Sep 07
12

Does the Google Algorithm rank pages fairly?

15 Comments

[poll=6]

What do you think? What factors should, in your opinion be counted most in any algo. Is there too much emphasis on link pop? Are authority scores poorly arrived at? What, if anything would you do that would improve it?

Search Marketing Services Holistic Search

This entry was posted on September 12, 2007 at 1:13 pm. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Posted in algos google by robwatts 15 Comments

15 Responses to "Does the Google Algorithm rank pages fairly?"

  • David Bradley says:
    September 13, 2007 at 4:29 pm
    Reply

    There’s an ugly rumour going around that Google is to abandon PR…

    …know if there’s any truth in it?

    Of course, PR is unfair, but only to those who have a low PR. I’m quite happy that my Sciencebase site sits on a nice high PR7, actually it was a PR8 about five years ago for several months. But, my Sig Figs site, which is fabulous and wonderful only ranks PR5 (at least according to Toolbar, no one knows what Google’s hidden PR used in the actual algo is for their site), it should be higher, of course it should! Web life is sooooo unfair (cue Kevin’s 13th b’day clip…)

    db

  • robwatts says:
    September 13, 2007 at 8:08 pm
    Reply

    Hi David

    Do you mean that rumour that’s been doing the rounds since 2001 ? ;)

    Yup toolbar will always have value for those who can profit from it. Its funny how Google complain about people buying and selling links, yet at the same time gives them a big fat green tool to help them promote themselves!

  • mudflation says:
    September 14, 2007 at 9:21 pm
    Reply

    honestly, i think anchor texts are the only thing wrong with g’s algo. they already found that out with the google bombs and made them worth less, but they should just take them out all together imho. then you wouldn’t get a million spam links a day trying to rank for 1 keyword if keyword optimization was determined only by on site content

  • robwatts says:
    September 15, 2007 at 9:55 am
    Reply

    Would be an interesting serp to see, thats for sure.

    I’d have thought that they’d maybe tried that privately and decided that relevancy and freshness just weren’t up to scratch perhaps…who knows, they say very little on this stuff.

  • Oleg says:
    September 16, 2007 at 11:56 pm
    Reply

    I think there is not enough emphasis on the bounce rate because ultimately, this decides if people like the site and use it, or go away.

  • David Bradley says:
    September 17, 2007 at 3:33 pm
    Reply

    Yes, *that* rumour. The latest discussion I saw on it seemed to point out some kind of trend and alluded to patents and things that might point to change ahead, or maybe not…

    d

  • robwatts says:
    September 17, 2007 at 5:04 pm
    Reply

    @Oleg – I’m sure they’d love a lot more info on that particular user behaviour metric. Probably a big reason why they give away their google analytics product for free.

    @ David – I’m one of those people who sort of laughs at the seemingly never ending stream of new patents out there.

    I look forward to the day when I read one that uses the webcam situated inside the screen that draws upon the pseudo science of phrenology to determine the types of pages a user might like, based upon their physiognomical traits ;)

    PhrenoRank..you heard it here 1st!

  • David Bradley says:
    September 17, 2007 at 5:11 pm
    Reply

    It’s coming Rob, you can be fairly sure. Did you ever used to read Greg Aharonian’s patent news service, it was as looooong ago as the early 90s if memory serves that we collaborated on a couple of items for New Scientist about all the possible permutations of software had been covered at least 10000 times each in supposedly different that all ignored the prior art. This all before high powered searching, pagerank, mp3, mp4, etc etc

    db

  • robwatts says:
    September 17, 2007 at 5:36 pm
    Reply

    No never did…yes patents and patent law, ick! I love those patents that have patented stuff that’s very unlikely to be invented ever!

    I can’t think of specifics, but i recall someone somewhere referencing stuff like time machines, teleportation devices, reanimation devices and other ‘out there’ ideas that if invented would simply blow humanity away.

    The funny thing with this IR stuff and the big engines especially is that whilst they may well have the time and resources to set up little think tanks and write about scoring methods yet to be conceived, the reality is that just like Googles secret algo, no one outside the inner sanctum really knows exack-tag-alley how it all works and would be none the wiser about the use or tagging on of, any pre-existing patented idea already registered by a competitor.

    Of course to think like that suggests that this stuff will stand still. History tends to point to a state of play where something new and radical will come along and blow existing stuff out of the water.

    The IR patent writers of today are either a) trying to freeze out new competition that *may* be a potential threat at some point , or b) just adding to the tried and tested tradition of giving SEO’s a few more FUD theories to think about and speculate upon.

  • Acopic Web Design says:
    September 24, 2007 at 7:31 pm
    Reply

    Google is great. Sure it has it’s faults but I still use it for 99% of my searches. I think people forget that Search Engines have a tough job to do – and the sheer amount of people trying to spam them can’t help what is already a massive task. Yes – link bombing has highlighted a few floors with the algorithm but all in all it’s not that bad is it?

  • David Bradley says:
    September 25, 2007 at 7:09 am
    Reply

    Did everyone catch the discussion about Google searches being hijacked over the weekend? I reported on it at sciencetext.com following an alert from an independent eye witness. Subsequently, I discovered I’d been scooped by Joe at GoogleWatchdog

    db

  • robwatts says:
    September 25, 2007 at 9:09 am
    Reply

    Hi David, No I missed it, but I just blogged on it here.

    http://www.yackyack.co.uk/google/ghosts-in-the-google-machine-and-seeing-double/

    thanks for the heads up

  • robwatts says:
    September 25, 2007 at 12:00 pm
    Reply

    Hi Neil thanks for commenting – Absolutely, they do a lot right and so they should, they are well rewarded for it after all ;)

    I’m sure they all appreciate being kept on their toes, critical praise can bea good thing. If we didn’t care we wouldn’t make a sound, where would they be then?

  • Markus Jalmerot says:
    September 26, 2007 at 2:09 am
    Reply

    Consider Google as the best search engine at the moment. But I must admit that it totally depends on the keywords how good match you get and what time of the day..

  • robwatts says:
    September 28, 2007 at 10:05 am
    Reply

    I agree Markus, it’s a hit and miss affair of striking variation. Too much wiki wiki wiki if you ask me!

Leave a Comment