Peter P. wrote:
> Paul Hutchinson <paullhutchinson <at> yahoo.com> writes:
>
>   
>> Would you please provide a search term(s) that produces a Google result that
>> illustrates your point.
>>     
>
> Sorry for the late answer. I cannot give a direct query, but here is an
> alternate way:
>
> - enter some search terms in Google
> - take the websites for the first two pages of results and search each
> - note the order of the websites (which should reflect ranking), and the link
> count for the search on those websites (which does not)
>
> Of course this is far from perfect, but it busts the myth about 'relevant
> results sorted by ranking determined by link count'.
>
> Peter P.
>
>   
Don't forget that google also rates the links from sites too.
IE a link from wikipedia is worth more than a link from hawtXXX
gambeling and warex.com
-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist