> 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.


What myth?

Google haven't done that for yonks.  Your ranking is determined by links,
where the links come from, if you link back, content, age of content, site
updates, lack of 'tricks', easy navigation, do your ads get clicked etc.
Says as much here
<http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?answer=35769>.

No doubt you've been reading this -
<http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/> after adding this -
<http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/> to your bookmarks.  

An answer other than "of course they'd say that" would be nice.

If I want to 'blink a led', I'm glad Wouter forked over the cash, otherwise
I'd never find it in the 1.5 million pages that show up.  Of course, 'flash
a led' is a bit tougher, either Wouter refused to pay in order to get ahead
of 56 million others, or just maybe he never says 'flash a pic', and no-one
else calls it the 'flash a led' in their links.  Tough call.

This is starting to sound like every other conspiracy nutter thread - "I
can't prove it but I know it's true".

What colour helicopters do Google use?  Stripes?  No use looking for them in
GoogleMaps of course, they'd be photoshopped out.

Tony

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist