Re: JSH: Your Google check on the Hammer
- From: Joshua Cranmer <Pidgeot18@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 23:29:27 -0500
JSH wrote:
On Feb 23, 7:22 pm, Joshua Cranmer <Pidgeo...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:Try "factoring algorithm," which is a more likely search (by 2 orders of
magnitude, judging from number of search results).
I didn't title the post that.
Surprising, isn't it, that a search for the title of a post on a google-hosted blog makes that blog posting rate highly?
Or how about the proper name, factorization?
Dude, I have lots of search results that link to my research highly in
Google. It's just weird.
Do you really know that little about how search engines work? Blogs tend to be rated overly high in search results. Some entries from my blog rate highly on rather common search terms:
"feature requests" [47, #1 for "feature requests problem"]
"visual profiling" [23, #1 for "profiling made visual"]
If you want some more statistics, google "jshydra." It is a term for a library I wrote, and in less than 1 month, it has 20 results (well, 20 sufficiently dissimilar results out of 403K results, apparently).
Result #1 is my blog post announcing its creation, #2-4 a newsgroup/mailing list announcement, #5-9 other blog posts referencing its creation, #10 the actual library, and #11-20 are various copies of the aforementioned posts.
Blogs will tend to have low outgoing links (at least, this is true of pretty much everyone I know), and will have relatively many pages pointing to them. Thus, as a class of web pages, they have lower link/linked ratios, which inflates their pages in at least Google's searches.
This does not necessarily correlate to number of readers. While I suspect that my blog is relatively widely read (I know of three aggregators reading my blog), I highly doubt that I am the 23rd most read resource for having graphical results of call graph profiling.
Search engines ultimately use statistics to place results. And manipulating statistics is trivially easy, hence the quote: "there are three types of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."
Take search result rankings with a grain of salt. I've found pages nestled in the rankings 1000 levels down better quality than the pages in the top 100.
I'm just itching for more government control anyway. I consider
Google to increasingly be important to national security.
Google is a gateway to information. Governments have a bad record of controlling those sort of things. Besides, I'm sure Google has a good case under Near v. Minnesota, at least in the U.S.
--
Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it. -- Donald E. Knuth
.
- References:
- JSH: Your Google check on the Hammer
- From: JSH
- Re: JSH: Your Google check on the Hammer
- From: Joshua Cranmer
- Re: JSH: Your Google check on the Hammer
- From: JSH
- JSH: Your Google check on the Hammer
- Prev by Date: Re: How many generators?
- Next by Date: Re: Proof of Fermat's Last Theorem
- Previous by thread: Re: JSH: Your Google check on the Hammer
- Next by thread: Re: JSH: Your Google check on the Hammer
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
