Relevancy and Ranking... by Wealth

[Thomas Dowling]

You folks are aware, are you not, that a lot of people have been
artificially upping their relevancy rankings with comments like:

<!-- libraries libraries libraries libraries libraries libraries
libraries libraries libraries libraries libraries libraries 
libraries libraries libraries libraries libraries libraries 
(repeat until you embarrass even yourself)
-->

I can't exactly fault Open Text for trying to skim a few bucks off such
behavior, especially since the dog-eat-dog nature of the Web Index market
makes it relatively likely that, for example, Excite will start
advertising that they never ever provide artificially weighted results.

Thomas (100% Naturally Weighted) Dowling
tdowling at ohiolink.edu



----------
> From: ROBERT L. BATTENFELD <rbatten at Sunburn.liunet.edu>
> To: Multiple recipients of list <web4lib at library.berkeley.edu>
> Subject: RE: Relevancy and Ranking... by Wealth
> Date: Wednesday, June 19, 1996 5:15 PM
> 
> I think its more like a "sucking" sound....
> Anyway I hope this doesn't catch on but I'm sure it will be like 
> pigs to a trough.  I wonder how they will deal with multiple 
> "preferred" (fleeced?) clients that are competitors?  Doesn't this 
> "service" already exists with good web page design?
> 
> 
> >*Sigh*... I hate to say it, but this doesn't surprise me a bit.  At =
> >least we know about it, so that we can take it into consideration when
=
> >using Open Text as a search engine.
> 
> >That whoooshing sound you hear is objectivity, integrity and quality =
> >concerns being blown out the window by the stiff wind of "vested =
> >interest".