4 ms·
By what possible criteria are these the "top" million sites, if 10% are dead? I'd start with questioning that data.
by the_biot 4y ago
By what possible criteria are these the "top" million sites, if 10% are dead? I'd start with questioning that data.
- deltree7 4y agoExactly! Garbage In == Garbage Out
- kjeetgill 4y agoDude, it's the second sentence of the first paragraph: > For my purposes, the Majestic Million dataset felt like the perfect fit as it is ranked by the number of links that point to that domain (as well as taking into account diversity of the origin domains as well).
- MatthiasPortzel 4y agoAnd moreover, the author’s conclusion is that the dataset is bad. > While I had expected some cleanliness issues, I wasn’t expecting to see this level of quality problems from a dataset that I’ve seen referenced pretty extensively across the web
- the_biot 4y agoYeah, but they're still providing a dataset that's just plain bad. It's hardly relevant how many sites link to some other site, if it's dead.
- Brian_K_White 4y agoIt's only bad data if it does not include what it claims to include. If the dataset is defined as inlinks, and it is inlinks, then the data is good.
- winddude 4y agopart of the problem is it's not the number of links, it's referring subnets. Fairly certain this includes, script tags.