Article: An Analysis of the Google Search Engine Algorithm

This aticle presents factual evidence that Google's PageRank, inbound
links and keywords are irrelevent to your placement in the search
results.

It presents several case studies that show conclusively that the
algorithm used by Google's search engine is flawed with serious "bugs"
that deny many websites the high ranking that they should otherwise be
granted while granting it to those who shouldn't have it.

The article is entitled "Google PageRank, Inbound Links and Keywords
Irrelevant - An Analysis of Google's Search Algorithm"

It can be found at http://www.closerworlds.com

Scroll to the bottom of the web page and click on the article link.

Johann Blake

Johann Blake <> wrote in
<>

> This aticle presents factual evidence that Google's PageRank, inbound
> links and keywords are irrelevent to your placement in the search
> results.
>
> It presents several case studies that show conclusively that the
> algorithm used by Google's search engine is flawed with serious "bugs"
> that deny many websites the high ranking that they should otherwise be
> granted while granting it to those who shouldn't have it.
>
> The article is entitled "Google PageRank, Inbound Links and Keywords
> Irrelevant - An Analysis of Google's Search Algorithm"
>
> It can be found at http://www.closerworlds.com
>
> Scroll to the bottom of the web page and click on the article link.

The only significant issue that I found there, beyond the usual business of
SEO, is that of the wieghting of the pornography links - something that's
been the subject of specultation previously. His arguments are built around
the notion that other, undeserving, sites are doing better in Google than
his site. Unfortunately, his own site is poorly optimised and is, therefore,
an unsatisfactory benchmark against which to compare the performance of
others.

--
PeterMcC
If you feel that any of the above is incorrect,
inappropriate or offensive in any way,
please ignore it and accept my apologies.

Johann Blake wrote:

> It can be found at http://www.closerworlds.com
>
> Scroll to the bottom of the web page and click on the article link.

Why make us turn somersaults? Just post the direct link:
http://www.closerworlds.com/eng/Reso...-Analysis.html
--
cheers m

> The only significant issue that I found there, beyond the usual business
of
> SEO, is that of the wieghting of the pornography links - something that's
> been the subject of specultation previously. His arguments are built
around
> the notion that other, undeserving, sites are doing better in Google than
> his site. Unfortunately, his own site is poorly optimised and is,
therefore,
> an unsatisfactory benchmark against which to compare the performance of
> others.

Peter (and others) -

I am ignorant - could you explain what you mean by "poorly optimised"? How
is it poorly optimised and how can a person ensure that a site is well
optimised?

I think there is a divergence between Johann's notion of PageRank and the
webmaster's notion (as cited in the followup on Johann's page).
Essentially, Johann is considering PageRank a measure of site importance as
something worthy of referral. But the webmaster's comment indicates that
PageRank is meant to capture a site's qualifiedness to refer other sites.
What this disparity amounts to, I do not know.

Best, Andrew

Andrew wrote:
> I am ignorant - could you explain what you mean by "poorly
> optimised"? How is it poorly optimised and how can a person ensure
> that a site is well optimised?

http://www.akamarketing.com/google-ranking-tips.html
Nico

(Johann Blake) wrote in message news:< om>...
> It presents several case studies that show conclusively that the
> algorithm used by Google's search engine is flawed with serious "bugs"
> that deny many websites the high ranking that they should otherwise be
> granted while granting it to those who shouldn't have it.

I've got to admit, it has been giving crazy results recently.
Apparently I'm now the world authority on 'web browser market share',
'tachyon theory', 'newtonian relativity', 'cambridge ml' and
'amigaguide'. The first of those is most suprising, and I suspect it
has probably annoyed people looking for accurate figures...

--- Safalra (Stephen Morley) ---
http://www.safalra.com/hypertext

On 22 Jan 2004 12:36:54 -0800, (Safalra) declared in
alt.html:
> Apparently I'm now the world authority on 'web browser market share',
> 'tachyon theory', 'newtonian relativity', 'cambridge ml' and
> 'amigaguide'. The first of those is most suprising, and I suspect it
> has probably annoyed people looking for accurate figures...

They're doomed to failure anyway, since accurate figures don't exist...

--
Mark Parnell
http://www.clarkecomputers.com.au