Scientific theory are often overthrown by proving that their basic assumptions are wrong.
Our beloved search engine Google has the following basic assumptions IMHO:
1. Additional traffic by the crawler is acceptable to web sites. This may be a small price to pay. But sites do pay by MBs of traffic.
2. Delay of 2-3 days in getting new contents indexed is acceptable. What if your info is time-critical? That it will be useless in the next day?
3. Customers will come to the site (passive wait). There is no active way to find customers interested in the keyword bought by advertisers.
4. Google has assumed the position of a high priest in deciding which site has a higher rank. Why should we accept the result of a soul-less algorithm?
5. Google has assumed that keyword can retrieve relevant information. Is that always true?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
@2: That is not true. New content are crawled fairly quickly. I can find my blog post almost immediately. I believe Google has special crawlers for blog/news/time sensitive sites.
@4: A soul-less algorithm is unbiased. If it is biased, at least the all websites would have the same chances of taking advantage of its bias. There would be bigger issues if some human dictate the ranking.
I think #4 is validated because even Google itself has released a way for people to rank its search results...
@4: People would try their best to game Google's algorithm, in order to get their websites to be listed on the first page of the search result.
So it still not perfect at all.
Post a Comment