[seqfan] Re: A139414
Hugo van der Sanden
human at google.com
Fri Feb 6 15:25:10 CET 2009
The approaches available to a company like Google are not going to be the
same as what the OEIS can do with limited resources.
With the resources available, I do not believe it is possible even to get
close to a system proof against all attempts to pervert the results.
Something that assumed good faith would be much easier to create with
limited resources, but I do not know whether the data it could collect would
ever give the right combination of quality and quantity to reward the
2009/2/6 Andrew Plewe <andrew at nevercenter.com>
> Google's raking system has spawned a whole industry -- "search engine
> optimization". Definitely one of the blacker arts in the otherwise
> staid world of e-commerce. Their ranking is apparently a stew of
> inbound links, the "relevance" of the content on the page compared
> with META tag info, etc. Websites get flagged if they're questionable
> (a.k.a. "Google spam", which they don't always catch), and then some
> poor soul has to go review it and determine if it should be included
> in the search results.
> My point is you can only get so far with "automatic" measures (and
> that includes ranking) for judging the worthiness of suspect content
> -- at some point a real person has to intervene.
> -Andrew Plewe-
> On Feb 5, 2009, at 1:32 PM, David Wilson wrote:
> > Yes, but if rankings are implemented in the wrong way, they will be
> > skewed. I could click on a sequence I like 1000 times to push it up
> > the
> > ranks. I assume Google is not that naive.
> > _______________________________________________
> > Seqfan Mailing list - http://list.seqfan.eu/
> Seqfan Mailing list - http://list.seqfan.eu/
More information about the SeqFan