[WEB4LIB] Google: Journal Citation Reports for the Internet?

[Robert Tiess]

Eric Schnell wrote:
>  Unlike many search engines which utilize relevancy
>  raking based on word frequency, Google relies on
>  something called PageRank.  It uses link structure
>  as an indicator of an individual page's value.

I often use Google with positive results, but
there are some potential problems with its
unique method of results ranking.  Under the
"PageRank" system, a completely new resource
having no links to it (the PageRank equivalent
of "no votes") may be far superior to other
resources currently indexed, but it will not
rise to the top of the list for lack of links:
<http://www.google.com/intl/en_extra/technology>

This is all inexact science, and Google does
an admirable job where relevancy is concerned.
Still, webmasters know the increasing difficulty
of getting good visibility for their sites
these days.  When you have to pay just to be
considered by "big" web directories (for example
<http://help.yahoo.com/help/bizex/>) it can be
a very bad thing when coupled with a PageRank
type system, since fewer people will know of
your site and link to you.  This is a big problem
with popularity based searches.  When combined
with paid URL placements and reserved keywords,
directories or search engines using comparable
techniques may predestine top-heavy results lists
"minor" or new web sites may never penetrate:
<http://www.google.com/intl/en_extra/ads/index.html>
<https://adwords.google.com/AdWords/Welcome.html>

Thankfully, Google combines PageRank with some
other text matching methods, including proximity,
giving preference to indexed pages where terms
are very close to each other.  This usually can
be a good thing, but in the case of larger pages
(1MB+) or written works broken up over several
web pages, where multiple query terms might not
be conveniently aggregated, the proximity feature
may not be much of a factor (see entry #3):
<http://www.google.com/intl/en_extra/technology/whyuse.html>

So, while I do share somewhat in the enthusiasm
for Google, in the end it has, like every search
engine, its share of positives and negatives, far
more positive than most services for many users
but not to the point where it should be the only
search engine an online researcher consults.


Robert Tiess
rjtiess at warwick.net
http://rtiess.tripod.com