Harold Hallikainen hallikainen.org> writes: > I don't think Google (like some others) accepts payment for search > ranking. They do auction off ad positions, but these paid ads are clearly > marked as "sponsored links." I think search position is largely based on ... > > I disagree with that, do a gurgle for > > > > Horsebox Conversion ... I think that there are a lot of exceptions that confirm the rule. The rule is that getting a site with 'usual' content into a reasonable position is nearly impossible without 'magic' involving Ben Franklin effigies changing hands. There is nothing sinister about it (but I'd still want to know why those ieee.org 'sell' pages get ranked so high without having content accessible to usual browsers w/o paying). This is not Google's work, it is the work of optimization done by the other 100-150 punters who are ahead. Whathever algorythm Google uses for ranking, as long as it is not perfectly random, punters will keep trying things until their pages percolate upwards in the rankings. That's the point. And this tweaking is what can put one in 'Google hell' (it's really called that) if it goes too far. So there is a non-linear invisible trapdoor as one advances in site tweaks. The people who know how far to go cost money (apart from those who go too far and put their client's sites in Google Hell for a while - I just read about that recently). So, unless one is well-linked to (from sites already indexed - i.e. not from pages not yet indexed), it is very hard to 'percolate' up. The fact that money changes hands is undoubtable. What is not clear is where the dollar stops. Since Google does not directly sell ranking, the dollar seems to stop at the optimizers. But it does get out of the customer's pocket first. So, one can say that it costs money to get ranked unless one has some really desirable commodity. Peter P. -- http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist