Yesterday, I posted about how to end Google's self-imposed reign over the Internet. I realize the Google is very popular and companies want to be at the top of their search engine results. Getting put at the top of that list does need some sort of calculation on Google's part. That is partly why they use the PR system. The higher the page rank, the higher it goes on the list. So it comes down to calculating PR. This is supposed to calculate how popular a site is. This popularity comes from traffic, backlinks, regular visitors, and new visitors on a regular basis. Sounds pretty simple huh? Well, it is, but there is an inherit power in all of these calculations.
Because Google is so popular, everyone wants to base what they do with their site so that it appears on Google where it can be seen more often. Google's huge popularity also equals a huge amount of power. Since everyone relies on them, Google can basically control what these people do on the net. They can do this by changing how PR is calculated. Remember, the purpose of PR is to calculate how a page ranks on the Internet. But, Google has added bias into that rank. Google has changed their PR calculation to automatically set a PR of a site with paid blogs straight down to 0. Is that fair? Does a site with paid blogs have no traffic as a PR of 0 would imply? Does that mean no one reads the posts on that site or visits the site anymore or that everyone who linked to that site suddenly killed all their links to that site overnight? With that in mind, does PR sound like a fair ranking system anymore? Ya, I would have to say no.
Let me give you a couple of examples of how this PR system is not fair and unbiased at all. First, my wife's blog has been established for over year now. She has all kinds of regular readers, back links, and enough traffic to make my blog look like a dwarf. Her PR used to be 3 until Google made their PR system more "fair". By more fair, I mean cutting anyone out of the loop who does paid blogging. Her PR is now 0. Ya, 0. How do you computer that big fat goose egg? Obviously, it's now without bias because when someone sees a blog has a 0 for a PR, they think the blog is new and has no traffic. Clearly not the case in this example. So, is the PR system fair and unbiased? Again, no.
The next example is my blog. My blog is new, only a few months old and has 20+ blogs on it. No regular traffic and only about 2 backlinks to it. I checked the PR of my blog yesterday and it is 1. My new baby of a blog has a higher PR than the much older and more mature blog of my wife. How does that compute? How does a fair and unbalanced ranking system rank a popular site lower than a site that is new to the blogging world? I'll tell you how. By killing PR of those sites who do paid blogging and by rewarding sites who don't do paid blogging. And Google can do this because they have the power and feel that no one can take it away from them.
The time has come to take this power away so the ranking of websites can be fair and unbalanced again. This power can be taken away in a number of ways. First, stop using Google to do your web searches. I know I have. Second, stop using any of Google's products (maps, email, etc). I do still have my gmail account only because it is the site listed on my resume. Third, people need to stop using PR as a basis for everything on the web. When the PR system stops being used, someone will and is going to have to come up with a much better and really unbiased system. And, finally, people need to dump their stock in Google. When the money runs out for Google (I know the stock is only part of their income), they might actually start becoming the likeable governor of the Internet instead of the self-proclaimed Dictator of the Internet.
PayPerPost has actually come out with a great new alternative to PR. It's called RealRank. This system actually calculates a site's traffic, backlinks, etc in an unbiased manner and calculates this on a daily basis. This new system is based on real numbers and not a business's bias. This is fair. Actually ranking a site based on how popular is, not based on how popular it is with just one site.
Thursday, December 6, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Stupid Google :) You know Blogger is a Google company too right? Makes me almost want to pay for my own host, except that Blogger is so easy to use and free :P Kind of annoying that the bad guys make good products lol. I don't use Google search much anymore though.
You are totally nailing it on the head with these posts!!! Googles stupid censorship left a HUGE hole in our income as well! I'm so frustrated by it all!
left a comment on the other post, so i won't bother with the disclaimer again :P
as i see it you're swinging the hammer but not really hitting the nail...
google is popular because of it's ability to but the accurate stuff on top, and ofcourse the can control it, it's their stuff :P
but 1. a PR0 blog in comparison to a PR3 blog simply because a hard link from a PR0 blog doesn't weight anything, why pay for a link that isn't worth anything for your PR?
2. your wife broke the rules, google could have banned her from being indexed at all if they wanted too - she can get her PR reinstated again, if she adds "nofollow" tags to all her paid posts, but then she's breaking PPP's rules, and gets banned from there instead.
"The time has come to take this power away so the ranking of websites can be fair and unbalanced again."
it is to NOT get it unbalanced google is doing this, they want people to link to others because of that they contains material that people likes - not because their paid to do so.
take the election for president, would you consider it fair if it was legal for candidates to actually buy votes?
links is votes for google...
I write this not to be hated, or because I like Google that much, but starting to hate Google and slander them because your wife were punished for breaking the rules when she is breaking them seems like trying to have and eat the cookie at the same time (and make interest of it too).
What rules are you talking about? Since when does Google make the rules about the Internet? Who gave them that power and where are the Google-made rules for the Internet listed? Why does the Internet need to follow Google's rules? Without the Internet, Google would be nothing more than a bunch of machines that have nothing to do. The Internet has been around for decades. Google hasn't even been around for one. They have no right to call the shots on what is fair on the Internet. Also, if these are Google's longstanding rules, why were they not enforcing them for at least a year? Seems like they make these rules, but then pick and choose which ones they want to enforce. If Google wants to have a fair ranking system, they need to rethink their algorithm to actually measure a site's popularity, instead of basing their ranking system on a bunch of self-made rules.
Post a Comment