TheCorinthian Posted April 11, 2011 Report Share Posted April 11, 2011 And how is any of that "bad?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nervous God Posted April 11, 2011 Report Share Posted April 11, 2011 It's about creating false listings. Most people only look at the first ten hits on a search, unless your in them, your page may be the best thing, exactly want people want, but those that do SEO Search Engine Optimization will make sure those that PAY the most get listed the highest. That's not what your searching for often Personally I think time is right for a open source search enging similar to how wikipedia is run. There are already some, but none that good, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nervous God Posted April 11, 2011 Report Share Posted April 11, 2011 It's about creating false listings. Most people only look at the first ten hits on a search, unless your in them, your page may be the best thing, exactly want people want, but those that do SEO Search Engine Optimization will make sure those that PAY the most get listed the highest. That's not what your searching for often Personally I think time is right for a open source search engine similar to how wikipedia is run. There are already some, but none that good, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
khunsanuk Posted April 11, 2011 Report Share Posted April 11, 2011 Hi, In principle SEO is not evil and it can greatly increase relevance for searches. However, as always there are those who try to take advantage by abusing the rules. And that is where things get annoying. Google introduced the feature of determining the popularity of a page by how many links point to it. When it was introduced this worked great as the best sites on a certain topic tended to have the most inbound links. Then the bad SEO people got wind of this and figured they could create loads of sites with links pointing to their own site (or posting lots of links to their site on message boards ) and fucked up the popularity feature. Metatags and ALT tags are also very useful as they describe the information on a site / page. But of course, people abuse it my stuffing loads of keywords in them. This has gotten so far now that people rewrite content on their site so it is optimized for search engine spiders, rather than for the users who are actually interested in the information. And then there is AdWords, and that is truly evil. These are the first 2-3 results on a search result page and for those there is just one rule, the person paying the most is shown at the top. (And this is where Google's slogan went from "Do no evil" to "Show me the money") So, I don't think SEO perse is evil, but it can certainly be used in an evil way. And of course it has created a whole new branch of marketing people who can charge large amounts of money for pretending to do actual work. Sanuk! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuckwoww Posted April 11, 2011 Report Share Posted April 11, 2011 As far as spam goes chuckwoww please post your website so we can see how well that does in search. I'll even post a free site appraisal here so every one can see what a website positioning genius you are. Where does your website stand in search for the keywords your customers use to find you? I don't have a website unless you count myspace and I'm lousy at marketing. A google search for chuckwoww or losing the plot or both throws up a lot of stuff but it's impossible for me to say whether it helps with book sales or not. The spam I was referring to was your link to a Pattaya marketing site....gone now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheCorinthian Posted April 12, 2011 Report Share Posted April 12, 2011 Hi, In principle SEO is not evil and it can greatly increase relevance for searches. However, as always there are those who try to take advantage by abusing the rules. And that is where things get annoying. And that is kind of my point. It seems it is not Google being evil... but evil people trying to "game the system" for their own ends. The +1 seems a great idea to me... sort of a instant poll of popular opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coss Posted April 12, 2011 Report Share Posted April 12, 2011 One of the big issues in all of this, evil or no, if the belief that popular = true. i.e. truth by popularity Google currently means that if something is believed, i.e. cave men coexisted with the dinosaurs, then it is true! Because there are 1 strillion google results for it. Ask any American! Another way of putting this is the problem is that there is a primacy of belief over fact. This explains Palin, Gore, Fox News, and a plethora of other people and institutions world wide. There is currently enough food and technology to solve most of the world's problems. IF.... we could keep the "Believers" at bay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
expat Posted April 12, 2011 Report Share Posted April 12, 2011 You've obviously never seen The Flintstones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheCorinthian Posted April 13, 2011 Report Share Posted April 13, 2011 One of the big issues in all of this, evil or no, if the belief that popular = true. i.e. truth by popularity Google currently means that if something is believed, i.e. cave men coexisted with the dinosaurs, then it is true! Because there are 1 strillion google results for it. Ask any American! Another way of putting this is the problem is that there is a primacy of belief over fact. This explains Palin, Gore, Fox News, and a plethora of other people and institutions world wide. There is currently enough food and technology to solve most of the world's problems. IF.... we could keep the "Believers" at bay. I would not go that far, esp for someone with a clear mind. Popularity = popularity and nothing more, which tends to mean "entertainment value." It is the same for the reverse, "un popular" stuff too. I will look at something that is wildly popular to see if it is funny or interesting. Deciding whether it is true or not is up to the self. Sadly for many here up in the News section, they will "quote the popular" with out ever having read the item at all. Which is closer to what you said about popular = true. I have a lot of fun with Palin and Fox News due to this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coss Posted April 13, 2011 Report Share Posted April 13, 2011 One of the big issues in all of this, evil or no, if the belief that popular = true. i.e. truth by popularity Google currently means that if something is believed, i.e. cave men coexisted with the dinosaurs, then it is true! Because there are 1 strillion google results for it. Ask any American! Another way of putting this is the problem is that there is a primacy of belief over fact. This explains Palin, Gore, Fox News, and a plethora of other people and institutions world wide. There is currently enough food and technology to solve most of the world's problems. IF.... we could keep the "Believers" at bay. I would not go that far, esp for someone with a clear mind. Popularity = popularity and nothing more, which tends to mean "entertainment value." It is the same for the reverse, "un popular" stuff too. I will look at something that is wildly popular to see if it is funny or interesting. Deciding whether it is true or not is up to the self. Sadly for many here up in the News section, they will "quote the popular" with out ever having read the item at all. Which is closer to what you said about popular = true. I have a lot of fun with Palin and Fox News due to this. But you are an exception, the majority of the voting public, anywhere, vote with their noses, not a clear and analytical mind, ergo, idiots can run countries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.