3 ms·

I think Google classifies sites in different buckets. There's the "trusted" sites - the brand names that will only get penalized by their algorithms if they do

I think Google classifies sites in different buckets. There's the "trusted" sites - the brand names that will only get penalized by their algorithms if they do something very very wrong, and another bucket, where you get less leeway. W3Schools is in the first. Of course, big brands do get penalized like JCPenny and Forbes, but this often happens when they're called out by the media. Google for the most part, since Panda have said they want to rely more on algorithms rather than on handjobs

tripzilch 15y ago
which leaves us the questions: 1) why is w3school in that list? 2) if they got it because lots of (outdated) sites are linking to them, why do their alternate subdomains get a similar bonus? 3) this whole privileged "authority" bucket crap stinks. it used to be that a really good sub-page on somebody's geocities site could be the no.1 go-to first result for a certain search topic. why? because loads of people that knew it was good would link to it because it was just that good of a comprehensive resource. hearing more and more about this new ranking method makes me wonder whether it's even possible for a small guy to come up top in the results like that. And it's not so much that I feel for this small guy, but rather that I know I'm missing out on a lot of honest good web content that Google simply isn't showing me.
- magicalist 15y ago
  > because loads of people that knew it was good would link to it because it was just that good of a comprehensive resource This is exactly why w3schools is at the the top of search results, and exactly why the http://w3fools.com http://w3fools.com was started -- because there are a ton of developers out there that think that w3schools is authoritative, correct, and kept up to date and link to it and use it. At one time it seemed to fill a niche, but no longer, and the cycle needs to be broken. In the meantime, unless you do some kind of sentiment analysis (and arbitrary changes based on the leanings of google, which you seem to be classifying as a bad thing), pagerank at least would probably conclude that the internet still loves w3schools. > whether it's even possible for a small guy to come up top in the results like that w3schools is actually about as small guy as you can get. They may have ubiquity, but it's run by like two people. > I know I'm missing out on a lot of honest good web content that Google simply isn't showing me. Yes, but there is too much good web content out there for you to see in your lifetime anyway. Meanwhile, defining "good" based on a nebulous query is kind of the crux of the whole problem, isn't it? I'm not convinced there is an answer.
- BrandonM 15y ago
  > this new ranking method makes me wonder whether it's even possible for a small guy to come up top in the results like that If you search for "Remote Unix" on Google (at least for me), a post on my humble blog is the second result. This isn't exactly the narrowest search term, and I'm certainly no juggernaut of a site, so I take that to mean that small random-ass pages can still rank well for a query.

tripzilch 15y ago

which leaves us the questions: 1) why is w3school in that list? 2) if they got it because lots of (outdated) sites are linking to them, why do their alternate subdomains get a similar bonus? 3) this whole privileged "authority" bucket crap stinks. it used to be that a really good sub-page on somebody's geocities site could be the no.1 go-to first result for a certain search topic. why? because loads of people that knew it was good would link to it because it was just that good of a comprehensive resource. hearing more and more about this new ranking method makes me wonder whether it's even possible for a small guy to come up top in the results like that. And it's not so much that I feel for this small guy, but rather that I know I'm missing out on a lot of honest good web content that Google simply isn't showing me.

magicalist 15y ago
> because loads of people that knew it was good would link to it because it was just that good of a comprehensive resource This is exactly why w3schools is at the the top of search results, and exactly why the http://w3fools.com http://w3fools.com was started -- because there are a ton of developers out there that think that w3schools is authoritative, correct, and kept up to date and link to it and use it. At one time it seemed to fill a niche, but no longer, and the cycle needs to be broken. In the meantime, unless you do some kind of sentiment analysis (and arbitrary changes based on the leanings of google, which you seem to be classifying as a bad thing), pagerank at least would probably conclude that the internet still loves w3schools. > whether it's even possible for a small guy to come up top in the results like that w3schools is actually about as small guy as you can get. They may have ubiquity, but it's run by like two people. > I know I'm missing out on a lot of honest good web content that Google simply isn't showing me. Yes, but there is too much good web content out there for you to see in your lifetime anyway. Meanwhile, defining "good" based on a nebulous query is kind of the crux of the whole problem, isn't it? I'm not convinced there is an answer.
BrandonM 15y ago
> this new ranking method makes me wonder whether it's even possible for a small guy to come up top in the results like that If you search for "Remote Unix" on Google (at least for me), a post on my humble blog is the second result. This isn't exactly the narrowest search term, and I'm certainly no juggernaut of a site, so I take that to mean that small random-ass pages can still rank well for a query.