[LINK] Haneef transcript anyone?

[Kim Holburn]

On 2007/Jul/21, at 4:36 AM, Adam Todd wrote:

> At 08:23 PM 20/07/2007, Ash Nallawalla wrote:
>
>> > 13:00 and still following up, google now reports 553 pages, with  
>> some
>> > that were there an hour ago literally vanishing for no reason at
>> > all.  Even the web site has just vanished.
>> >
>> > It's like the Ministry of Truth.
>>
>> If you care to observe any other site that shows fresh content,  
>> e.g. blogs,
>> you will find that all such results in Google will disappear for a  
>> day or
>> more while the Thought Police, sorry, the Google algorithm decides  
>> the best
>> ranking for it.
>
> (rofl) Gee you make Google sound like the Defacto Thought Police!   
> Maybe they are and we just don't know it!
>
> If the algorithm puts it in to results adhoc, on what basis does  
> the new data suddenly "vanish" - the only conclusion has to be  
> human intervention.

Yeah it would have to be.  Who makes websites after all?  It just  
doesn't have to be intervention from google which is your implication.

>> For example, a few days ago I blogged about the ACCC taking on  
>> Google and
>> the Trading Post. My blog (I just changed its URL) was #3 for  
>> "Kloster
>> Ford". It disappeared for two days, and now it is slightly lower  
>> -- in what
>> could be its semi-permanent position for that phrase.
>
> That's ridiculous.  That's not an algorithm, that's manual ranking.
>
> It's evident that new pages relating to Haneef are being manually  
> removed.  Surely someone managed to get a copy of the transcripts  
> and repost them - surly not everyone was stupid enough to simply  
> LINK to the Australian's news page?

The Australian, Murdock, Fox.  You've got to be kidding.

> I'm sure they will surface one day, we just have to be patient.

I can still download it from the Fairfax link I sent, so I don't know  
what your problem is.
http://www.theage.com.au/ed_docs/haneeflink.pdf

>> All newly found pages are given a brief exposure on the first page  
>> so that
>> the algo can determine which of them attract clicks, which is then  
>> part of
>> the data used to give them their semi-permanent rankings for various
>> phrases.
>
> That sounds silly.  Why put up pages that most people are unlikely  
> to see on the basis of determining clicks?
>
> If this is the case, then the solution is simple.
>
> Create a script that monitors your page, when googlebot picks it  
> up, regularly do searches for the relevant keywords.  When your  
> page appears on the link, get it hundreds of times per hour and  
> voila - suddenly you have a high click ratio.  Direct the get's via  
> proxy servers or random allocated IP addresses from a class C or  
> greater and you have gets coming from all over the place.
>
> Surely not.
>
> If the search engines are being this manipulative, isn't it time we  
> got together and built a real search engine?
>
> Or should we perhaps resorc to the Way Back Machine or Internet  
> Archive for accuracy.

Or you could talke them to court.  Lots of people have done that.

--
Kim Holburn
IT Network & Security Consultant
Ph: +39 06 855 4294  M: +39 3494957443
mailto:kim at holburn.net  aim://kimholburn
skype://kholburn - PGP Public Key on request

Democracy imposed from without is the severest form of tyranny.
                           -- Lloyd Biggle, Jr. Analog, Apr 1961