Google meets Heisenberg

[deus777]

as time passes it seems to me that the entire premise for google: using backlinks to dertermine ranking results is totaly flawed.

maybe some of the phds at google should brush up on heisenberg.

[google.com...]

it is simply not possible to make an objective ranking of sites using however fancy algorithm google likes without expecting commercial sites (and non-commercial sites) to manipulate the algorithm to boost rankings.

think about it, tops spots convert to more traffic and more sales and dollars in the bank. and then for google to call such attempts "spam" or allude that there is something evil about this is the height of arrogance or naive stupidity.

no matter how fancy the algorithm it can still be tested and worked. it is only a matter of time before googles gives up and switches to paid positions.

[steve128]

Unless the value of (x) can be established, then no one can unscramble the alogos.
People seem to think on the enigma machine sort of mathematical equations, crack the code you have the answer, not true with shifting differentials.
Google alogos are not chemical reactions

(x) is not a definitive, in reality it is dynamic, one minor change makes huge differences

Sure some get close one month, the next month “blah ‘how come....

[Alcogooglic]

> Google alogos are not chemical reactions

Right! They’re bio-chemical reactions in humans together with electric impulses in chips.

[doc_z]

(x) is not a definitive, in reality it is dynamic, one minor change makes huge differences

Sure some get close one month, the next month “blah ‘how come....

The same as for the Enigma machine, where the code was changed daily.

The discussion was mainly about some facets of PR calculation, not about the ranking algorithm.