Ahh, nuts. I just saw /. ran this article yesterday. I don't read /. much anymore, sorry for the duplication.

Posted by: Jack on August 30, 2002 10:19 AM

 

I thought the whole premise of Google was that based on what people are viewing is what gets ranked best.

Sure it conflicts with a democratic process from the search engine going out and bring back results, but not from a democratic “the people have spoken and here is what they have said/look at” approach.

Maybe this guy has just misunderstood the way in which they are using the word democratic?

Posted by: JB on August 30, 2002 01:00 PM

 

I think they also have this very democratic, very Internet-intrinsic but widely undocumented policy: if you don't like it, don't use it.

Posted by: Ari Bancale on September 2, 2002 04:50 AM

 

If it weren't for Google's "uniquely tyrannical" PageRank, my presently-worthless posts to the W3C forums wouldn't be stuck up there in my ego search. Hmph.

Posted by: Mahesh Shantaram on September 2, 2002 08:21 AM

 

PageRank is not always good. I have a web site that is vastly superior to other sites in its (very minor) genre. The problem is that the other sites are operated by professional organizations and mine is just run by me. The types of sites that would link to this genre are brain dead -- they link to my "competition" because of the organizations operating the sites, not because of perceived quality of content. As such, my site does not appear within the first 10 search results. Even when I contact these sites and suggest they link to me, they do not because of the political flak they would get - and in the case of government sites, there are sometimes even informal policies that would prevent them from linking to me because I am not an organization or the official source for information in this genre.

(sorry, no, I won't get more specific than that.)

Posted by: Jack on September 2, 2002 10:27 AM

 

PageRank also discriminates geographically as well. My company is based in the UK, and one of our products competes directly with products from US-based companies. Now, because the use of the web is more mature in the US than in Europe, there is noticeably more linking between US-based sites than elsewhere. And linking, of course, drives up your PageRank. So our competitors get more links and a higher ranking, none of which has anything to do with the popularity or quality of the products which are being sold.

Posted by: Alan Fisher on September 3, 2002 12:22 PM

 

Perhaps companies need to be worrying more about driving traffic through other means than search engines. Relying on one search engine to carry your business seems a little risky.

No matter how good Google is, or becomes, it is a commercial enterprise, and it could disappear tomorrow.

Posted by: Mathew on September 3, 2002 07:34 PM

 

Mr. Anti-Google sounds like a nutcase who's got a bad case of "sour grapes." He's ticked off because HIS site has a low PageRank...

Like the Eagles said "Get over it."

Google's the best we have today for many types of searches - until a better solution comes along. Maybe he should consider a simple alternative - like PAYING for promoting his site.

Posted by: Lyle - Usability Guru on September 4, 2002 12:31 AM

 

I feel like PageRank has been misunderstood. Google isn't trying to rank the company or the products sold by that company, they are merely ranking the page - the HTML file storing all those words and images. In that context, their system works very well and has nothing to do with such emotional terms as "undemocratic."

I agree that rabble rousers can keep a company on it's toes, and a quick review of this guy's site obviously shows a bias (while at the same time not making him out to be the psycho he seems to get credit for being), but I also like the idea of "if you don't like it, don't use it."

Posted by: Lydia on September 4, 2002 05:56 PM