu6qe5gbtn99u0f4t98j@4ax.com...
While it sucks for those of us who make our money on the net, its also
negative for the users of google. Have you tried finding something
lately? It seems most searches are quite skewed now. I find myself
having a harder time finding things on google now. And the funniest
part is, those sites that used to be top for terms like "hardcore sex"
are still at the top,
I have to ask ... how would you know that?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Vincent Granville" |
|
| Title: Re: Google's rankings |
24 Jan 2004 02:36:13 AM |
|
|
"Jeremy C. Morgan" wrote:
On Fri, 23 Jan 2004 09:03:43 GMT, Tim Smith
<reply_in_group@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
In article <400F5FAE.7F67D1C3@pacbel.net>, Vincent Granville wrote:
We perfectly agree on this: it doesn't matter the intrinsic value of the
website, which makes Google's ranking totally useless and their
proprietary ranking algorithm a joke.
Experiment proves you wrong: millions of people have made Google the first
place they go to search for information, usually find what they want on the
first page of results, and rarely find a need to go to other search engines.
People have done this because Google *works*, and works much *better* than
any of the previous search engines.
I would have agreed with you before the "Florida" update. Google used
to be really good for searches. Of course, in an effort to thwart
SEOs, google made a drastic algorithm change.
While it sucks for those of us who make our money on the net, its also
negative for the users of google. Have you tried finding something
lately? It seems most searches are quite skewed now. I find myself
having a harder time finding things on google now. And the funniest
part is, those sites that used to be top for terms like "hardcore sex"
are still at the top, so apparently the algorithm isn't affecting
spammers as much as they liked.
This is probably the reason some have concocted conspiracy theories
that google did it to sell more adwords. After all, those most likely
to buy adwords (legitimate small businesses) are the ones most
affected by florida.
Good point. They do not ban my paid advertising after all. I think there's a
potential for an interesting lawsuit based on "unfair business practice".
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Colin Andrew Percival" |
|
| Title: Re: Google's rankings |
23 Jan 2004 05:42:49 AM |
|
|
Tim Smith <reply_in_group@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
[M]illions of people have made Google the first
place they go to search for information, usually find what they want on the
first page of results, and rarely find a need to go to other search engines.
People have done this because Google *works*, and works much *better* than
any of the previous search engines.
No. People have done this because, while Google *doesn't work*, it
*doesn't work* much *less* than any of the previous search engines.
Colin Percival
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "GreyWyvern" |
|
| Title: Re: Google's rankings |
22 Jan 2004 09:59:11 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 05:36:22 GMT, Vincent Granville <paris63@pacbel.net>
wrote:
It doesn't matter if your
site is the most legitimate piece of net real estate on the planet. You
did something Google thought was naughty, and now you whine and complain
because somehow it's your *right* to be listed.
We perfectly agree on this: it doesn't matter the intrinsic value of the
website, which makes Google's ranking totally useless and their
proprietary
ranking algorithm a joke.
No, *you* have been banned. The intrinsic value of your site doesn't come
into the equation. It's *actual* value, according to Google, is zero. It
would be nice if we could have the web entirely indexed by hand (read some
of the Foundation short stories by Azimov). But right now, if you
After inquiring as why I was removed, Google (they are a bunch of
arrogant
people) did not reply, even though I am a customer who possesses a weapon
capable of destroying their business (see below). So I have three
solutions.
So now you're a vigilante; how romantic. Get bent. Google penalized you
for artifically affecting rankings with the intent to profit and now, in
retaliation, you're threatening to ruin them unless they reinstate you.
Yours are the actions of a deranged and unstable person.
(1) Create a new website with same contents and wait for it to be picked
up by
Google webcrawlers, assuming it would change something.
Have you tried it? I bet it would.
(2) Make public Google's business practices by posting in places like
this and
purchasing keywords such as "internet censorship" on other search
engines.
Ironically, this brings considerably more traffic than I used to receive
freely from Google. So I will continue to use this option in the future.
Not only does it bring you more traffic, but more ridicule, criticism and
derision. You're a sad little boy who got kicked out of the club, and now
you're going to burn the treefort down unless they take you back.
(3) Retaliation by legal means. This will come soon. Look at the
"doomsday
scenario" section at http://www.datashaping.com/security.shtml . By
legal, I
mean "legal" with respect to the local laws where the action is taking
place
(outside US). In a nutshell, I am taking about a large scale project to
deliver undetectable fraudulent clicks, using IP masquarading, simulated
human
browsing and other advanced techniques.
Then do it and get on with it, we're all sitting here waiting for more
action and less bitching. A better question: it's been over a year since
you've been banned, so why haven't you done it already? Chicken?
Grey
--
The technical axiom that nothing is impossible sinisterly implies the
pitfall corollory that nothing is ridiculous.
- http://www.greywyvern.com - Orca RingMaker: PHP web ring creation and
management
.
|
|
|
| User: "GreyWyvern" |
|
| Title: Re: Google's rankings |
22 Jan 2004 10:09:16 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 10:59:11 -0500, GreyWyvern
<SP_bhuisman@greywyvern.com_AM> wrote:
On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 05:36:22 GMT, Vincent Granville <paris63@pacbel.net>
wrote:
It doesn't matter if your
site is the most legitimate piece of net real estate on the planet.
You
did something Google thought was naughty, and now you whine and
complain
because somehow it's your *right* to be listed.
We perfectly agree on this: it doesn't matter the intrinsic value of the
website, which makes Google's ranking totally useless and their
proprietary
ranking algorithm a joke.
No, *you* have been banned. The intrinsic value of your site doesn't
come into the equation. It's *actual* value, according to Google, is
zero. It would be nice if we could have the web entirely indexed by
hand (read some of the Foundation short stories by Azimov). But right
now, if you
stupid cut n paste :P
What I meant to say was Google can only do the best they can to keep the
results from being tampered with for personal gain. And if they must use
impersonal algorithms to do it, then so be it.
Grey
--
The technical axiom that nothing is impossible sinisterly implies the
pitfall corollory that nothing is ridiculous.
- http://www.greywyvern.com - Orca RingMaker: PHP web ring creation and
management
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Leon Mergen" |
|
| Title: Re: Google's rankings |
22 Jan 2004 07:53:32 AM |
|
|
Vincent Granville wrote:
(3) Retaliation by legal means. This will come soon. Look at the "doomsday
scenario" section at http://www.datashaping.com/security.shtml . By legal, I
mean "legal" with respect to the local laws where the action is taking place
(outside US). In a nutshell, I am taking about a large scale project to
deliver undetectable fraudulent clicks, using IP masquarading, simulated human
browsing and other advanced techniques.
And you're suprised google thinks you're scum ? Get real, you're stupid.
Regards,
Leon Mergen
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Robert Hoffman" |
|
| Title: Re: Google's rankings |
21 Jan 2004 02:28:15 AM |
|
|
How can you tell he was banned by google and what is referrer log
spamming?...How did you find out this info on his site?
"GreyWyvern" <SP_bhuisman@greywyvern.com_AM> wrote in message
news:opr1151vwdv0in9v@news.ican.net...
On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 01:32:42 GMT, Vincent Granville <paris63@pacbel.net>
wrote:
[snip endless whining]
Vincent, you were busted for referrer log spamming. Google is providing a
service as a business, and if they want to weed out creeps like you than
they are 100% within their rights to do so. It doesn't matter if your
site is the most legitimate piece of net real estate on the planet. You
did something Google thought was naughty, and now you whine and complain
because somehow it's your *right* to be listed.
This has nothing to do with inefficiencies in the Google PageRank
algorithm, and has *everything* to do with www.datashaping.com being
banned from the Google database. Comparing your site to others with
higher PageRank than yours means nothing except that they are listed and
you are not.
Everyone else can prove it for themselves:
http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Awww.datashaping.com+-sdsdfsdf
Perhaps if you cleaned up your act and asked nicely, you'd be given your
precious PageRank back again. On the other hand, it's awfully amusing
watching you humiliate yourself by bearing this grudge like a
grade-schooler who had his pencilcase stolen. Because despite all your
degrees (which you listed in a previous rant a few months ago) you still
haven't grown up.
Grey
--
The technical axiom that nothing is impossible sinisterly implies the
pitfall corollory that nothing is ridiculous.
- http://www.greywyvern.com - ORCA - Camouflaged PHP Web Scripts.
.
|
|
|
| User: "GreyWyvern" |
|
| Title: Re: Google's rankings |
21 Jan 2004 01:53:22 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 03:28:15 -0500, Robert Hoffman <bob@bobhoffman.com>
wrote:
How can you tell he was banned by google and what is referrer log
spamming?...How did you find out this info on his site?
STFW
Grey
--
The technical axiom that nothing is impossible sinisterly implies the
pitfall corollory that nothing is ridiculous.
- http://www.greywyvern.com - Orca RingMaker: PHP web ring creation and
management
.
|
|
|
| User: "William Tasso" |
|
| Title: Re: Google's rankings |
21 Jan 2004 06:29:02 PM |
|
|
GreyWyvern wrote:
On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 03:28:15 -0500, Robert Hoffman
<bob@bobhoffman.com> wrote:
How can you tell ...
STFW
??
--
William Tasso - http://WilliamTasso.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "GreyWyvern" |
|
| Title: Re: Google's rankings |
21 Jan 2004 07:13:31 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 00:29:02 -0000, William Tasso <SpamBlocked@tbdata.com>
wrote:
GreyWyvern wrote:
On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 03:28:15 -0500, Robert Hoffman
<bob@bobhoffman.com> wrote:
How can you tell ...
STFW
??
You can google just as easily as I can William.
Grey
--
The technical axiom that nothing is impossible sinisterly implies the
pitfall corollory that nothing is ridiculous.
- http://www.greywyvern.com - Orca RingMaker: PHP web ring creation and
management
.
|
|
|
| User: "William Tasso" |
|
| Title: Re: Google's rankings |
22 Jan 2004 06:33:50 AM |
|
|
GreyWyvern wrote:
On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 00:29:02 -0000, William Tasso
<SpamBlocked@tbdata.com> wrote:
GreyWyvern wrote:
On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 03:28:15 -0500, Robert Hoffman
<bob@bobhoffman.com> wrote:
How can you tell ...
STFW
??
You can google just as easily as I can William.
LOL: IRTA as STFU
--
William Tasso - http://WilliamTasso.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Charles Sweeney" |
|
| Title: Re: Google's rankings |
22 Jan 2004 07:03:26 AM |
|
|
"William Tasso" <SpamBlocked@tbdata.com> wrote in message
news:buofv6$kcij7$1@ID-139074.news.uni-berlin.de...
GreyWyvern wrote:
On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 00:29:02 -0000, William Tasso
<SpamBlocked@tbdata.com> wrote:
GreyWyvern wrote:
On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 03:28:15 -0500, Robert Hoffman
<bob@bobhoffman.com> wrote:
How can you tell ...
STFW
??
You can google just as easily as I can William.
LOL: IRTA as STFU
WTF???!!!
Well, all the Fs mean the same thing!
--
Charles Sweeney
www.CharlesSweeney.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "William Tasso" |
|
| Title: Re: Google's rankings |
22 Jan 2004 07:08:41 AM |
|
|
Charles Sweeney wrote:
"William Tasso" <SpamBlocked@tbdata.com> wrote in message
news:buofv6$kcij7$1@ID-139074.news.uni-berlin.de...
GreyWyvern wrote:
On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 00:29:02 -0000, William Tasso
<SpamBlocked@tbdata.com> wrote:
GreyWyvern wrote:
On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 03:28:15 -0500, Robert Hoffman
<bob@bobhoffman.com> wrote:
How can you tell ...
STFW
??
You can google just as easily as I can William.
LOL: IRTA as STFU
WTF???!!!
Well, all the Fs mean the same thing!
How many Fs in 'motivation' ?
--
William Tasso - http://WilliamTasso.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dylan Parry" |
|
| Title: Re: Google's rankings |
22 Jan 2004 07:13:41 AM |
|
|
William Tasso wrote:
How many Fs in 'motivation' ?
There's no F-in motivation ;)
--
Dylan Parry
http://www.webpageworkshop.co.uk - FREE Web tutorials and references
Now playing: Elton John - Tiny Dancer from "Greatest hits 1970-2002"
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Robert Hoffman" |
|
| Title: Re: Google's rankings |
22 Jan 2004 03:06:49 AM |
|
|
Hmm.
You gotme on that one.. But I did search the web, and all I found was a
bunch of misinformed morons thinking a 0/10 or a grey bar means google
banned them...
How stupid can they be?
I thought there was a list somewhere or somekind of program.
Having a 0/10 or a grey blank usually means no one links to you (impossible
to be spidered), content that never changes, and/or still new.
Over the years the site will go up as you add new stuff, get people to link
back to you, etc.
I will take another look, but other than criteria that can make your site
less important listed here
http://www.google.com/webmasters/guidelines.html
there is no avaialble source that tells you if you are banned. Just because
your site sucks or you have put no effort into getting listed with engines
other than praying at the keyboard does not mean you are banned.
AS for the referrer log spamming...lol... now I see... But the question
remains, on this guys site, how did you figure out he was doing it..
Searching on web engines got me no references at all to his site....
You must have a magic webball.....
for those interested, here is a nice article on referrer spamming..
http://www.spywareinfo.com/articles/referer_spam/
lol
"GreyWyvern" <SP_bhuisman@greywyvern.com_AM> wrote in message
news:opr145i8m7v0in9v@news.nas.net...
On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 03:28:15 -0500, Robert Hoffman <bob@bobhoffman.com>
wrote:
How can you tell he was banned by google and what is referrer log
spamming?...How did you find out this info on his site?
STFW
Grey
--
The technical axiom that nothing is impossible sinisterly implies the
pitfall corollory that nothing is ridiculous.
- http://www.greywyvern.com - Orca RingMaker: PHP web ring creation and
management
.
|
|
|
| User: "GreyWyvern" |
|
| Title: Re: Google's rankings |
22 Jan 2004 09:42:50 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 04:06:49 -0500, Robert Hoffman <bob@bobhoffman.com>
wrote:
Hmm.
You gotme on that one.. But I did search the web, and all I found was a
bunch of misinformed morons thinking a 0/10 or a grey bar means google
banned them...
How stupid can they be?
I thought there was a list somewhere or somekind of program.
Having a 0/10 or a grey blank usually means no one links to you
(impossible
to be spidered), content that never changes, and/or still new.
Over the years the site will go up as you add new stuff, get people to
link
back to you, etc.
I will take another look, but other than criteria that can make your site
less important listed here
http://www.google.com/webmasters/guidelines.html
there is no avaialble source that tells you if you are banned. Just
because
your site sucks or you have put no effort into getting listed with
engines
other than praying at the keyboard does not mean you are banned.
Here's proof.
5,410 sites containing the *term* "datashaping"
http://www.google.com/search?q=datashaping
0 sites *at* www.datashaping.com containing the term "datashaping"
http://www.google.com/search?q=datashaping+site%3Awww.datashaping.com
0 sites *at* www.datashaping.com which *don't* contain the term
supercalifragilisticexpialadocious (which should return *all* pages there)
http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Awww.datashaping.com+-supercalifragilisticexpialadocious
Proof enough?
AS for the referrer log spamming...lol... now I see... But the question
remains, on this guys site, how did you figure out he was doing it..
Searching on web engines got me no references at all to his site....
You must have a magic webball.....
http://brilliantcorners.org/mt/mt-comments.cgi?entry_id=735
http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,56017,00.html
This one even has a *link* to www.datashaping.com, proving again that
Google has banned it.
http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2002/10/27/192238/97
Grey
--
The technical axiom that nothing is impossible sinisterly implies the
pitfall corollory that nothing is ridiculous.
- http://www.greywyvern.com - Orca RingMaker: PHP web ring creation and
management
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: Google's rankings |
19 Jan 2004 07:58:13 PM |
|
|
Vincent Granville wrote:
(1) http://www.nakedteens.com ==> 4/10
(2) http://www.datashaping.com ==> 0/10
(1) has multiple invading pop-ups and crudly displays poor quality
pornographic material without asking your age
(2) has none of the above -- it's just a website for mathematicians
(1) is better than (2) according to Google's page ranking algorithm.
Visit (1) and (2) and judge by yourself.
Vincent Granville wrote:
http://www.scientology.com ==> 4/10
http://www.datashaping.com ==> 0/10
This gives you an idea on how biased Google's ranking is, favoring
criminals over legitimate businesses.
Hey stooopid - Google ranking is decided by software based on
empirically validated statistical elements. Google uses their model
because it works. Google favors nobody, and "better" is orthognal to
their analysis. If you were looking for a whole lot of strange and
ended up at the math site, you'd be holding your little wee-wee in
your palsied hand and screaming that Google had cheated you.
Tell ya what, stooopid, Google "Amanda Peet." One is an actress who
takes off her clothes a lot, the other is a respected string
theorist. Why don't you get up on your hind legs and tell us which
one is the ripoff?
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.htm
(Do something naughty to physics)
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Schoenfeld" |
|
| Title: Re: Google's rankings |
22 Jan 2004 06:36:20 AM |
|
|
http://www.scientology.com ==> 4/10
http://www.datashaping.com ==> 0/10
This gives you an idea on how biased Google's ranking is, favoring
criminals over legitimate businesses.
Hey stooopid - Google ranking is decided by software based on
empirically validated statistical elements. Google uses their model
because it works. Google favors nobody, and "better" is orthognal to
their analysis. If you were looking for a whole lot of strange and
ended up at the math site, you'd be holding your little wee-wee in
your palsied hand and screaming that Google had cheated you.
Tell ya what, stooopid, Google "Amanda Peet." One is an actress who
takes off her clothes a lot, the other is a respected string
theorist. Why don't you get up on your hind legs and tell us which
one is the ripoff?
Actually, Google is ripping you off.
http://www.google-watch.org/gifs/gscrew.gif
http://www.google-watch.org
http://www.scroogle.org
JS
.
|
|
|
| User: "GreyWyvern" |
|
| Title: Re: Google's rankings |
22 Jan 2004 09:26:23 AM |
|
|
On 22 Jan 2004 04:36:20 -0800, John Schoenfeld
<j.schoenfeld@programmer.net> wrote:
http://www.scientology.com ==> 4/10
http://www.datashaping.com ==> 0/10
This gives you an idea on how biased Google's ranking is, favoring
criminals over legitimate businesses.
Hey stooopid - Google ranking is decided by software based on
empirically validated statistical elements. Google uses their model
because it works. Google favors nobody, and "better" is orthognal to
their analysis. If you were looking for a whole lot of strange and
ended up at the math site, you'd be holding your little wee-wee in
your palsied hand and screaming that Google had cheated you.
Tell ya what, stooopid, Google "Amanda Peet." One is an actress who
takes off her clothes a lot, the other is a respected string
theorist. Why don't you get up on your hind legs and tell us which
one is the ripoff?
Actually, Google is ripping you off.
http://www.google-watch.org/gifs/gscrew.gif
http://www.google-watch.org
http://www.scroogle.org
Google-watch is run by one Mr. Daniel Brandt, who, while he has some
interesting things to say, was likewise bitten by Google when his massive
site wasn't indexed all the way and his content pages got a low PageRank.
He thinks he *deserves* higher.
A nice article here:
http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2002/08/29/google_watch/
The dispute is personal which, IMHO, diminishes Mr. Brandt's credibility.
Grey
--
The technical axiom that nothing is impossible sinisterly implies the
pitfall corollory that nothing is ridiculous.
- http://www.greywyvern.com - Orca RingMaker: PHP web ring creation and
management
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Schoenfeld" |
|
| Title: Re: Google's rankings |
24 Jan 2004 01:34:55 AM |
|
|
GreyWyvern <SP_bhuisman@greywyvern.com_AM> wrote in message news:<opr16nt9z1v0in9v@news.nas.net>...
On 22 Jan 2004 04:36:20 -0800, John Schoenfeld
<j.schoenfeld@programmer.net> wrote:
http://www.scientology.com ==> 4/10
http://www.datashaping.com ==> 0/10
This gives you an idea on how biased Google's ranking is, favoring
criminals over legitimate businesses.
Hey stooopid - Google ranking is decided by software based on
empirically validated statistical elements. Google uses their model
because it works. Google favors nobody, and "better" is orthognal to
their analysis. If you were looking for a whole lot of strange and
ended up at the math site, you'd be holding your little wee-wee in
your palsied hand and screaming that Google had cheated you.
Tell ya what, stooopid, Google "Amanda Peet." One is an actress who
takes off her clothes a lot, the other is a respected string
theorist. Why don't you get up on your hind legs and tell us which
one is the ripoff?
Actually, Google is ripping you off.
http://www.google-watch.org/gifs/gscrew.gif
http://www.google-watch.org
http://www.scroogle.org
Google-watch is run by one Mr. Daniel Brandt, who, while he has some
interesting things to say, was likewise bitten by Google when his massive
site wasn't indexed all the way and his content pages got a low PageRank.
He thinks he *deserves* higher.
A nice article here:
http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2002/08/29/google_watch/
The dispute is personal which, IMHO, diminishes Mr. Brandt's credibility.
Grey
Just got this error from google: "Your browser's cookie functionality
is turned off. Please turn it on.", spook.
JS
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "William Tasso" |
|
| Title: Re: Google's rankings |
19 Jan 2004 07:41:52 PM |
|
|
Vincent Granville wrote:
...
(1) is better than (2) according to Google's page ranking algorithm.
Visit (1) and (2) and judge by yourself.
Google PR technology has nothing to do with 'better' or any other value
judgement as you well know.
--
William Tasso - http://WilliamTasso.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
