Slashdot Mirror
Cracking the Google Code... Under the GoogleScope
jglazer75 writes "From the analysis of the code behind Google's patents: "Google's sweeping changes confirm the search giant has launched a full out assault against artificial link inflation & declared war against search engine spam in a continuing effort to provide the best search service in the world... and if you thought you cracked the Google Code and had Google all figured out ... guess again. ... In addition to evaluating and scoring web page content, the ranking of web pages are admittedly still influenced by the frequency of page or site updates. What's new and interesting is what Google takes into account in determining the freshness of a web page.""
It's about your right to not see search results filled with complete crap.
The article is not written by a Google employee, nor did the author speak with anyone at Google. It's simply his analysis of the patent document filed by Google.
Also, at the bottom of the article after the author's name, there's a link to some search optimization service's website.
There are 2 kinds of people in this world. Those that can keep their train of thought,
Doesn't seem like the best solution. This would work if you started from a clean slate but spam pages are still out there and are being clicked on. Not much you can do about that, I just hope its not something silly like how much time you spend on a page. If I find a page that quickly answers my question or at least answers part of my question and I click back for other links i'd hate to think that that site would be marked as "spam".
Of course there is reason for concern, any company gets too big and powerful they become evil. Wal-mart, Microsoft, Disney, Intel, Lucasfilm, they're all evil, and I'm sure they didn't set out to become that way, it's just the power of the dark side. Power corrupts, it's the nature of the beast.
Perhaps, or perhaps if Google changes its rankings enough, the SEOs' credibilities will be destroyed (they will be seen as a temporary and overpriced fixes)
Almost any algorithm can be spoofed fairly easily: inserting very small text that's the same color as the background. Then whenever they want Google to think they've updated, they change the text. The viewer doesn't tell the difference, but the source code changes. Or they could just use comments in Javascript, or just create Javascript that never gets used.
Also, a page with frames might get penalized since its content doesn't change, although the content of the frames may change frequently.
Truthfully? The top results should be for "Tiger" should be furry creatures that eat meat and perform in Las Vegas.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Note that Google is now looking at domain ownership information. This may result in a much lower level of bogus information in domain registrations. It's probably a good idea to make sure that your domain registration information, business license, D&B rating, on-site contact info, and SSL certificates all match.
"Domain cloaking" will probably mean that you don't appear anywhere the top in Google. So that's on the way out.
Google has millions upon millions of click history on their search results that say what it is people really are looking for, as well as which ones appeared good fodder for first clicking.
No one else has such a large database of what humans have actually picked.
Such a click history and search term history asset is worth even more if it gets correlated with Evil Direct Marketing information from the cookie traders.
Although, it seems possible that large ISPs could also grab and analyze their members Google interactions to figure out people's tastes, assuming such interactions remain unencrypted.
I have to wonder how many companies with static IP addresses have, unbeknownst to them, built up extensive history logs at Google showing their search term preferences and click selections. If I were a technology startup with a hot idea to research I'd be a little more paranoid about something like that.
"Provided by the management for your protection."
Sometimes search engine optimization isn't about making a hack site rank well. Sometimes it is about getting the traffic that a really nifty site deserves.
Actually, pretty much everything you list falls under the issue of usability. Many of those options have lower usability for the user, and thus the search engine by extension.
These companies don't need an SEO, they need to find a web designer that doesn't use Macromedia "tools".
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
It seems nobody has asked the question: what if a spammer wants to lower the rank of more reputable companies? If a spammer link spams a site that is already fairly popular, couldn't it harm the page rank of a company that has nothing to do with the spam?
MacroHard - Boning you in a big way! (TM)
Being a professional webworker for more than 8 years now, I agree with you from experience, but actually I don't think you can blame Macromedia.
I will not say anything at all about Flash because two camps who BOTH don't get it will start the usual pointless discussion. Flash is rarely used for what it's great at, visualizing data, and plagues us with wildly unnecessary and annoying l33t-masturbation stuff instead.
Dreamweaver itself is indeed a powerful timesaver in the hands of an experienced XHTML/CSS guy. If you look at it closely, you'll find that it is a very nice graphical frontend to HTML itself, with a great set of shortcuts so that you almost don't have to touch the mouse at all. The palettes just provide access to the most commonly needed attributes of the element you're working on. If you leave all those nasty "behaviours", "timelines" and whatnow alone, it produces nicely readable and well-formed code. I'm using Dreamweaver since the early betas, and even back then this was the case. I tend to think that this was an initial design goal behind DW.
The bad comes from the 'designers' who are taught print design at the universities and apply them to the Web, using all the nutty clicky-pointy tools that produce JS-laden horror cabinet of non-standards-compliance they dare to call "HTML". It's a classical PEBKAC. Look at it this way - if DW didn't have those features, GoLive would've taken over long ago and we don't want THIS to happen. IMNSHO the only thing worse would be Frontpage. At least the guys at Macromedia didn't invent bogus HTML extensions because they were incapable of providing a proper metadata infrastructure, like Adobe did.
(I'm not a fanboy though, I just use what works best at the moment for the things I do. If someone shows me how to reproduce this "Apply Source Formatting" feature from DW in Kate/KDevelop and how to synchronize sites like in DW, I'm switching my machine at work from Win2K with DW to KDevelop/nvu on FreeBSD tomorrow, because it better fits the things I do nowadays. It will then match my setup at home.)
While we're at it, SEO is, was and always will be BS, just like the whole Internet Advertising Myth which after nearly a decade of documented failure still isn't debunked. Duh.
Who is General Failure and why is he reading my hard disk?