| 7:57 am on Jul 3, 2002 (gmt 0)|
I have seen a couple of competitors sites appear their, and can't quite fiqure out how it happened, as other tools that use hub association toward keyterms, suggest other sites.
If i have time to look into it with a couple of other things that were raised, i will see if i can find any sort of reasoning behind it.
| 10:17 am on Jul 3, 2002 (gmt 0)|
I have noticed the same thing. Sometimes they are reasonable but others don't seem to make sense as an expert site.
I was wondering how they were chosen also?
| 2:01 pm on Jul 4, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Does anyone know where these 'resources' come from actually? Definitely not ODP or Zeal as far as I can see.
| 2:03 pm on Jul 4, 2002 (gmt 0)|
would also confirm that they're extremely uneven. Experts...hmmm
| 2:05 pm on Jul 4, 2002 (gmt 0)|
>Sometimes they are reasonable but others don't seem to make sense as an expert site.
Ditto. In the serps I check, the majority of them are good-to-fair picks, but 2 or 3 of them are way off.
| 4:15 pm on Jul 4, 2002 (gmt 0)|
We have a page listed as an expert site. It is our "Links" page, and just
points to useful sites having the same general theme as ours. Hopefully, it's
of more than dubious quality, but at the same time, the only reason I can see
that it was included is that there are a lot of themed outgoing links with
a paragraph of text describing each destination site, sort of like the ODP.
Teoma may need to implement a PageRank-like algorithm to judge the quality of
these expert sites in order to make these citations more useful.
Personally, I'm just grateful to be included (free) and to have all those
long-dead URLs removed from their index!