Yes they may. If you clik on a link, take a look at it, and go back to Google, they will get the referal address of the site you just visited, so they can mach it with your current sesion.
They will not get all the sites you visited, but they will get most of them.
That is funny, I originally posted this at WW. I regularilly read Webmsterworld, thank you. I even write some times there, when local censors let me do it. Are you talking about the everflux effect? There is no relation at all. Everflux is about a tinny percentage of the databases, as new and old real time databases gets in and out. No a 10.000.000 to 140.000 thing.
Re:On being a gay geek...
on
Science Askew
·
· Score: 1
Well, a lot of us gay people perceive geeks as somehow closeted gays. After all, if you don't feel any interest in frogs, maybe you should consider toads. On the other hand, real gay geeks usually don't look geek at all, so who knows...
> What, AltaVista ranked your site higher than Google?
No, actually our main company is on top on both on then, just like we are in most search engines I could care about, since 1995. We just happen to be following a number of keywords to track how Google is behaving. As a hosting company, we have a interest on traffic fluctuations, and Google is a key factor there. Any how, if you chose not to believe me, you may want to know what other critics are saying: just check out this news.com article about the Google Gods, or this Wired aricle about Google degraded cuality
>See, Google is a really unique entity. Most
>successful companies are driven by business
>types, suits. Google is a big collection of
>computer scientists doing research, and taking a
>no-compromises approach to product quality...
Ok, that is enough. You have a very idealistic view of Google, the marketing brand, and you are failing to see how Google, the real world company, is actually behaving. I think that you need a realty check, my friend.
Do you love Google? Good, many people do. It is a nice company, a very nice company. But it IS a company. It has been financed by venture capitals, it has professional managers, and it is expecting a return.
Google is not a community driven effort, no since they left Stanford. Everything else is just propaganda: They sold out, just like the rest. They ARE a profit driven company. Is that bad? Well, not at all, or, unless, no necessarily.
But, problem is, they hold 90% of the no-MSN queries, and that is not healthy at all for the rest of the market. Power may corrupt anybody, and excessive power certainly does corrupt any company. That is why America and the EU both have antimonopoly laws.
> notice you don't actually tell us what that
>keyword is
No, I don't, because that would we rude, and because that particular keyword or our particular problem, if any,is irrelevant. It is just an example that must be independly confirmed by others in other cases and other keywords.
>As others have pointed out, there is no such
>thing as a "legitimate" amount of traffic that
>Google has to drive to your site.
Yes, there is. Hundreds of users look daily for "Nasa", or "playboy", and Google, a search tool, is expected to provide them with the relevant results, not with irrelevant, pay results. If you look for a movie cinema playing "Red Dragon" in your local city guide, you are expecting to be sent to see that movie, no ending up in downtown brothel with red lights in front of a Chinese restaurant. If they do it by mistake, well, fine I guess. But the truth is it was working fine two month ago, just before they started billing AdWords by click-through, instead of just for viewing. It started when its Adwords business model started to compete with the Good Relevance model: the worst the results, the higher the chance customers will click trough the advertisement, and the higher the pressure for webmasters to pay AdWords to show up again
I'm speechless, they stopped.
Just for the record, "london hotels" was one of them, but it stopped dancing today, just like 20 more keyword we where following.
It must be a coincidence, but those searches where changing since last 10/30/02 until 6 hours ago, when Slashdot published the Altavista article. Im tempted to think this is a new form of slashdot effect.
Google is becoming a ruthless monopoly
on
Altavista Renewed
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
Well, one thing is for sure: Google is no longer playing nice about which sites are displayed first, The new Google is about selling AdWords space, no fair displaying.
This is something that is not well known to most of you, so let me explain:
Google seems to be randomising results on commercial categories, in order to force commercial sites to pay Adwords to be on top. The sites that used to be on top, the most popular sites, are no longer there.
We have been tracking the cats and keywords affected by the randomised effect since September, keyword showing different, degraded, results with each reload. We have found most competitive travel, hotel and adult related keywords seem to be randomised. The result? Sites have been suddenly deprived of their legitimated traffic, and are been forced to pay AdWords, Google Sponsor programs to survive.
Just one example. A we are following a keyword that used to have 10.000.000 result before the September Google Algorithm update ( the so call Adwords Update). Since 10/300/02 the keyword showing a only 6.000.000 results 25% of the time. Sometimes it has anything between 170.000 and 200.000 results, and 35% of the time it only list 142.000 sites, and the results are pure junk: the top 10 sites are sites without a domain name (only the ip), sites with "Fireworks Splice HTML" as the only text on it, and control panel sites with a "Personalise Your Home Page" title on it.
The result? Sites have been suddenly deprived of their legitimated trafic, and are been forced to pay AdWords, Google Sponsor programs to survive.
Belief me, this Altavista move is VERY WELCOME from the webmaster community. Google is handling 90% of the no-MSN queries now. It is very close to became a monopoly, and it's last two month behaviour shows it in not going to be a "good hearted" monopoly, if such a thing exist.
Searchking.de is not the banned site. The banned site is Searchking.com [www.searchking].
It is not alegally an algorithm problem. It's about one big company banning and smashing a number of smaller companys who dare to sell what Google may only Google has the right to do: put you on top of the result search, paying for Google Adwords ads.
The guys at SK think Google has manualy degraded them, and hundreds of innocent parners sites, as a penalty for seling tex based ads, as a way to improve its Google PageRank(TM).
I personally belive SK may has done a lot of stupid things, one of them suing Google.
But I also think we should be more aware of who the Google Guys realy are: agressive advertising dealers, who may think are the only guys arround entitle to put a price to who important our sites are, with the power to ban your site.
Searchking.de is not the banned site. The banned site is Searchking.com.
The guys at SK think Google has manualy degraded them, and hundreds of innocent parners sites, as a penalty for seling tex based ads, as a way to improve its Google PageRank(TM).
It is not alegally an algorithm problem. Is one big company banning and smashing a number of smaller companys who dare to sell what Google may only Google has the right to do: put you on top of the result search, paying for Google Adwords ads.
I personally belive SK has done a lot of stupid things, one of them suing Google. But I also think we should be more aware of who the Google Guys realy are: agressive ad dealers, who may think are the only guys arround entitle to put a price to who important our sites are.
10 computer, Teraflops GPU based Beowulf systems.
on
Ask Donald Becker
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
Well, if the goal is TeraFlofs league clusters, What about using other commodity chips, like nvidia/3dlabs/ATI GPUs? Some groups are already working on ways to use GPUs as mathematic coprocessors, using OpenGL to represent numerical vector operations by OpenGl based graphics operations on images.
This is not just academic. GPUs are real Vector processors, some of them capable of +200 GFlpos, using up to 128 bits Floating point precision.
Thats about 100 times faster than Intel based CPUs.
Extending math libs, and adapting MPI to use the cluster GPUs as vector oriented Math co-procesor, could potentially lead to 10 computers TeraFlops level beowulf Clusters.
Sorry about that, DNS-and-BIND, my English is not as good as it should.
I tried to make it clear, but some times it is difficult for no-native English speakers to tell out plain English from technical English, specially for slashdot reader like myself:)
Well, is not just Microsoft. At "Go to hell", M$ was #1, AOL #2, and Disney #1. Waht a colection of power players!
And the most embarrased company of that buggy result was... Google!
Yes, I thing they were compeled to change it.
> So exactly how does pushing Hotmail way down the list protect Microsoft?
That is a collateral damage. That is what happens when you try to fix something that is no broken (Popular linking), to protect a big corporation from same public embarrassment (Microsoft, AOL, Disney, and yes, Google). The system becomes unstable, you get weird results, and the quick hack ends up causing more damage that good.
Hi,
>This doesn't make sense. The current top result on a search for `correo gratis' [google.com] is LatinMail - Tu Correo Gratuito En Español
>[latinmail.com]. It seems to me that the listings have gotten more accurate,
Not at all. Latinmail have arround spanish 500.000 accounts. Direccion.com (#3) has 300.000 users. Hotmail has more than 2.000.000 spanish accounts.
Not quite. Now, at the competive categories. Is pretty easy to detect who is the one at the top at conpetitive searches:
The spammer with the greater number of Dmoz Editor accounts.
They degraded the "competitive" categories, aka categories where people is more likely to pay Google using Adwords (Google Ad program) if they don't get a good listing.
Most of dose categories are now dominated by garbage sites and spamers. Good sites with a lot of content and a lot of popular links who used to be #1 or #2 are now #60 or #100, precede with spammers and affiliation programs and 1 page redirection sites.
Those sites are being forced to pay Googles "affordable" Adwords program to stay alive.
Well, this is what we found until now. In order to fight "Googlebombing" and "Pagerank for sale", they may have downgraded results when the Keywords is not in some important part of the on-page text, (to stop googlebombing), and the anchortext in ranking may have been tuned down, (to stop Pagerank monetization), specially if the linking pages do not have a good PageRank to begging with. Internal links, and links from interlinked pages may have been tuned down also.
Still, we have sees as many as 200 regional competitive cats easily dominated by unscrupulous Dmoz editors. We have done some testing on that.
To test if we really are in front of a Dmoz dominated Update, we have set up a Aspseek based small search engine, a GNU search engine with a crude PageRank-like ranking system. We have indexed around 1.500.000 pages, using as the starting point 700 Dmoz very competitive dmoz cats, including up to 250 pages per site, following up to 10 outside link, with up to 100 pages per outside link.
What we found was that 59% of our top 20 results on the 100 cat-related competitive Keywords where also top 20 in Googles new index, and 26% of our Top 10 where also Googles Top 10.
But we must also said that we have not been able to find a so-compelling relationship using no-competitive categories. A 2.000.000 pages index with non-competitive regional cats, using non-competitive Keywords, showed a very small correlation between top 10, top 20, and even top 50 results.
So, our working theory right now is, yes, small changes, probably committed in order to fight both googlebombing and Pagerank commoditization, have affected the index accuracy in many different ways.
We think the index is unbalance, or unless much more unbalanced than the last one, and, as a result, the weight of some previously no-so important characteristics are souped-up, opening the door for abuse.
The main effect of all of this is small well managed sites at competitive categories can not relay anymore in good content + good linking to get a good listing. They will have to pay Google using Addwords program. That is the main change here. Forcing small business to pay to get at the top, using advertising space.
But we do think this update and the changes committed are, to say the least, unbalanced, and the new algo is rampantly open to easy abuse. Lets hope Google good old Phd common sense returns soon, and a new, improved update takes place as soon as possible. Lets hope they are not tring to make a easy killing by forcin small popular sites, all of the sudden deprived from traffic, to pay google using Adwords.
Well, so much for PageRank. Im afraid this is whats going on: Link base PageRank, like 1 person per vote democracy, was turning dangerous for the few with enought resources to put some pressure at google. Lest see how they solved it.
Problem:
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22go+to+hell%22
Microsoft was #1 at "go to hell", thanks to popular vote like linking. AOL was #3, Disney #4.
Solution:
http://www2.google.com/search?q=%22go+to+hell%22
They are no counting any more Anchor links from "no-authoritative" web pages. Joe Doe pages dont count any more. Only Anchor links coming from pages oficialy "recogniced" at big sites whit a superior page rank to start with, or directories like Dmoz or yahoo count now.
If this is the case, we can say PageRank is DEAD. From now on, big corporation marketing rules over popular choice. take this as a example:
http://www.google.com/search?q=correo+gratis
"correo gratis" is spanish for "free mail". Hotmail was #1. Now, at www2, is nowhere to be found. Hotmail is pagerank 9, and hundreds of spanish web pages where pointing at it as "correo gratis". Now is not, but is still #1 if you look for "free mail". Why? joe doe pages dont count, hundres of spanish users linking at it dont count any more. Only the "official", msn network pages count now, plus the few Dmoz pages pointing at it using that text as links. Most of those pages happen to be English Only, so only the english version of the query survives. Oh well.
.
Slashdot Mirror
Uh... Yes, you are right.
Yes they may. If you clik on a link, take a look at it, and go back to Google, they will get the referal address of the site you just visited, so they can mach it with your current sesion.
They will not get all the sites you visited, but they will get most of them.
> The cortex has about 30.000.0000 neurons. Ops, a typo, the cortex has around 30.000.000.000 neurons, no 30 million.
- The cortex has about 30.000.0000 neurons.
- Neurons has an avarage 10.000 sinapsis, each one of them holding up arround 8 bytes.
- Neuros can fire 200 times per secon.
- Less than 8% of the cortex neurons are firing at a given time.
Do the math, and enter the new brave world of AI computing.
This guy is using "gay" as an insult, and the post still gets mod up. Is that usual behavior arround here?
That is funny, I originally posted this at WW. I regularilly read Webmsterworld, thank you. I even write some times there, when local censors let me do it. Are you talking about the everflux effect? There is no relation at all. Everflux is about a tinny percentage of the databases, as new and old real time databases gets in and out. No a 10.000.000 to 140.000 thing.
Well, a lot of us gay people perceive geeks as somehow closeted gays. After all, if you don't feel any interest in frogs, maybe you should consider toads. On the other hand, real gay geeks usually don't look geek at all, so who knows...
Comdex is just a small regional show, poorly managed. Just compare it to world class tech trade shows like Hannover Cebit:
Cebit: 4.56 million square feet
Comdex: less than 1 million square feet
Cebit: 700,000 attendees
Comdex: 125,000 attendees
Cebit: 7,962 exhibiting companies
Comdex: 1,000 exhibiting companies
No, actually our main company is on top on both on then, just like we are in most search engines I could care about, since 1995. We just happen to be following a number of keywords to track how Google is behaving. As a hosting company, we have a interest on traffic fluctuations, and Google is a key factor there. Any how, if you chose not to believe me, you may want to know what other critics are saying: just check out this news.com article about the Google Gods, or this Wired aricle about Google degraded cuality
>See, Google is a really unique entity. Most
>successful companies are driven by business
>types, suits. Google is a big collection of
>computer scientists doing research, and taking a
>no-compromises approach to product quality...
Ok, that is enough. You have a very idealistic view of Google, the marketing brand, and you are failing to see how Google, the real world company, is actually behaving. I think that you need a realty check, my friend.
Do you love Google? Good, many people do. It is a nice company, a very nice company. But it IS a company. It has been financed by venture capitals, it has professional managers, and it is expecting a return.
Google is not a community driven effort, no since they left Stanford. Everything else is just propaganda: They sold out, just like the rest. They ARE a profit driven company. Is that bad? Well, not at all, or, unless, no necessarily.
But, problem is, they hold 90% of the no-MSN queries, and that is not healthy at all for the rest of the market. Power may corrupt anybody, and excessive power certainly does corrupt any company. That is why America and the EU both have antimonopoly laws.
> notice you don't actually tell us what that >keyword is No, I don't, because that would we rude, and because that particular keyword or our particular problem, if any,is irrelevant. It is just an example that must be independly confirmed by others in other cases and other keywords. >As others have pointed out, there is no such >thing as a "legitimate" amount of traffic that >Google has to drive to your site. Yes, there is. Hundreds of users look daily for "Nasa", or "playboy", and Google, a search tool, is expected to provide them with the relevant results, not with irrelevant, pay results. If you look for a movie cinema playing "Red Dragon" in your local city guide, you are expecting to be sent to see that movie, no ending up in downtown brothel with red lights in front of a Chinese restaurant. If they do it by mistake, well, fine I guess. But the truth is it was working fine two month ago, just before they started billing AdWords by click-through, instead of just for viewing. It started when its Adwords business model started to compete with the Good Relevance model: the worst the results, the higher the chance customers will click trough the advertisement, and the higher the pressure for webmasters to pay AdWords to show up again
I'm speechless, they stopped.
Just for the record, "london hotels" was one of them, but it stopped dancing today, just like 20 more keyword we where following.
It must be a coincidence, but those searches where changing since last 10/30/02 until 6 hours ago, when Slashdot published the Altavista article.
Im tempted to think this is a new form of slashdot effect.
This is something that is not well known to most of you, so let me explain:
Google seems to be randomising results on commercial categories, in order to force commercial sites to pay Adwords to be on top. The sites that used to be on top, the most popular sites, are no longer there.
We have been tracking the cats and keywords affected by the randomised effect since September, keyword showing different, degraded, results with each reload. We have found most competitive travel, hotel and adult related keywords seem to be randomised. The result? Sites have been suddenly deprived of their legitimated traffic, and are been forced to pay AdWords, Google Sponsor programs to survive.
Just one example. A we are following a keyword that used to have 10.000.000 result before the September Google Algorithm update ( the so call Adwords Update). Since 10/300/02 the keyword showing a only 6.000.000 results 25% of the time. Sometimes it has anything between 170.000 and 200.000 results, and 35% of the time it only list 142.000 sites, and the results are pure junk: the top 10 sites are sites without a domain name (only the ip), sites with "Fireworks Splice HTML" as the only text on it, and control panel sites with a "Personalise Your Home Page" title on it. The result? Sites have been suddenly deprived of their legitimated trafic, and are been forced to pay AdWords, Google Sponsor programs to survive.
Belief me, this Altavista move is VERY WELCOME from the webmaster community. Google is handling 90% of the no-MSN queries now. It is very close to became a monopoly, and it's last two month behaviour shows it in not going to be a "good hearted" monopoly, if such a thing exist.
Searchking.de is not the banned site. The banned site is Searchking.com [www.searchking].
It is not alegally an algorithm problem. It's about one big company banning and smashing a number of smaller companys who dare to sell what Google may only Google has the right to do: put you on top of the result search, paying for Google Adwords ads.
The guys at SK think Google has manualy degraded them, and hundreds of innocent parners sites, as a penalty for seling tex based ads, as a way to improve its Google PageRank(TM).
I personally belive SK may has done a lot of stupid things, one of them suing Google.
But I also think we should be more aware of who the Google Guys realy are: agressive advertising dealers, who may think are the only guys arround entitle to put a price to who important our sites are, with the power to ban your site.
Searchking.de is not the banned site. The banned site is Searchking.com.
The guys at SK think Google has manualy degraded them, and hundreds of innocent parners sites, as a penalty for seling tex based ads, as a way to improve its Google PageRank(TM).
It is not alegally an algorithm problem. Is one big company banning and smashing a number of smaller companys who dare to sell what Google may only Google has the right to do: put you on top of the result search, paying for Google Adwords ads.
I personally belive SK has done a lot of stupid things, one of them suing Google. But I also think we should be more aware of who the Google Guys realy are: agressive ad dealers, who may think are the only guys arround entitle to put a price to who important our sites are.
Well, if the goal is TeraFlofs league clusters, What about using other commodity chips, like nvidia/3dlabs/ATI GPUs? Some groups are already working on ways to use GPUs as mathematic coprocessors, using OpenGL to represent numerical vector operations by OpenGl based graphics operations on images.
This is not just academic. GPUs are real Vector processors, some of them capable of +200 GFlpos, using up to 128 bits Floating point precision.
Thats about 100 times faster than Intel based CPUs.
Extending math libs, and adapting MPI to use the cluster GPUs as vector oriented Math co-procesor, could potentially lead to 10 computers TeraFlops level beowulf Clusters.
Madrileño, Actually.
I tried to make it clear, but some times it is difficult for no-native English speakers to tell out plain English from technical English, specially for slashdot reader like myself :)
Well, is not just Microsoft. At "Go to hell", M$ was #1, AOL #2, and Disney #1. Waht a colection of power players!
And the most embarrased company of that buggy result was... Google!
Yes, I thing they were compeled to change it.
That is a collateral damage. That is what happens when you try to fix something that is no broken (Popular linking), to protect a big corporation from same public embarrassment (Microsoft, AOL, Disney, and yes, Google). The system becomes unstable, you get weird results, and the quick hack ends up causing more damage that good.
Hi, >This doesn't make sense. The current top result on a search for `correo gratis' [google.com] is LatinMail - Tu Correo Gratuito En Español >[latinmail.com]. It seems to me that the listings have gotten more accurate, Not at all. Latinmail have arround spanish 500.000 accounts. Direccion.com (#3) has 300.000 users. Hotmail has more than 2.000.000 spanish accounts.
Not quite. Now, at the competive categories. Is pretty easy to detect who is the one at the top at conpetitive searches:
The spammer with the greater number of Dmoz Editor accounts.
Most of dose categories are now dominated by garbage sites and spamers. Good sites with a lot of content and a lot of popular links who used to be #1 or #2 are now #60 or #100, precede with spammers and affiliation programs and 1 page redirection sites.
Those sites are being forced to pay Googles "affordable" Adwords program to stay alive.
To test if we really are in front of a Dmoz dominated Update, we have set up a Aspseek based small search engine, a GNU search engine with a crude PageRank-like ranking system. We have indexed around 1.500.000 pages, using as the starting point 700 Dmoz very competitive dmoz cats, including up to 250 pages per site, following up to 10 outside link, with up to 100 pages per outside link. What we found was that 59% of our top 20 results on the 100 cat-related competitive Keywords where also top 20 in Googles new index, and 26% of our Top 10 where also Googles Top 10.
But we must also said that we have not been able to find a so-compelling relationship using no-competitive categories. A 2.000.000 pages index with non-competitive regional cats, using non-competitive Keywords, showed a very small correlation between top 10, top 20, and even top 50 results.
So, our working theory right now is, yes, small changes, probably committed in order to fight both googlebombing and Pagerank commoditization, have affected the index accuracy in many different ways.
We think the index is unbalance, or unless much more unbalanced than the last one, and, as a result, the weight of some previously no-so important characteristics are souped-up, opening the door for abuse.
The main effect of all of this is small well managed sites at competitive categories can not relay anymore in good content + good linking to get a good listing. They will have to pay Google using Addwords program. That is the main change here. Forcing small business to pay to get at the top, using advertising space.
But we do think this update and the changes committed are, to say the least, unbalanced, and the new algo is rampantly open to easy abuse. Lets hope Google good old Phd common sense returns soon, and a new, improved update takes place as soon as possible. Lets hope they are not tring to make a easy killing by forcin small popular sites, all of the sudden deprived from traffic, to pay google using Adwords.
Well, so much for PageRank. Im afraid this is whats going on: Link base PageRank, like 1 person per vote democracy, was turning dangerous for the few with enought resources to put some pressure at google. Lest see how they solved it. Problem: http://www.google.com/search?q=%22go+to+hell%22 Microsoft was #1 at "go to hell", thanks to popular vote like linking. AOL was #3, Disney #4. Solution: http://www2.google.com/search?q=%22go+to+hell%22 They are no counting any more Anchor links from "no-authoritative" web pages. Joe Doe pages dont count any more. Only Anchor links coming from pages oficialy "recogniced" at big sites whit a superior page rank to start with, or directories like Dmoz or yahoo count now. If this is the case, we can say PageRank is DEAD. From now on, big corporation marketing rules over popular choice. take this as a example: http://www.google.com/search?q=correo+gratis "correo gratis" is spanish for "free mail". Hotmail was #1. Now, at www2, is nowhere to be found. Hotmail is pagerank 9, and hundreds of spanish web pages where pointing at it as "correo gratis". Now is not, but is still #1 if you look for "free mail". Why? joe doe pages dont count, hundres of spanish users linking at it dont count any more. Only the "official", msn network pages count now, plus the few Dmoz pages pointing at it using that text as links. Most of those pages happen to be English Only, so only the english version of the query survives. Oh well. .