>his divine inspiration is the
>academic "citation index," which ranks the value of a paper
>by how many times it is cited -
It's much easier to get cited on the web than in academia, which
will give a different outcome to the same inspired idea. for one,
the cost of publishing is a lot less, and there are no "peer review"
committes to pass judgement on your pages.
>>>question that most concerns me is: Will the Robots give some
>>>links a higher priority that others?
>Any other group given the power to pass judgement will carefully
>and thoughtfully determine what is "best,"
Unlike academia, they have to make the users of the search engine happy
to stay in business.
>> If I were writing the program, I would give extra points to links
>>from the major RELEVANT sites:
>Would downgrading Timmy also disallow the likes of Matt, he of the
>Script Archives? Or would he be "inside the loop" since he is heavily
>linked, aka "has job experience."
Matt's Script Archives? He's a RESOURCE - a high concentration of
useful information - not just a link list! Any resource will accumulate
links pointing at it whether they ask for them or not. That's why Jim
and I both nag about developing content and more content. Content attracts
links to it, which increases traffic via those links, and those links will
soon boost relevance ratings too, for more traffic.
>So that one's been figured out, huh?
About an hour after it was discussed on a promoter's board. You could take
the number of links to a site, and divide by the number of individual domains
represented to get a measure of how widespread the links are. A site with 500
links to it from 400 different domains is likely to be better than a site with
500 links to it from 3 different domains (given that they are on the same topic).
There's no end to the statistical games you could play with link counts and
>Sure will disappoint people selling Togo domain names.
.TO domains (I think it's Tonga) are legitimate domains.