That's an old version of the page. The current version is as follows:
Cracking the Google Code... Under the GoogleScope Google's US Patent confirms information retrieval is based on historical data.
Publication Date: 5/8/2005 9:51:18 PM
Author Name: Lawrence Deon
An Introduction:...if you thought you cracked the Google Code and had Google all figured out... guess again.
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.
Google has raised the bar against search engine spam and artificial link inflation to unrivaled heights with the filing of a United States Patent Application 20050071741 on March 31, 2005.
The filing unquestionable provides SEO's with valuable insight into Google's tightly guarded search intelligence and confirms that Google's information retrieval is based on historical data.
What exactly do these changes mean to you? Your credibility and reputation on-line are going under the Googlescope! Google has defined their patent abstract as follows:
"A system identifies a document and obtains one or more types of history data associated with the document. The system may generate a score for the document based, at least in part, on the one or more types of history data."
Google's patent specification reveals a significant amount of information both old and new about the possible ways Google can (and likely does) use your web page updates to determine the ranking of your site in the SERPs.
Unfortunately, the patent filing does not prioritize or conclusively confirm any specific method one way or the other.
Here's how Google scores your web pages.
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.
For example, if a stale page continues to procure incoming links, it will still be considered fresh, even if the page header (Last-Modified: tells when the file was most recently modified) hasn't changed and the content is not updated or 'stale'.
According to their patent filing Google records and scores the following web page changes to determine freshness.
The frequency of all web page changes
The actual amount of the change itself... whether it is a substantial change redundant or superfluous
Changes in keyword distribution or density
The actual number of new web pages that link to a web page
The change or update of anchor text (the text that is used to link to a web page)
The numbers of new links to low trust web sites (for example, a domain may be considered low trust for having too many affiliate links on one web page). Although there is no specific number of links indicated in the patent it might be advisable to limit affiliate links on new web pages. Caution should also be used in linking to pages with multiple affiliate links.
Developing your web page augments for page freshness.
Now I'm not suggesting that it's always beneficial or advisable to change the content of your web pages regularly, but it is very important to keep your pages fresh regularly and that may not necessarily mean a content change.
Google states that decayed or stale results might be desirable for information that doesn't necessarily need updating, while fresh content is good for results that require it.
How do you unravel that statement and differentiate between the two types of content?
An excellent example of this methodology is the roller coaster ride seasonal results might experience in Google's SERPs ba
I know you were joking, but AOL actually did try to call themselves UKOL when they first came to the UK, but they found that nobody wanted to use them: AOL had brand-name recognition, whereas UKOL had absolutely none. So they changed it to AOL and lots more people signed up.
>
Wouldn't they move down in the world as they moved up economically/socially/whatnot? If their natural resources were being consumed to produce houses, etc. then the average land height of that country would reduce.
Yes, heaven forbid you were given a choice of how to access the content!
As we know from the computing industry, redundancy has absolutely no benefits...
I think hardware physics expansion cards are a great idea (and I've been telling all my friends that'll listen that they're the way forward - huzzah for me finally being proved right): the physics for you and me, after all, doesn't change from day to day -- so the makers are simply approaching realism.
AI processing cards would be an interesting idea: the AI in most games isn't all that advanced relative to what researchers are doing. Anyone know how difficult it would be for games like Hitman or Splinter Cell to use neural networks to let them learn how the player's playing?
A friend of mine who does router magic at an ISP told me that, while it's possible to do, it would be very expensive to maintain since their list of allocated IPs keeps changing. Seems a little strange that they're changing but ho-hum.
If memory serves it used to be. Then adobe decided that supporting windows was a much better idea if they wanted to make an oodleplex of money. They may be employing cunning trickery and not comparing performance of the latest versions. Perhaps.
Every year the Java naysayers get more and more frustrated and more desperate to find a reason that Java just won't do. For years it was that Java was too slow... that one was true for about 18 months in 1995. Well, maybe now that we can do crypto in Java, play DOOM in Java, and do speech recognition in Java we can finally put it to rest.
Yep, we'll just have to move onto the "Java's core classes are buggy" or "generics are syntactic sugar" or "Java doesn't have operator overloading" or "I have to wrap around a load of different classes to write a file" or...
Since I've moved to C# I've found all these problems vanished. Yeah,.NET may be a Java ripoff but it's a well designed ripoff that has addressed near all problems I had with Java.
The point of the P4EE is not to be a real competitor against the Opteron, but rather to show just how easy it is for Intel to play in AMD's back garden. Intel can also validly compare P4EE to the Opteron if they want.
It's actually cheaper and faster to run a dual Intel Xeon computer than it is to run a P4EE.
AMD chips are/much/ faster than Intel's at the same clockspeed
But they aren't running and can't run at the same clockspeeds. I suspect that without Marginally Extreme Cooling, AMD's chips would sizzle at Intel clockspeeds
There are no benefits to existing 64-bit hybrid-as-a-whore x86 processors at the minute except more registers (which could be slapped on without 64bit) and more memory space. Now, if only they would create a clean 64-bit from-scratch implementation that removes the hideousness of existing x86 machine code...
What if the company says "We'll get you that replacement in 6-8 weeks" or "We don't feel like it"?
If you don't have the right to make your own backups, you're relying on the good will of a company: and if it is more profitable to screw you over, a lot of them will (at least try). It's your CD: you paid your money for it (well, morally it's yours, anyway).
Interestingly, in Java 1.5, generics are actually syntactic sugar to make your code look pretty. When you define an int list or a String list, it just creates an object list and prepends a cast to your object accesses.
You may (or may not) be interested to know that C#'s implementation of generics actually creates a separate piece of code to handle things without casts, etc.
Or use a solution that is available now:
Australia and New Zealand have adopted "plastic" notes for a while... I believe it is a big barrier for the cottage counterfeiting groups.
In the UK, one bank is doing plastic notes -- however they were very unpopular because a lot of people didn't accept them (they'd never seen it because there was no ad campaign to make sure people knew that Northern was introducing plastic notes).
Now a brute force attack on a six character password made up of only upper and lowercase letters takes 197706096640 seconds for all possible combinations. That's 150000 years. I hope you change your password a bit more often than that.:-)
Technically it should only take 150000/2 years on average for a 6-character password
Short alpha passwords aren't too difficult to memorise by looking over someone's shoulder, though
Slashdot Mirror
That's an old version of the page. The current version is as follows:
...if you thought you cracked the Google Code and had Google all figured out ... guess again.
... guess again.
Cracking the Google Code... Under the GoogleScope
Google's US Patent confirms information retrieval is based on historical data.
Publication Date: 5/8/2005 9:51:18 PM
Author Name: Lawrence Deon
An Introduction:
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
Google has raised the bar against search engine spam and artificial link inflation to unrivaled heights with the filing of a United States Patent Application 20050071741 on March 31, 2005.
The filing unquestionable provides SEO's with valuable insight into Google's tightly guarded search intelligence and confirms that Google's information retrieval is based on historical data.
What exactly do these changes mean to you?
Your credibility and reputation on-line are going under the Googlescope! Google has defined their patent abstract as follows:
"A system identifies a document and obtains one or more types of history data associated with the document. The system may generate a score for the document based, at least in part, on the one or more types of history data."
Google's patent specification reveals a significant amount of information both old and new about the possible ways Google can (and likely does) use your web page updates to determine the ranking of your site in the SERPs.
Unfortunately, the patent filing does not prioritize or conclusively confirm any specific method one way or the other.
Here's how Google scores your web pages.
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.
For example, if a stale page continues to procure incoming links, it will still be considered fresh, even if the page header (Last-Modified: tells when the file was most recently modified) hasn't changed and the content is not updated or 'stale'.
According to their patent filing Google records and scores the following web page changes to determine freshness.
The frequency of all web page changes
The actual amount of the change itself... whether it is a substantial change redundant or superfluous
Changes in keyword distribution or density
The actual number of new web pages that link to a web page
The change or update of anchor text (the text that is used to link to a web page)
The numbers of new links to low trust web sites (for example, a domain may be considered low trust for having too many affiliate links on one web page).
Although there is no specific number of links indicated in the patent it might be advisable to limit affiliate links on new web pages. Caution should also be used in linking to pages with multiple affiliate links.
Developing your web page augments for page freshness.
Now I'm not suggesting that it's always beneficial or advisable to change the content of your web pages regularly, but it is very important to keep your pages fresh regularly and that may not necessarily mean a content change.
Google states that decayed or stale results might be desirable for information that doesn't necessarily need updating, while fresh content is good for results that require it.
How do you unravel that statement and differentiate between the two types of content?
An excellent example of this methodology is the roller coaster ride seasonal results might experience in Google's SERPs ba
In soviet russia, "Soviet Russia" forgets YOU!
However homosexuallity has been proven not to have a wholly genetic basis, so that doesn't really fall into the domain of evolution, does it?
I know you were joking, but AOL actually did try to call themselves UKOL when they first came to the UK, but they found that nobody wanted to use them: AOL had brand-name recognition, whereas UKOL had absolutely none. So they changed it to AOL and lots more people signed up.
;-)
> Wouldn't they move down in the world as they moved up economically/socially/whatnot? If their natural resources were being consumed to produce houses, etc. then the average land height of that country would reduce.
Yes, heaven forbid you were given a choice of how to access the content!
As we know from the computing industry, redundancy has absolutely no benefits...
You must be new here...
I think hardware physics expansion cards are a great idea (and I've been telling all my friends that'll listen that they're the way forward - huzzah for me finally being proved right): the physics for you and me, after all, doesn't change from day to day -- so the makers are simply approaching realism.
AI processing cards would be an interesting idea: the AI in most games isn't all that advanced relative to what researchers are doing. Anyone know how difficult it would be for games like Hitman or Splinter Cell to use neural networks to let them learn how the player's playing?
No spanish inquisitions? But... how could you have known? Nobody expects the spanish inquisition. Their main weapon is ...
A friend of mine who does router magic at an ISP told me that, while it's possible to do, it would be very expensive to maintain since their list of allocated IPs keeps changing. Seems a little strange that they're changing but ho-hum.
If memory serves it used to be. Then adobe decided that supporting windows was a much better idea if they wanted to make an oodleplex of money. They may be employing cunning trickery and not comparing performance of the latest versions. Perhaps.
or tv-swarm run by the people who used to run tvtorrents.
Since I've moved to C# I've found all these problems vanished. Yeah,
Btw, nice book
1. Get customers ...
2. Sue customers
3.
4. Profit!
</cliche>
It's actually cheaper and faster to run a dual Intel Xeon computer than it is to run a P4EE.
But they aren't running and can't run at the same clockspeeds. I suspect that without Marginally Extreme Cooling, AMD's chips would sizzle at Intel clockspeeds
There are no benefits to existing 64-bit hybrid-as-a-whore x86 processors at the minute except more registers (which could be slapped on without 64bit) and more memory space. Now, if only they would create a clean 64-bit from-scratch implementation that removes the hideousness of existing x86 machine code...
What if the company says "We'll get you that replacement in 6-8 weeks" or "We don't feel like it"?
If you don't have the right to make your own backups, you're relying on the good will of a company: and if it is more profitable to screw you over, a lot of them will (at least try). It's your CD: you paid your money for it (well, morally it's yours, anyway).
OH GOD! The banks don't keep my money, do they? I thought I was giving it to them to safeguard for me...
Interestingly, in Java 1.5, generics are actually syntactic sugar to make your code look pretty. When you define an int list or a String list, it just creates an object list and prepends a cast to your object accesses.
You may (or may not) be interested to know that C#'s implementation of generics actually creates a separate piece of code to handle things without casts, etc.
They've sorta died out, I think. Pity.
...and I stole mine from a small child with a glint of hope in his eye (or was it grit)!
Technically it should only take 150000/2 years on average for a 6-character password
Short alpha passwords aren't too difficult to memorise by looking over someone's shoulder, though