Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Traversing the "Googlearchy"

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the he-just-made-that-word-up dept.

baloney farmer writes "How much do search engines influence the availability of information online? A new study gives some surprising results. Search engines help with popularity, but not as much as you'd think: 'Traffic increased far less than would be expected if search engines were enhancing popularity. It actually increased less than would be predicted if traffic were directly proportional to inbound links. In the end, it appears that each inbound link only increases traffic by a factor of 0.8. The results suggest that the reliance of web users on search engines is actually suppressing the impact of popularity.'"

3 of 67 comments (clear)

  1. How are you defining popularity? by crazyjeremy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Maybe a site's popularity isn't defined by the number of inbound links because no matter how many links to your site you have, people still only want to look at things they are interested in. So by defining web popularity not by links, but as "Some internet item people want to find" that means that the more links to an individual site simply lets interested people find that site easier. It would only change the popularity if it's forced on you (like ads) and you become interested by a curious side thought... The more links to a site you have, the more likely interested people will find it.

    --
    Funnypics
  2. This doesn't mean what it sounds like... by pla · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The results suggest that the reliance of web users on search engines is actually suppressing the impact of popularity.

    When I first read this summary, I thought, "WTF?". So I read the article. And re-read the summary. And re-read the article. And I think I finally "get" it.

    Let's say you run a "popular" site like the BBC news. You get a hell of a lot of traffic, and people tend to go directly to your site rather than via a link. Alternately, you get a lot of links that only a small percent of people seeing them follow.

    Now compare that with an unknown site (most personal or academic webpages, for example). They get very few visitors, but most of them come from search engines.

    So what does this tell us?

    Almost nothing we didn't already know - Search engines DO indeed negate the impact of popularity, because popularity has little to do with relevance, while search engines generally try to maximize relevance.

    This I consider a "good" thing. When searching for info on ripping a DVD using the latest copy protection scheme, I don't care if the latest pop idol calls ripping "totally not cool". I want methods, programs, and real life examples that might only have gotten a few dozen hits ever.

  3. Re:Self-reenforcing cycle? by DerekLyons · · Score: 4, Insightful
    I've got to say no to this.

    And your evidence and study showing the researchers are wrong is... what?
     
     
    Yes, when you search for something, you get the most popular results. But not everyone uses the same search terms,

    Actually, if you've ever watched those 'live search' services (I.E. showing in realtime search terms users are entering), you'll see the same terms pop up again and again. Equally, for most search items - there simply are not that many (properly spelled) variants. (I.E. for the Seattle Mariners - there's pretty much only one way to type that.)
     
     
    and even if you only go for the first three pages of results, you've still got 20 - 30 different sources of information, each different but similar query returning a slightly different set.
    Many studies have found that the first page is what it's all about - what's on page 4 might as well not even exist. (There's a reason why SEO's exist you know.)
     
    In essence - your claim that the researchers in TFA are wrong is based on smoke and mirrors.