Google Ranks the other search engines! – Explain this!

[greeneagle]

GOOGLE Ranks the other search engines! – Explain this!

GOOGLE Search engine Page Rankings:

Lycos – 9
HotBot – 7
AOL Search – 4
Ask Jeeves – 9
TEOMA – 9
Netscape – 9
Iwon – 7
Dmoz (Open Directory Project) – 9
Inktomi – 9
YAHOO – 9
Overture – 3
Looksmart – 2
Alltheweb – 8
msn – 9
altavista – 10
GOOGLE - 10

The only 2 search engines that GOOGLE ranks at a 10PR are themselves and altavista.

GOOGLE supplies 8 search engines with primary search results and/or paid results. There is not even a secondary or tertiary link between altavista and GOOGLE, yet they rank them higher than any of their business partners!

That is a grand demonstration of unbiased PAGE RANKING!

Ken

[ronniethedodger]

It looks like Google is doing a pretty good job of spamming their own algo, eh? ;-)

I would also like to point out that there is a big difference between a lowly 9 and the ultimate 10.

Each successive number is like the Richter Scale in measuring earth temblors. A 5 is twice as strong as a 4 ... where an actual 10.0 on the Richter would probably shatter the Earth into a million pieces and we would all float out into space.

The results you listed are earth shattering, to say the least.

[AlanMCSD]

It's a good thing I am not running google. I would have a list of google whiners that I would just remove completely. Think this through once.
a)Google is in the search engine business.
b)The goal of any business is to generate profit.
c)Google is becoming a giant - my hats off to them - would you rather it was microsoft in control?
d)Google wants to keep their position as they should.
If you were in charge what would you do? I know, you would turn your back on all your partners, you would eliminate any and all forms of fee based advertising, then what? No more google.
The answer to 99 out of 100 questions - money!
If you want to use google to get high rankings, and you do not want to pay for those rankings, then you have to play the game according to their rules.
Alan Hyneman - MCSD - Enterprise Solutions Network
http://www.EnterpriseSolutionsNetwork.com

[SearchEngineZ]

Well, some of the numbers are not true reflections of their PageRank

Overture would be higher if you could see the page at overture.com without being redirected. Their keyword suggestion tool has PR7, and they are much higher if you look for them in Google Directory

The same goes for AOL search and Looksmart - see Google Directory for a truer PR

I get PR9 for Hotbot

AltaVista has PR10? Wow. I guess that the suspected "age of site" factor must have kicked in.

[greeneagle]

All Page Rankings are from doing searches with the GOOGLE TOOLBAR for each Search Engine and reviewing rankings from top listings.

If there are discrepancies going in different ways - Then we all have to ask:

WHAT IS THIS?

Ken

[SearchEngineZ]

My point is that PageRank is based on the page that gets linked to, which is not necessarily the page you see in your browser. If I want to link to Looksmart and be sure that the link always works, then I link to www.looksmart.com

If you could see www.looksmart.com in your browser, you'd get a PR8 or PR9. But you can't because it redirects to search.looksmart.com

Google shows 1 backlink for search.looksmart.com and 18,600 for www.looksmart.com.

If you search for "looksmart", then www.looksmart.com comes in at #1, which it could never do if its PageRank was really 2

[greeneagle]

SearchEngineZ, You pose an interesting point:

Let’s pursue this and how it relates to subdomains, redirects and marketing yourself on the Internet:

If I use my GOOGLE toolbar and type in “looksmart”, the top 7 listings are various looksmart sites. The top listing supposedly being; www.looksmart.com.

When you click the link or type in “www.looksmart.com” you are commissioning A CAPITAL GOOGLE SIN and being REDIRECTED to a SUBDOMAIN URL!: http://search.looksmart.com/ which is ranked as PR2 in my GOOGLE bar. I didn’t make the REDIRECT RULES, but I see the reason for them!

It’s all about playing the game by the rules and how you market yourself within an opaque set of rules. We all know the name “Looksmart”, but we would all know it better if the primary search wasn’t redirected to a subdomain!

That’s purely speculative – of course!

Ken

[ronniethedodger]

When you click the link or type in “www.looksmart.com” you are commissioning A CAPITAL GOOGLE SIN and being REDIRECTED to a SUBDOMAIN URL!: http://search.looksmart.com/ which is ranked as PR2 in my GOOGLE bar. I didn’t make the REDIRECT RULES, but I see the reason for them!

It’s all about playing the game by the rules and how you market yourself within an opaque set of rules. We all know the name “Looksmart”, but we would all know it better if the primary search wasn’t redirected to a subdomain!

That’s purely speculative – of course!


Not speculative...but off course a little.

There are certain legitimate uses of this type of redirect. As long as it is within the confines of the domain itself, I see no hidden deception.

You have to look at the intent of the redirect, and whether it is used to deceive the user (or the spider). If the redirect went to another domain altogether, then yes...foul.

Take for example this url www.burtsbees.com which is a very popular company that sells personal care products. It is a redirect as well and the page it goes to has no ranking at Google (not even a Zero).

The use of sub-domains and redirection has a valid and legitimate purpose. In the case of Burt's Bees, they use it to redirect to seasonal and/or updated home pages. This is necessary so people do not have to constantly change the links on their pages to match the current url at Burt's Bees.

Also, once upon a time, LookSmart resided on just the base domain name (without the search. in front of it). As did Burt's Bees a long time ago.

Google recognizes this type of re-direction has valid uses in my opinion. They allow them -- for the intent is not to deceive the user.

This type of redirection may have a fine line that has two sides to it as well. For one, if you are a well established entity on the internet with domain names like google, looksmart, burtsbees, hp, etc. you are able to cross that boundary. If you are not, then maybe something nasty will happen to you if you try it.

But of course, if you are well known -- then I think most people just type it into their address bar and do not even bother to search for LookSmart on Google any way. In that case, you can redirect at your hearts content and not worry about it.

[greeneagle]

Let's Play a GOOGLE Game!

Show me a redirect that has a 6-10 PR!

OK - Let's make it easier - How about a PR5?

Let's list them all.

I believe we are talking about a serious penalty here! Educate me if I am wrong.

Ken

[ronniethedodger]

Let's Play a GOOGLE Game!

Show me a redirect that has a 6-10 PR!

OK - Let's make it easier - How about a PR5?

Let's list them all.

I believe we are talking about a serious penalty here! Educate me if I am wrong.


Here is a redirect that should have a serious penalty and it redirects to PR5 page -- www.winning-hgh.com. The redirect page itself is "not ranked".

Want another -- www.online-hgh.com, this page is not ranked at Google as well.

But those are going in the opposite direction of what you were asking for. They do show you though how a page that is not ranked at Google, does manage to gain page one results for competitive keywords. Do a search at Google for any of the keywords that you find on these pages (you will have to disable javascript or hit the Stop button on your browser very quickly to do a Source View of them).

Try this one www.compaq.com a legitimate form of re-direction.

[greeneagle]

ronniethedodger wrote:

Here is a redirect that should have a serious penalty and it redirects to PR5 page www.winning-hgh.com. The redirect page is "not ranked".

Want another -- www.online-hgh.com

Delayed popups too, how nasty!

Looks like they don't catch them all yet!

There must be a numerical threshold, like any other filter, net, screen...

ronniethedodger also wrote: Try this one www.compaq.com a legitimate form of re-direction.

Is there exception to the redirect rule?, Is there manual overide? Is there a human element? Is there an extended time factor? Does a related highly ranked page effect redirect rankings? Can anyone shed some light on this alogrithm?


Judging the popular reaction to the "Florida Update", I guess they pushed as far as they could in this filtering! What's Next?

Slipping through the cracks, DANGEROUS GAMES and a little more ALOGRITHMIC TWEEKING!

Not me!

Let's see some more, we can all have a good time with this game.

Ken

[nakulgoyal]

Probably if some of thier engineers sitting somewhere will read these forums or they have even better alogorithms that catch sites like these before one of the human eye somewhere on the web notices it and they penalize them.

Let's keep it running and see when and what happens NEXT. GOOGLE google GoOgLe :-)

[minstrel]

Reading through this thread, trying to inhibit the impulse but failing, I find myself posing the inevitable question, hoping it won't be interpreted as offensive, which is not the intent:

greeneagle: did you ever audition for a part in either Treasure Island or Peter Pan?

[greeneagle]

Minstrel wrote:

"Reading through this thread, trying to inhibit the impulse but failing, I find myself posing the inevitable question, hoping it won't be interpreted as offensive, which is not the intent:

greeneagle: did you ever audition for a part in either Treasure Island or Peter Pan?"
______________________

A complex topic that has been purposefully "shrouded" behind a veil of secrecy lends itself to a collective “Discovery” approach. Valuable discoveries sometimes require a little penetration by the elements, at least that’s how Madame Curie saw it. In quest for a “Buried Treasure” seems to apply describe the current GOOGLE scenario, especially since they just re-buried some of the coins.

Further analogies could include kids on an Easter egg hunt or prospectors and the “Gold Rush” – but we won’t go there.

In “flights of fancy” over GOOGLE rankings of the other search engines, there may be some shards of valuable metal glimmering in the sand:

1) The Page Ranking seems to be unbiased in an area that has; primary revenue bearing business partners, strong competition and a high probability for manual override.

2) The all important Page Rank system seems to have an asymptote limiting additional value of incoming links after some large quantity.

3) Manual override does seem to come into play in the top “x” sites on the Web.

Not enough to make a trinket yet – but collective contributions is all about what this is all about. (Please don’t refer me back to the “Depth” threads --- hahaha. Speaking of that, would it be better to be Peter Piper or Peter Pan?)

The Wide-Eyed Hunter

[minstrel]

greeneagle: did you ever audition for a part in either Treasure Island or Peter Pan?

would it be better to be Peter Piper or Peter Pan?
The other possibility is that he's in the witness protection plan after escaping from the old Baretta TV series...

[greeneagle]

Minstrel,

I thought Peter Pan was all about "Flights of Fancy" and "Treasure Island" was GOOGLE's Domain.

I guess I sent the wrong personal pic in.

Cockatiels do make good pets though!

I wonder how many viewers know who Baretta was? - You are telling on both of us now!

Ken

[minstrel]

I wonder how many viewers know who Baretta was? - You are telling on both of us now!

Yeah but I was only a precocious 3 years old at the time...

[ronniethedodger]

The other possibility is that he's in the witness protection plan after escaping from the old Baretta TV series...

...or the parrot's hairdresser in that Robert Blake series. Witness protection plan ??? Who else but the hairdresser would know for sure if he did it or not?


Yeah but I was only a precocious 3 years old at the time...

...arrrrgh me Matey, might you be missing a digit in that age of yours laddie ??? ;-)

[minstrel]

Yeah but I was only a precocious 3 years old at the time...
...arrrrgh me Matey, might you be missing a digit in that age of yours laddie?
Do I look old enough to have been 13 when that series was playing? ;o)

[ronniethedodger]

Yeah but I was only a precocious 3 years old at the time...
...arrrrgh me Matey, might you be missing a digit in that age of yours laddie?
Do I look old enough to have been 13 when that series was playing? ;o)

...ahem....no comment. Some things are best left unsaid, eh? 8-(pssst...everyone, yes he does!)

[janeth]

I'm just glad to see all you old guys have gotten involved in the internet.

It goes to show that you can teach an old dog a new trick. lol

[minstrel]

I'm just glad to see all you old guys have gotten involved in the internet.
Hmmpfff... I suppose you're too young to know what "cruisin' for a bruisin'" means, Janeth? ;-)

By the way, ronniethedodger - I'd advise you to stay out of the Wayback thread in the Break Room Forum - they're getting into some serious age-bashing over there...

... on the other hand, maybe I should be encouraging you to enter the fray to defend me...

[ronniethedodger]

It goes to show that you can teach an old dog a new trick. lol

Hot diggety !! Now we all know what Minstrel meant by only being just 3 years old.

[greeneagle]

ronniethedodger wrote:

Hot diggety !! Now we all know what Minstrel meant by only being just 3 years old.

_____________
I haven't heard that term in at least a century!

Ken

[greeneagle]

ronniethedodger wrote, in response to minstrel:

"...arrrrgh me Matey, might you be missing a digit in that age of yours laddie ???"
________________

Did everyone assume the digit was "1"?


Ken

[ronniethedodger]

ronniethedodger wrote, in response to minstrel:

"...arrrrgh me Matey, might you be missing a digit in that age of yours laddie ???"
________________

Did everyone assume the digit was "1"?


Ken

I did....but I also count in Hexadecimal !!! hehehehe

[ronniethedodger]

Judging by the last several posts to this thread, I have made the determination that this conversation is getting old....so much so, I am calling it dead.

[greeneagle]

At Least you agree with GOOGLE!

[ronniethedodger]

Ken, I was making light of the age cracks in the last several posts...not the thread itself.

By the way -- hey Janeth, another bone...I am over 0x28 years old.

[janeth]

Ok ronniethedodger I'm not as old as I look but a lot older then I act.

[ronniethedodger]

See greeneagle? I told you this thread is getting old. ;-)

[janeth]

The thread is older then it was when it was started.

[ronniethedodger]

This thread is so old....

Who old is it?

...it is so old it has gray threads !!!