Account Options

  1. Sign in
The old Google Groups will be going away soon, but your browser is incompatible with the new version.
Google Groups Home
« Groups Home
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html
+ new post
About this group
Subscribe to this group
This is a Usenet group - learn more
Message from discussion Search engine indexing (Was: Hypocrisy in action!)
The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
 
From:
To:
Cc:
Followup To:
Add Cc | Add Followup-to | Edit Subject
Subject:
Validation:
For verification purposes please type the characters you see in the picture below or the numbers you hear by clicking the accessibility icon. Listen and type the numbers you hear
 
Jim Dabell  
View profile  
 More options Jan 8 2003, 5:06 pm
Newsgroups: comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html
From: Jim Dabell <jim-use...@jimdabell.com>
Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2003 22:05:19 +0000
Local: Wed, Jan 8 2003 5:05 pm
Subject: Search engine indexing (Was: Hypocrisy in action!)
Print | View thread | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author

andkonDOTcom wrote:
> Chip C <c...@chipcom.net> wrote in message
> <news:MPG.1885840950502678989def@news-server.neo.rr.com>...
>> On 7 Jan 2003 21:02:20 -0800,  andkonDOTcom allegedly wrote...
[snip]
>> Sorry to quote your own reply:
>> > > URL? URL? URL? You don't know anymore how search engines work that
>> > > the average lazy bum, like Lee Bird (completely random), since you
>> > > have no access to their secretly kept algorithms. Perhaps you should
>> > > stop spreading shit around which you have no way to prove but think
>> > > that it sounds all good and dandy.

>> That is what I have responded to...or did your evil twin write that?

> You should keep in mind the general argument between visual and
> logical tags.

And you should not assert that people here don't know what they are talking
about.  Some clearly do, some clearly don't.  Guess which category Chip
falls into?  And guess which you fall into?

[snip]

> Knowledge of search engines does not matter as there are some clueless
> sites that made it pretty high. Most sites that made it pretty high
> ARE clueless.

1.  Some clueless sites are ranked highly

I can agree with this premise.

2.  Knowledge of search engines does not matter

It does not support this conclusion.  It supports this conclusion:

2.  Clue is not always necessary to get a high ranking

They are very different conclusions.  You would do well to improve your
logic skills.

[snip]

>> So tell us, what site that you have done has similar search engine
>> visibility and indeed traffic? This one only has a google page rank
>> of 6, care to show us one of yours that even gets a 4?

> Ummm great. Let me name a few sites that are completely cluess that
> still rank high.

No.  You challenged Chip's expertise with search engines.  He responded with
ample evidence that he knows what he is talking about.

Now you are recieving a taste of your own medicine.  What expertise do you
have in the search engine field?

[snip]

>> The search engine is Texis, and anyone can configure it in the same
>> way I did. Oh I forgot, you can't take the time to study anything to
>> make your own educated guesses, much less read documentation that
>> might even keep you from having to guess.

> Wow, is that something that vast hoards of people use? Nope.

Texis is a local search engine, not a web-wide search engine.

It's all very well saying that nobody uses it, but if you are on a
particular website, and you want to search it, you don't really care what
they are using as their back-end unless it doesn't give you what you want.

If you are installing a local search engine, you aren't going to care about
what methods google uses, you are going to install something that does the
job as well as possible.  Given sane markup, you are going to want a search
engine that takes advantage of that, whether that's google, texis, or
something else.

[snip]

>> No, you directly questioned my expertise, as I have already quoted
>> and is what I responded to.

> Ummm okay. That doesn matter though. So does google use <strong>, URL
> or any other proof?

[snip]

Reverse engineering indicates that google use semantic elements to weight
keywords.  I do not know if <strong> is among the ones that have increased
weighting, I would _expect_ so, given no evidence to the contrary.

I'm not concerned with proving that it does, it is unimportant to the main
point, which, in case you have forgotten, is that <b> is not equivelent to
<strong>.  For all I know, I could post that google certainly weights
<strong> heavier than <b>, and be wrong today, but right tomorrow.  A well
known fact about google is that it changes all the time.

Other search engines _do_ weight <strong> *in particular* as being more
important than regular text or text in <b> elements.  One example is
Namazu:

<URL:http://www.namazu.org/>

Harvest is another search engine that defaults to weighting <strong> and
<em> as more important than <b> and <i>:

<URL:http://harvest.sourceforge.net/>

I think ht://dig can also easily be configured in this way.  Chip already
told you about another one.

All of this shows conclusively that <strong> is not equivelent to <b> and
thus your argument that they are is baseless.  We have all shown that they
are different both theoretically and practically.  Unless you can come up
with some evidence or compelling reasoning to the contrary?

I fully expect you to proceed by moving the goalposts (e.g. "those search
engines don't count because they aren't mauve").

--
Jim Dabell


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Create a group - Google Groups - Google Home - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy
©2012 Google