[svlug] Making / Google

[marc_news@merlins.org]

I was tying up some loose ends in my mailbox :)

On Fri, Jun 26, 1998 at 07:15:43PM -0700, Javilk wrote:
> > Fortunately, Google technology (http://google.stanford.edu/) will make
> > all these search engine games obsolete soon.  "Old school" linking
> > relationships among sites will become more important again.  In the
> > current war between people trying to create good content and people
> > out to mess with the search engines, content is losing.
> 
>     Obsolete???  If this catches on, it will seriously damage the web. 
> Why?  because only large multi-site associations (read corporations,) will
> be able to afford to generate enough cross site links to have their pages
> listed well, and the little guy just won't show up.  So the really unique
> and interesting stuff will fall by the wayside.  That would be the death
> of the world wide web. 

I'm sorry that google catching on seriously damaged the web.
 
>      But as I keep saying on various lists, the real war that is being
> fought on the web, is between those who will allow home users to serve AND
> surf; and those who would provide cheap surfing, and expensive serving. 
> We need a democratic web, not a corporate TV / Newspaper model web where
> only the rich can present their information.  The Cable TV company is not
> necessarily your friend; they want a surf-only model, though they can not
> keep you from serving your immediate neighborhood.

That, however is still a current issue somewhat.

On Mon, Sep 14, 1998 at 04:00:55PM -0700, javilk at polly.mall-net.com wrote:
>      My site shows what people USE to find information.  Most meta tag
> users do not use the right words. The text of the site advocates narrow
> casting, being very specific about what you are saying.
> 
>       My site shows which words are UNDERUSED in meta tags / OVERUSED in
> requests, creating undercovered information areas, where people are not
> finding as much information as they should.
> 
>        Search engines have heuristic filters that downgrade meta spammers. 
> I am having a LOT of difficulty getting my meta info pages indexed,
> because they contain too many of the popular keywords!  Yes, even though
> those words DO NOT appear in the meta tags.  Engines are not as stupid as
> you would think. Keyword wars have been going on for years, and each side
> has developed strategies and counter strategies. 

I'm sorry to hear that. How has it been working out lately?

On Mon, Sep 14, 1998 at 03:44:02PM -0700, Chris DiBona wrote:
> Give me a break Javilk, you yourself said you counsel people to put in
> meta tags that have nothing to do with thier content, that is
> meta-stacking to me. I mean, more power to you for making a living and
> all, but don't expect me to cry when google makes this sort of thing less
> likely to work.
 
:)

> You aren't seriously saying that you never told us to add words like
> warez, and the rest of the porn tags to the svlug meta descriptions,
> right? I mean, it's archived! Check out findmail.

:)

On Mon, Sep 14, 1998 at 07:16:05PM -0700, javilk at polly.mall-net.com wrote:
>  
> > You aren't seriously saying that you never told us to add words like
> > warez, and the rest of the porn tags to the svlug meta descriptions,
> > right? I mean, it's archived! Check out findmail.
> 
>      That is not irrelevant when it comes to making new converts.  These
> kids play with computers, look for free warez, etc. We are providers of
> free non-hacked warez.  We need to attract new blood.  Getting these kids
> off the streets and into Linux is a noble deed.  (I'll admit "playstation"
> is a bit on the edge, though. Still, we do play with our stations...)

So Rick, how's the keyword stuffing of the svlug web pages going?

You've had a few (how about 15 years) to take care of this. I hope you
have gotten us all the googlejuice keywords in there so that can
"compete with the big corporations" and we don't end up being "the
little guy who just doesn't show up" :)

Cheers,
Marc