Not signed in (Sign In)
    • CommentAuthorrdewey
    • CommentTimeFeb 20th 2006 edited
     permalink

    If someone devised a method that could rank pages with better relevency than Google, would it be something worth persuing? Let's also say this new method also prevents rank spammers...

    Google is VERY accurate as it is, so I don't see the need at least in the near future...

    Any thoughts?

    •  
      CommentAuthorEric
    • CommentTimeFeb 20th 2006 edited
     permalink

    I think Google kinda sucks these days. People have learned the system so well and they're exploiting it. All the results I get, at least the first few pages, are all affiliate sites trying to sell you crap - either that or BS info pages stacked with AdSense. It's crap.

    Proud founder of YGG
    •  
      CommentAuthorJimiHendrix
    • CommentTimeFeb 20th 2006 edited
     permalink

    I think that it would be very difficult to take much of that market away from google - the more "internet savvy" people like us would see the value in better search results, but casual internet surfers would just continue to use google because of its popularity.

    • CommentAuthorrdewey
    • CommentTimeFeb 20th 2006 edited
     permalink

    Yeah, but I could say the same about Yahoo. Back when Google first came out, I wasn't very tech savvy... It was actually our science teacher who MADE us use Google (and he also owned a Mac and was really against Microsoft). I then started recommending it to people after seeing the results, and it spread around school. Before I knew it, everyone was telling everybody about it.

    Then several years later, the IPO really fueled PR...

    Either way... It's just something I'm working on, nothing I'm looking at profiting from in the near-term.

    •  
      CommentAuthorTravis
    • CommentTimeFeb 20th 2006 edited
     permalink

    Everything in business and the world always gets better. Every single thing can be improved upon whether that's in form or function. If Mr. Ford had asked what people wanted they would have said "faster horses".

    It's the same with search engines. Right now, that might be what we want. But the next big Google; the next big innovation, will be an entirely new approach to searching. And I think finding that innovation would be much more fun and rewarding for you, than trying to out Google Google.

    Proud Partner of YGG
    •  
      CommentAuthorbonafizzle8
    • CommentTimeFeb 20th 2006 edited
     permalink

    algorithm. now thats a two - dollar word.

    • CommentAuthorrdewey
    • CommentTimeFeb 22nd 2006 edited
     permalink

    This new method that I am talking about would basically serve the same purpose as "tagging", without anybody actually tagging...

    It's a function of the average time spent at the site compared to the site's file length.

    For example, if alot of users were spending 3 minutes at a site ranked "15", and the file length was of medium size, that page must obviously be more important than the site ranked at number "10" which receives numerous short visits (say 10 seconds or less).

    A simple analogy can be found in real life - The more relevent a book is to the topic you are seeking, the longer the time you spend with that book. If everyone picks up the book and only reads the first few pages and throws it down, that book must not be relevent.

    To start, it would have to be implemented with a standard PageRank (like Google), and then "worm" itself through as more users use the engine.

    The same theory could be applied to online PPC campaigns. If customers are doing "quick clicks", you would pay less than if a customer were to hit your site and stay for a minute (so in essence, it's "Pay for Performance"). Advertisers would provide a "lowest bid" and a "highest bid".

    • CommentAuthorhudson hawk
    • CommentTimeFeb 23rd 2006 edited
     permalink

    I like that idea

Freelance Switch
Add your comments
    Username Password
  • Format comments as