Saturday, April 30, 2005
Is MSN really a search engine?
Kicking things off, if you haven't found it, google now has maps.google.com. It is similar to the local one except this one you can even have a satellite view of the places you are looking for all over the country..
I heard that Google is changing up on the its adwords features. It will focus more on clicks and target more so specific webistes.
Now here is an interesting point about MSN according to a writer form webpronews.com states that based on a 1000 keyword test that MSN compared to other major search engines gets more traffic from IIS servers than any other making MSN not a search engine. You can view the article, if you can at this link here
I heard that Google is changing up on the its adwords features. It will focus more on clicks and target more so specific webistes.
Now here is an interesting point about MSN according to a writer form webpronews.com states that based on a 1000 keyword test that MSN compared to other major search engines gets more traffic from IIS servers than any other making MSN not a search engine. You can view the article, if you can at this link here
Thursday, April 21, 2005
Ecological politics and stray cats!
Anything that makes national news, however one would look at it, is telling you something how the world is changing. It is also telling the reader why is it necessary for those changes to take place and why they sometimes today may take the foreground. Back in the early 1990s or even the 1980s, it would be absurd to think of as one would read about the Wisconsin Conservation Congress* resolution approved by the county voters there that it is okay to shoot stray cats.
Animal rights activist including myself would think that this disturbing. However the problem with allowing stray cats to run amok is that they are endangering birds and other small prey animal,not to say nationwide there are supposedly 80 million stray cats on the loose.*
The semantics of all this is that the resolution itself is in accordance with most if not all wildlife and animal endangerment laws that would simply designate stray or 'feral' cats as 'unprotected.' That would mean that like places in Minnesota and South Dakota, people will be able to shoot cats that appears dangerous or do not have collars or tags on them. These cats unlike the monkeys that run around the streets and parks of India are merely 'abandoned' creatures, not a 'religous' or 'indegenous' aspect of American culture. That is to say there exists the notion of 'abandonment,'that would nullify anything that would take too seriously people who have claims to treat their pets like humans.** There are believe it or not the growth of 'dog courts' and lavish dog houses on the market.
What all of this is say not to contradict myself above is that one could apply and assess any and all forms of creatures, including human beings, in the way they permeate basic institutions. Like the monkey that roams around the streets in India there numbers have become so much that 1) they are ecological burdens and 2)that they pose as some sort of nusiance.Of course, one would see the idea of a 'let loose' attitude of allowing stray cats being shoot as cruel, whereas a likely and more reasonable remedy would be pet adoption, neutering and in cases, euthenasia.***
For the most part, there is a such thing as ecological politics reaching grassroots and local levels but more importantly to areas to test and measures society ability to take care of their pets and children.
*USA Today April 13, 2005 p.3a
** This term is often referred to as being derivative.
***The Terri Schiavo case in which her husband succeeded in having her feeding tube removed are among the many ethical choice that depsite what the opponents of euthenasia want to believe given massive population growth, an aging population in the US, Japan and parts of Europe and a failed social structure in which prisons and a prison culture are fast replacing what was left of welfare and social institutions not too long ago that society must deal with.
Animal rights activist including myself would think that this disturbing. However the problem with allowing stray cats to run amok is that they are endangering birds and other small prey animal,not to say nationwide there are supposedly 80 million stray cats on the loose.*
The semantics of all this is that the resolution itself is in accordance with most if not all wildlife and animal endangerment laws that would simply designate stray or 'feral' cats as 'unprotected.' That would mean that like places in Minnesota and South Dakota, people will be able to shoot cats that appears dangerous or do not have collars or tags on them. These cats unlike the monkeys that run around the streets and parks of India are merely 'abandoned' creatures, not a 'religous' or 'indegenous' aspect of American culture. That is to say there exists the notion of 'abandonment,'that would nullify anything that would take too seriously people who have claims to treat their pets like humans.** There are believe it or not the growth of 'dog courts' and lavish dog houses on the market.
What all of this is say not to contradict myself above is that one could apply and assess any and all forms of creatures, including human beings, in the way they permeate basic institutions. Like the monkey that roams around the streets in India there numbers have become so much that 1) they are ecological burdens and 2)that they pose as some sort of nusiance.Of course, one would see the idea of a 'let loose' attitude of allowing stray cats being shoot as cruel, whereas a likely and more reasonable remedy would be pet adoption, neutering and in cases, euthenasia.***
For the most part, there is a such thing as ecological politics reaching grassroots and local levels but more importantly to areas to test and measures society ability to take care of their pets and children.
*USA Today April 13, 2005 p.3a
** This term is often referred to as being derivative.
***The Terri Schiavo case in which her husband succeeded in having her feeding tube removed are among the many ethical choice that depsite what the opponents of euthenasia want to believe given massive population growth, an aging population in the US, Japan and parts of Europe and a failed social structure in which prisons and a prison culture are fast replacing what was left of welfare and social institutions not too long ago that society must deal with.
Optimizing your page, increasing your page rank!
Here is something from seo-news.com
April 24, Issues #64
"Introducing PageRank - Shattering the Myth
By Dave Collins (c) 2005 SharewarePromotions Ltd
" One of the most fascinating aspects of the web is its dynamism. We all know that it develops at an astonishing speed - yesterday's craze is today's old news, and biggër and better things seem to be springing up every few days. Some of them crumble quickly into dust, while others seem destined to tower above the rest.
Naturally, search engines also follow this pattern. Some of the early search engine giants remain with us today, but many of them are gone - and every so often, a new champion seems to emerge. Recent years have seen the growth and development of a search engine that puts all others to shame. It might have once stood at the same level as its rivals, but there is no doubt that for now at least, Google rules the web.
Many of the companies we work with see more traffïc from Google than all the other search engines put together, and there are more than a few Search Engine Optimization services that focus almost exclusively on this one engine.
What is Google's Secret?
So why is Google so successful? The answer is simply that when a user goes searching on Google, they're likely to find what they're looking for, and more quickly than on any other search engine. Exactly how Google manages to do this is trickier to answer, as they tend to guard their secrets well. They don't want us to know too much about how they determine their search results, simply because they don't want anyone to be able to manipulate their own ranking.
Of course, human nature dictates that many of us aren't satisfied with this. We desperately want to be able to affect the ranking of our sites, and some of us will go to great lengths to do so. We work hard to find the perfect keywords, tweak our meta tags and optimize the content of our site to what we hope is Google perfection.
But recently, a new word has entered our vocabulary, and is surrounded by so much hype that very few people actually have a realistic understanding of what it is - or what it isn't. PageRank is where the attention is focused today, and many companies are determined to find a means of improving their magic number. "I want to be an eight," they say, as if PageRank was a dress size that they could grow into with the help of some heavy-duty calorie shots. Unfortunately, it's not quite as easy as that.
So what exactly is PageRank? There's a surprisingly simple answer: it is Google's way of estimating how important a web page is. On a basic level, Google decides that if one page links to another, the second page must be considered important. If one page on one site has 15,000 pages linking to it, it must be for a good reason, right?
Page Rank is About Pages, Not Websites
Let's begin by straightening out a few basic points. First of all, PageRank is assigned on a page-by-page basis. A whole website does not have this score, and different pages within a site can have very different PageRank values assigned. Another important point is that the rating (out of ten) assigned is essentially little more than an approximation of a given page's PageRank. The actual values cover a far greater range than zero to ten.
Before going any further, we should take a look at the most important point of all, often overlooked when we get caught up in the PageRank frenzy. PageRank is only one factor that Google takes into account when displaying the results of a search. There are still other factors of equal significance in performing well on Google - so don't make the mistake of thinking that you would live happily ever after if your PageRank was a little bit higher. Other factors include a page's title, and the use of keywords within the page's text - not in the keyword meta tag.
PageRank is still one of Google's more ingenious strategies, and is certainly one of the many reasons that it stands head and shoulders above the rest. Partly, this is due to a combination of two factors. First is that the very nature of PageRank is difficult (but not impossible) to manipulate, and secondly that the exact details of how the value is assigned is a closely guarded secrët.
However, there is one very useful source of data - an academic paper detailing the formula used to calculate PageRank from Google's early beginnings as a universïty project. This formula will have certainly been altered and expanded over the years, but it is generally accepted that it still represents the essence of their PageRank system.
The Page Rank Formula
The exact details are lengthy, and far beyond what I am capable of dissecting. But the basic formula is as follows:
PR(A) = (1-d) + d (PR(T1)/C(T1) + ….. + PR (Tn)/C(Tn))
PR(A) is the PageRank of a particular page (A) - not a website as a whole.
1-d is the dampening factor, as explained below.
PR(T1) is the PageRank of the page that links to our (A) page, and C(T1) is the number of links contained on that same page.
The formula is repeated throughout every single page that contains a link to this (A) page.
Two important points to take into account. First of all, if you're thinking that the formula would in practice be an infinite loop, then you're correct. This is the very nature of the web itself, and is also why Google has introduced the so called dampening factor.
The second point concerns the way that PageRank is awarded by one page to another. The generally accepted means of understanding this is to consider that a given page has, according to its own PageRank, a certain amount of voting power. If the page in question links to five other pages, then each of the pages being linked to receive their PageRank "award" of one fifth of the original page's voting power. It's also worth noting that the number of links on a page includes a website's internal links
Link Farms Don't Work
This makes it quite obvious that the so-called link farms, where each page of a website contains many hundreds of links in an attempt to artificially boost so called "link popularity", are doomed to fail from the start. In addition to this, Google has its own system for not only minimizing the effect that these sites have, but eliminating it altogether. As the formula shows, PageRank works as a multiplier of a site's overall value, so Google has made sure that link farms have their own value of zero - which means that a link from them counts for nothing, quite literally.
There is a scare story doing the rounds which claims that being listed on link popularity sites, or for that matter any site with a large number of links, can get your site penalized or even banned from Google. This is simply not the case. If it were, you'd effectively be able to wipe-out your competition's Google presence with one afternoon's work. It doesn't work that way.
Having links to your web pages on sites with a low page rank and a large number of links means that the benefits are quite effectively minimized to zero. But this will not detract from your current PageRank at all.
Obviously, what people really want to know is whether PageRank can be manipulated. In the past it was often considered impossible to do so, but nowadays this is not always the case. There are two simple factors involved: First: who links to you, and how they choose to do so. Secondly: your own website's navigation and internal links"
April 24, Issues #64
"Introducing PageRank - Shattering the Myth
By Dave Collins (c) 2005 SharewarePromotions Ltd
" One of the most fascinating aspects of the web is its dynamism. We all know that it develops at an astonishing speed - yesterday's craze is today's old news, and biggër and better things seem to be springing up every few days. Some of them crumble quickly into dust, while others seem destined to tower above the rest.
Naturally, search engines also follow this pattern. Some of the early search engine giants remain with us today, but many of them are gone - and every so often, a new champion seems to emerge. Recent years have seen the growth and development of a search engine that puts all others to shame. It might have once stood at the same level as its rivals, but there is no doubt that for now at least, Google rules the web.
Many of the companies we work with see more traffïc from Google than all the other search engines put together, and there are more than a few Search Engine Optimization services that focus almost exclusively on this one engine.
What is Google's Secret?
So why is Google so successful? The answer is simply that when a user goes searching on Google, they're likely to find what they're looking for, and more quickly than on any other search engine. Exactly how Google manages to do this is trickier to answer, as they tend to guard their secrets well. They don't want us to know too much about how they determine their search results, simply because they don't want anyone to be able to manipulate their own ranking.
Of course, human nature dictates that many of us aren't satisfied with this. We desperately want to be able to affect the ranking of our sites, and some of us will go to great lengths to do so. We work hard to find the perfect keywords, tweak our meta tags and optimize the content of our site to what we hope is Google perfection.
But recently, a new word has entered our vocabulary, and is surrounded by so much hype that very few people actually have a realistic understanding of what it is - or what it isn't. PageRank is where the attention is focused today, and many companies are determined to find a means of improving their magic number. "I want to be an eight," they say, as if PageRank was a dress size that they could grow into with the help of some heavy-duty calorie shots. Unfortunately, it's not quite as easy as that.
So what exactly is PageRank? There's a surprisingly simple answer: it is Google's way of estimating how important a web page is. On a basic level, Google decides that if one page links to another, the second page must be considered important. If one page on one site has 15,000 pages linking to it, it must be for a good reason, right?
Page Rank is About Pages, Not Websites
Let's begin by straightening out a few basic points. First of all, PageRank is assigned on a page-by-page basis. A whole website does not have this score, and different pages within a site can have very different PageRank values assigned. Another important point is that the rating (out of ten) assigned is essentially little more than an approximation of a given page's PageRank. The actual values cover a far greater range than zero to ten.
Before going any further, we should take a look at the most important point of all, often overlooked when we get caught up in the PageRank frenzy. PageRank is only one factor that Google takes into account when displaying the results of a search. There are still other factors of equal significance in performing well on Google - so don't make the mistake of thinking that you would live happily ever after if your PageRank was a little bit higher. Other factors include a page's title, and the use of keywords within the page's text - not in the keyword meta tag.
PageRank is still one of Google's more ingenious strategies, and is certainly one of the many reasons that it stands head and shoulders above the rest. Partly, this is due to a combination of two factors. First is that the very nature of PageRank is difficult (but not impossible) to manipulate, and secondly that the exact details of how the value is assigned is a closely guarded secrët.
However, there is one very useful source of data - an academic paper detailing the formula used to calculate PageRank from Google's early beginnings as a universïty project. This formula will have certainly been altered and expanded over the years, but it is generally accepted that it still represents the essence of their PageRank system.
The Page Rank Formula
The exact details are lengthy, and far beyond what I am capable of dissecting. But the basic formula is as follows:
PR(A) = (1-d) + d (PR(T1)/C(T1) + ….. + PR (Tn)/C(Tn))
PR(A) is the PageRank of a particular page (A) - not a website as a whole.
1-d is the dampening factor, as explained below.
PR(T1) is the PageRank of the page that links to our (A) page, and C(T1) is the number of links contained on that same page.
The formula is repeated throughout every single page that contains a link to this (A) page.
Two important points to take into account. First of all, if you're thinking that the formula would in practice be an infinite loop, then you're correct. This is the very nature of the web itself, and is also why Google has introduced the so called dampening factor.
The second point concerns the way that PageRank is awarded by one page to another. The generally accepted means of understanding this is to consider that a given page has, according to its own PageRank, a certain amount of voting power. If the page in question links to five other pages, then each of the pages being linked to receive their PageRank "award" of one fifth of the original page's voting power. It's also worth noting that the number of links on a page includes a website's internal links
Link Farms Don't Work
This makes it quite obvious that the so-called link farms, where each page of a website contains many hundreds of links in an attempt to artificially boost so called "link popularity", are doomed to fail from the start. In addition to this, Google has its own system for not only minimizing the effect that these sites have, but eliminating it altogether. As the formula shows, PageRank works as a multiplier of a site's overall value, so Google has made sure that link farms have their own value of zero - which means that a link from them counts for nothing, quite literally.
There is a scare story doing the rounds which claims that being listed on link popularity sites, or for that matter any site with a large number of links, can get your site penalized or even banned from Google. This is simply not the case. If it were, you'd effectively be able to wipe-out your competition's Google presence with one afternoon's work. It doesn't work that way.
Having links to your web pages on sites with a low page rank and a large number of links means that the benefits are quite effectively minimized to zero. But this will not detract from your current PageRank at all.
Obviously, what people really want to know is whether PageRank can be manipulated. In the past it was often considered impossible to do so, but nowadays this is not always the case. There are two simple factors involved: First: who links to you, and how they choose to do so. Secondly: your own website's navigation and internal links"
Friday, April 15, 2005
More on Cochran
You might notice on the upper right hand corner a little attachment that you can either click on or off that say something like Instant Buzz. It is a good way to gain traffic and advertise your site since you only have to be able to download that on your computer. If you want an invite email me at matrix700@ureach.com and I will send you one. To get started is through invitation only.
If you haven't seen the latest I ssue of 'Vanity Fair' May 2005 take a look at the excerpt of the epilogue of 'Crimes Against Nature' by Robert F. Kennedy,Jr., in which he talks about the right misleading and distorting information and media coverage on lots of issues and destroying our country. You can see it on pages
pp.212-218 and pp 266-268 under the article titled 'The Disinformation Society'
If you want to see more about the life and works of the later Johnny Cochran Jr. you can check out the April 10th 2005 issue of 'Jet Magazine.'
If you haven't seen the latest I ssue of 'Vanity Fair' May 2005 take a look at the excerpt of the epilogue of 'Crimes Against Nature' by Robert F. Kennedy,Jr., in which he talks about the right misleading and distorting information and media coverage on lots of issues and destroying our country. You can see it on pages
pp.212-218 and pp 266-268 under the article titled 'The Disinformation Society'
If you want to see more about the life and works of the later Johnny Cochran Jr. you can check out the April 10th 2005 issue of 'Jet Magazine.'
Thursday, April 07, 2005
The Obituaries
I guess we should all know by now who past away this month including
Johnnie Cochran Jr, the famous attorney during the OJ Simpson case
and
Pope John Paul II
in case you haven't heard the News Anchor for ABC News Peter Jenning disclosed that he as lung cancer.
Johnnie Cochran Jr, the famous attorney during the OJ Simpson case
and
Pope John Paul II
in case you haven't heard the News Anchor for ABC News Peter Jenning disclosed that he as lung cancer.
