Has anyone got any evidence this time around?

After all we're talking about a search engine so there must be links that
support the claims.

Last time around I asked for evidence and none was forthcoming. If no
evidence is presented this time around maybe we should all agree that
posting unsupported claims against Google is forbidden.

Paul

> -----Original Message-----
> From: piclist-bounces@mit.edu [mailto:piclist-bounces@mit.edu]On Behalf
> Of Peter P.
> Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2007 2:52 PM
> To: piclist@mit.edu
> Subject: Re: [OT] Google's brain is dying
>
>
> Michael Rigby-Jones <Michael.Rigby-Jones <at> bookham.com> writes:
>
> > It's been happeneing for a while IMO.  Either the Google spider
> is being more
> > selective about which bits of a
> > website it will keep, or more likely the increasingly
> commercial bias is
> > suppressing search results in
> > some way.
>
> I think that this is exactly what is happening. The 'optimizers'
> have determined
> by trial and error what makes good rankings and they are
> worsening the S/N ratio
> vs. sites which do not try to climb artificially. Either that or
> the 'linked to'
> metric has stopped being relevant. In any case, there seems to be
> a cutoff, like
> a cache size or similar, that prevents certain sites from
> appearing in listings
> at all if their rankings are low.
>
> Peter P.
>
>
> --
> http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
> View/change your membership options at
> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

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