The received wisdom is that G views pages as stand-alone entities, rather than as part of a greater whole. If they're serious about counter-acting the degradation of PR and link text through spurious reciprocal links and multiple inter-linking, will they not need to take the macro rather than a micro view?
NFFC
10:55 pm on Nov 10, 2003 (gmt 0)
>The received wisdom is that G views pages as stand-alone entities, rather than as part of a greater whole.
The other way round, surely?
ciml
11:18 pm on Nov 10, 2003 (gmt 0)
I think the macro view is the link map; IMO one of the real challenges for a search engine is to ignore domains. It's just too easy to buy thousands of domains, genuinely authoritative sites won't normally be doing that anyway.
superscript
11:31 pm on Nov 10, 2003 (gmt 0)
Macro / micro - not necessary: or a link map!
PR is normalised - an eigenvector - it doesn't need a reference point!
PR comes from web pages - but the algo adjusts pages within a site anyway.
ciml
1:39 am on Nov 11, 2003 (gmt 0)
Thanks superscript, that's what I was hoping to say. The Web's linkmap provides the macro structure so Google don't need to.
