How Long Can PageRank Dominate?

Does everyone realise that PageRank (i.e. backlinks principle / "backrub")
was conceived almost a decade ago? There must be a better way, a new
paradigm altogether (and I am not referring to my last suggestion in
particular). I remember people coming to this newsgroup proposing
improvements to PageRank (Amir?), aggregating search engines or using more
bandwidth to crawl even more pages (e.g. Yahoo bragging about having
crawled more pages... so what!?!?!).

Microsoft are already suffering due to lack of innovation. Their traditional
O/S still sticks because of questionable practices, but that's a topic for
another day. Either way, Google have messed about and revolved around the
same key principle endlessly, almost to death. A few lines of python must
have mushroomed to become millions of opaque LOC's. If the key idea is
inherently flawed, no improvement will save it in the long term. It would
end up like Windows Vista, which has just been re-build from scratch as its
the code (accumulated over the decades) was fundamentally rotten.

You can put a pig in a dress, take it out to dinner, but it's still a pig in
a dress, not a girlfriend. Is PageRank merely a pig in a kingdom where
'pigotry' is seen as beautiful (hence bigotry)? Is Google still a naked
king < http://tinyurl.com/94cpc >?

Roy

Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups (AT) schestowitz (DOT) com> wrote:

Does everyone realise that PageRank (i.e. backlinks principle /
"backrub") was conceived almost a decade ago? There must be a better
way,

TrustRank? (And no, I still haven't read it :-)

--
John Perl SEO tools: http://johnbokma.com/perl/
or have them custom made
Experienced (web) developer: http://castleamber.com/

Roy Schestowitz wrote:

You can put a pig in a dress, take it out to dinner, but it's still a pig in
a dress, not a girlfriend. Is PageRank merely a pig in a kingdom where
'pigotry' is seen as beautiful (hence bigotry)? Is Google still a naked
king < http://tinyurl.com/94cpc >?

Hi Roy, I like your points, but you've got to get your literary
references sorted out! .-)

The king was not a king, he was an emperor, and he did not try to make
nakedness a norm, on the contrary he was deceived into accepting and
wearing a non-existent dress that he was told would be invisible to
people who were not competent for the job they were fulfilling. So he
dared not admit that he could not see the non-existent dress and thus
walked around the capital in his underwear.

As a Dane, I should know :-)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emperor...es_%28fable%29

Mikkel

__/ [Mikkel Moldrup-Lakjer] on Tuesday 11 October 2005 07:08 \__

Roy Schestowitz wrote:

You can put a pig in a dress, take it out to dinner, but it's still a pig
in a dress, not a girlfriend. Is PageRank merely a pig in a kingdom where
'pigotry' is seen as beautiful (hence bigotry)? Is Google still a naked
king < http://tinyurl.com/94cpc >?

Hi Roy, I like your points, but you've got to get your literary
references sorted out! .-)

The king was not a king, he was an emperor, and he did not try to make
nakedness a norm, on the contrary he was deceived into accepting and
wearing a non-existent dress that he was told would be invisible to
people who were not competent for the job they were fulfilling. So he
dared not admit that he could not see the non-existent dress and thus
walked around the capital in his underwear.

As a Dane, I should know :-)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emperor...es_%28fable%29

Mikkel

I somehow knew that I got the literature all disturbingly wrong. It is
always a bad idea to base a point on something you watched on a TV cartoon
or the theatre at the age of 5. I still remember that visually.

Roy

__/ [John Bokma] on Tuesday 11 October 2005 06:57 \__

Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups (AT) schestowitz (DOT) com> wrote:

Does everyone realise that PageRank (i.e. backlinks principle /
"backrub") was conceived almost a decade ago? There must be a better
way,

TrustRank? (And no, I still haven't read it :-)

Is it not just an enhancement of the existing paradigm though (BackRub)? It
sure sounds like it, but I haven't read beyond the headlines. In fact, I
think it intentionally remains obscure and most probably these methods will
remain secret as only their creators know the flaws and the way things can
be exploited. It is about as dangerous as closed source: 'Gods' who know
how the world is run and 'little people' who wander aimlessly in a maze
created by the 'Gods'.

Roy

--
Roy S. Schestowitz | Useless fact: There are five regular polyhedra
http://Schestowitz.com | SuSE Linux | PGP-Key: 74572E8E
9:40am up 46 days 21:54, 3 users, load average: 0.11, 0.26, 0.24

Roy Schestowitz wrote:

I somehow knew that I got the literature all disturbingly wrong. It is
always a bad idea to base a point on something you watched on a TV cartoon
or the theatre at the age of 5. I still remember that visually.

Hehe, I know: I also find it tempting to base such references on The
Simpsons, but then again... sometimes you fare bad that way :-)

Mikkel

On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 10:50:19 +0200, Mikkel Moldrup-Lakjer
<mikkel (AT) fabel (DOT) dk> wrote:

Roy Schestowitz wrote:

I somehow knew that I got the literature all disturbingly wrong. It is
always a bad idea to base a point on something you watched on a TV cartoon
or the theatre at the age of 5. I still remember that visually.

Hehe, I know: I also find it tempting to base such references on The
Simpsons, but then again... sometimes you fare bad that way :-)

Mikkel

Doh!

BB
--
www.kruse.co.uk/ seo (AT) kruse (DOT) demon.co.uk
Elvis does my SEO

Roy Schestowitz wrote:

Does everyone realise that PageRank (i.e. backlinks principle /
"backrub")
was conceived almost a decade ago? There must be a better way, a new
paradigm altogether (and I am not referring to my last suggestion in
particular). I remember people coming to this newsgroup proposing
improvements to PageRank (Amir?), aggregating search engines or using
more
bandwidth to crawl even more pages (e.g. Yahoo bragging about having
crawled more pages... so what!?!?!).

Microsoft are already suffering due to lack of innovation. Their
traditional
O/S still sticks because of questionable practices, but that's a topic
for
another day. Either way, Google have messed about and revolved around
the
same key principle endlessly, almost to death. A few lines of python
must
have mushroomed to become millions of opaque LOC's. If the key idea is
inherently flawed, no improvement will save it in the long term. It
would
end up like Windows Vista, which has just been re-build from scratch as
its
the code (accumulated over the decades) was fundamentally rotten.

You can put a pig in a dress, take it out to dinner, but it's still a
pig in
a dress, not a girlfriend. Is PageRank merely a pig in a kingdom where
'pigotry' is seen as beautiful (hence bigotry)? Is Google still a naked
king < http://tinyurl.com/94cpc >?

Hi Roy,

That pig in a dress vs. a girlfriend tirade somehow did not vibe right ;-)
Gotta use less obvious analogies in a shady business of search engines ...

Anyways, getting back on topic: who said the original 9-years old PageRank
still dominates? It has been improved upon many times already. The best
indication is the fact that Google still delivers results almost as
relevant as they could be given the tiny amount of original data you send
them in your two or three word search query. I already cannot remember a
time my queries failed to deliver at least workable starting point of a
research if not the exact answer right there, sometimes even without
opening the links! If you think the algo needs lots of improvement, try to
recall AltaVista circa 1997-98. What a joke those search results were!


--
Cheers,
Dmitri
See Site Sig Below
-------------------------------------



--
##-----------------------------------------------#
Article posted with Web Developer's USENET Archiv
http://www.1-script.com/forum
Web and RSS gateway to your favorite newsgroup -
alt.internet.search-engines - 15812 messages and counting
##-----------------------------------------------##

__/ [www.1-script.com] on Tuesday 11 October 2005 15:20 \__

Roy Schestowitz wrote:




Does everyone realise that PageRank (i.e. backlinks principle /
"backrub")
was conceived almost a decade ago? There must be a better way, a new
paradigm altogether (and I am not referring to my last suggestion in
particular). I remember people coming to this newsgroup proposing
improvements to PageRank (Amir?), aggregating search engines or using
more
bandwidth to crawl even more pages (e.g. Yahoo bragging about having
crawled more pages... so what!?!?!).

Microsoft are already suffering due to lack of innovation. Their
traditional
O/S still sticks because of questionable practices, but that's a topic
for
another day. Either way, Google have messed about and revolved around
the
same key principle endlessly, almost to death. A few lines of python
must
have mushroomed to become millions of opaque LOC's. If the key idea is
inherently flawed, no improvement will save it in the long term. It
would
end up like Windows Vista, which has just been re-build from scratch as
its
the code (accumulated over the decades) was fundamentally rotten.

You can put a pig in a dress, take it out to dinner, but it's still a
pig in
a dress, not a girlfriend. Is PageRank merely a pig in a kingdom where
'pigotry' is seen as beautiful (hence bigotry)? Is Google still a naked
king < http://tinyurl.com/94cpc >?

Hi Roy,

That pig in a dress vs. a girlfriend tirade somehow did not vibe right ;-)
Gotta use less obvious analogies in a shady business of search engines ...

I was in O/S mode when I wrote this. Windows XP is Windows 95 in a dress in
my humble opinion.

Anyways, getting back on topic: who said the original 9-years old PageRank
still dominates? It has been improved upon many times already.

Yes, but it is fundamentally the same. The best you can do is put more
layers on top and wind up like Longhorn, which was a trainwreck.

indication is the fact that Google still delivers results almost as
relevant as they could be given the tiny amount of original data you send
them in your two or three word search query. I already cannot remember a
time my queries failed to deliver at least workable starting point of a
research if not the exact answer right there, sometimes even without
opening the links!

Don't forget hand-tweaking! *wink*

If you think the algo needs lots of improvement, try to
recall AltaVista circa 1997-98. What a joke those search results were!

I was actually going to mention that in my blog tomorrow (in drafts now). I
should also be able to compile and upload that proposal draft for knowledge
engines. Owing to Davemon's advice, I even added a Wiki to http://iuron.com
..

Roy

--
Roy S. Schestowitz | Ballmer O/S - so furious it may crash
http://Schestowitz.com | SuSE Linux | PGP-Key: 74572E8E
3:25pm up 47 days 3:39, 3 users, load average: 0.21, 0.26, 0.26

Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups (AT) schestowitz (DOT) com> wrote:

__/ [www.1-script.com] on Tuesday 11 October 2005 15:20 \__

I was in O/S mode when I wrote this. Windows XP is Windows 95 in a
dress in my humble opinion.

Technically very wrong: Windows XP is an OS that looks like Windows 95 if
you remove some of the visual candy.

Anyways, getting back on topic: who said the original 9-years old
PageRank still dominates? It has been improved upon many times
already.

Yes, but it is fundamentally the same. The best you can do is put more
layers on top and wind up like Longhorn, which was a trainwreck.

Same could be said for a linux distribution. Compare the GNU/Linux of today
with one of say 5 years ago :-). Most people want their old stuff to keep
running and running, even after many years.

Also, I doubt PageRank has improved that much, but PageRank is just one
thing to help creating SERPs.

--
John Perl SEO tools: http://johnbokma.com/perl/
or have them custom made
Experienced (web) developer: http://castleamber.com/