[extropy-chat] Google Sets
mlorrey at yahoo.com
Mon Jul 12 19:10:46 UTC 2004
--- "paul.bridger" <paul.bridger at paradise.net.nz> wrote:
> Mike Lorrey wrote:
> >>2) Traffic is not what Google cares about. If you get 100k hits a
> >>month from people involved with your organization, then you are
> >>a null value to Google's PageRank algorithm.
> Google *does* care about popularity. My guess is popularity is
> measured not
> just via PageRank, but probably also influenced by google referrals.
> >>Occam's Razor suggests that this is a more
> >>reasonable explanation that a conspiracy.
> > incompetence before conspiracy?
> I think conspiracy is a fairly interesting claim, and you'd need
> fairly interesting evidence to make it convincing.
Ah, but if you can create an open and shut case, then the rule of a
conspiracy being secret has been violated, qed.
A conspiracy is entirely capable of being incompetent at the same time
(I'd say this is typically the default case).
> > non-existent google sets
> Hey, at least including the FSP gets Neopaganism out of the set. What
> more could you want?
> Interesting thing: you may have 7x the google entries of ExI, but
> people do not link to you 7x more.
> 560 links
> 980 links
Ah, this is an interesting point, which I'll be taking up with the FSP
marketing people. I will say that crosslinking is generally a
cumulative process: the longer you are in operation, the more
crosslinks you should develop. Comparing ExI, an organization a couple
decades old, with the FSP, which has been in existence for not even
three years, should demonstrate that the FSP has nearly doubled the
crosslinks of ExI in 15% of the time.
> I don't know how google sets works, but if I had google's database,
> I'd consider two pages to be related if they were both linked to by
> another page.
So would I. I happen to know that there are a lot of people talking
about the FSP in blogs, essays, articles, and email
lists/newsgroups/forums, which is one reason that Google Sets'
ignorance of FSP related sets is perplexing.
> >>Finally, though Google plays its cards fairly close to the chest in
> >>this regard, I'm pretty confident that a "Google editor" is a
> >>non-existent thing.
> > Really? Then why do they have links for people to sign up to be
> > editors?
> There are a couple of types of google editors I know about.
> AdWords editors: http://www.google.com/jobs/adops.html
> Answers editors: http://answers.google.com/answers/faq.html
> I'd like to see a link for a search results editor (Democratic voting
> history a plus!).
This page recruits people to be editors for Google's Open Directory
Project, which I presume acts as at least one source of information for
Chairman, Free Town Land Development
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom.
It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
-William Pitt (1759-1806)
Do you Yahoo!?
Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard.
More information about the extropy-chat