thegypsy - 4:39 pm on Feb 11, 2007 (gmt 0)

So I think this assumption that google has failed to appreciate the relevancy of a page by putting it 950+ needs to be re addressed.

MHes – While I appreciate the analogy and insight, let’s NOT get into -3 ..950 ..whatever penalties. It is a silly discussion you will NEVER see me having, unless to tell folks NOT to. There are many TOTALLY CONFUSED threads on that silliness…. You are making HEAVY assumptions that do not fit with my calculations.

Didn’t you ever think –“ with 24 billion pages it is numerically likely that 50 or so people would end up with common anomalies?’ – I sure did. I have watched the penalties name even evolve over and over. From the outside, as a search engineering and mathematics enthusiasts, quite amusing.

Much of what your saying does not capture the essence of the technology. You are pigeon-holling instead of clearing your mind and viewing it clean. You are trying (already) to adapt it to your theories and beliefs. This, in my estimation, will not serve you well.

There are MANY ways of weighting (rankings) documents within the system and as always, ‘playing with the dials’ will produce different effects. It is not as simplified as you seem to be perceiving it. The ranking is more of an additive method. You are talking about this and that being ‘rejected’ – it is not quite as such. Along the sorting and weighting path documents are given ADDITIONAL weighting as they satisfy various aspects of the algo. While minor, important to understand the paths and scoring methodology.

So, as long as no one minds, let’s stick to PaIR discussions…. NOT penaties and filters. It is far to early for such assumptions to be made. Let’s appreciate it for what it is, not what we believe it to be.

Even AnnaJ was making simple assumptions from recent experiences on ONE site in ONE market... it is not a healthy endeavor to make any assumtions at this point