3 ms·

>If we get 0.01% of eyeballs to our "bad" links converted as sales, that's still better than zero. Where did you get the 0.01% from ? That sounds like a rather

by ksk 10y ago

>If we get 0.01% of eyeballs to our "bad" links converted as sales, that's still better than zero. Where did you get the 0.01% from ? That sounds like a rather high number. >It will make the search results worse. Keeping the algorithms and heuristics a secret is a valid way to fight abusive gaming of the system. I understand that this is your opinion. Thankfully, there is no evidence that this is true.

ori_b 10y ago
If your belief is true, why does email spam exist? There is no way to way to tell if they were opened (especially with modern email clients that will not load external links), so there is no direct advertising happening.
jasode 10y ago
>Where did you get the 0.01% from ? That sounds like a rather high number. Why are you distracted by that 0.01%? Whether it's 0.001% or 0.00001%, it's still higher than zero. It still drives the incentives to push bad pages to the top of search results. >, there is no evidence that this is true. The evidence is Google's ongoing evolution of algorithms from the 1998 PageRank paper[1]... to Panda... to Penguin... to Hummingbird. All that constant rewriting is to stay ahead of the abusers gaming the search algorithms. The link farms were created by spammers based on the information about Pagerank and using its link-weighting to the spammer's advantage. The public knowledge of how PageRank works allowed spammers to make search results worse. There are many examples[2] of of link spam that is not motivated by the "ads" in the right side of the page. What you call "web marketing" is often bad pages made visible by abusive SEO techniques. Panda was a response to this gaming by analyzing extra signals to penalize link farms. Abusers continued to game Panda's revised algorithms and Google responded with Penguin.[3] Just stop and think deeply about why we can't just use Google's original 1998 PageRank algorithm unchanged in 2016. At this point, making all of the algorithms and weights of Hummingbird public will only give the spammers the necessary information to make the search results worse for the rest of us. [1]http://infolab.stanford.edu/pub/papers/google.pdf http://infolab.stanford.edu/pub/papers/google.pdf [2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_penalty#Common_forms_of_link_spam https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_penalty#Common_forms_of... [3]http://searchengineland.com/google-launches-update-targeting-webspam-in-search-results-119295 http://searchengineland.com/google-launches-update-targeting...

by ksk 10y ago

ori_b 10y ago

If your belief is true, why does email spam exist? There is no way to way to tell if they were opened (especially with modern email clients that will not load external links), so there is no direct advertising happening.

jasode 10y ago

>Where did you get the 0.01% from ? That sounds like a rather high number. Why are you distracted by that 0.01%? Whether it's 0.001% or 0.00001%, it's still higher than zero. It still drives the incentives to push bad pages to the top of search results. >, there is no evidence that this is true. The evidence is Google's ongoing evolution of algorithms from the 1998 PageRank paper[1]... to Panda... to Penguin... to Hummingbird. All that constant rewriting is to stay ahead of the abusers gaming the search algorithms. The link farms were created by spammers based on the information about Pagerank and using its link-weighting to the spammer's advantage. The public knowledge of how PageRank works allowed spammers to make search results worse. There are many examples[2] of of link spam that is not motivated by the "ads" in the right side of the page. What you call "web marketing" is often bad pages made visible by abusive SEO techniques. Panda was a response to this gaming by analyzing extra signals to penalize link farms. Abusers continued to game Panda's revised algorithms and Google responded with Penguin.[3] Just stop and think deeply about why we can't just use Google's original 1998 PageRank algorithm unchanged in 2016. At this point, making all of the algorithms and weights of Hummingbird public will only give the spammers the necessary information to make the search results worse for the rest of us. [1]http://infolab.stanford.edu/pub/papers/google.pdf http://infolab.stanford.edu/pub/papers/google.pdf [2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_penalty#Common_forms_of_link_spam https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_penalty#Common_forms_of... [3]http://searchengineland.com/google-launches-update-targeting-webspam-in-search-results-119295 http://searchengineland.com/google-launches-update-targeting...