3 ms·
That is a fairly damning analysis of the farm update. I think ultimately, sites and pages ought to be ranked based on quality, and not on whether they are a co
by Andrew_Quentin 16y ago
That is a fairly damning analysis of the farm update.
I think ultimately, sites and pages ought to be ranked based on quality, and not on whether they are a content farm, or even spam and google should be as neutral as possibly in its determination of the algorithm, focusing instead on only ensuring the quality is what prevails, and of course relevance.
What possibly has happened is that google has been forced to act in a rush, under pressure, possibly stress, and so the final product is probably a knee jerk reaction which does not address the underlying problem.
You can not make 100 percent of people 100 percent happy 100 percent of the time. Moreover, if you are such a powerful force as google you ought not to respond to pressure groups, such as a vocal minority, and act in reaction to their specific demands, that only causes problems.
But maybe the question of search has now become so difficult that indeed it has turned into a political self interested game. Youtube is hardly a site I would want to appear in most of searches which are not about videos.
- yuhong 16y agoCan you say oops?
- beagle3 16y ago> sites and pages ought to be ranked based on quality, Unfortunately, that's very subjective - e.g. I consider almost all programming material on MSDN to be of very low quality, yet I expect results there when I search. Furthermore, assuming an absolute content metric, having several sites with the same "quality" should give the original a high score, and the others essentially zero (unless the original cannot take the load). Algorithmically, you can figure out who the original is by noticing where updates appear first. But that's not a measure of "content quality" - it's a measure of "content farminess".