Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
100% Proof Google is Keeping Conspiracy Sites Down
theultimateconspiracy.com — As if it were not bad enough that we are censored by the main stream media, now there's a new type of suppression being implemented upon conspiracy related websites and alternative media sources. It's called "Link Relevance Suppression"
LUCUS123- 180 diggs
- digg it
- theright, on 10/31/2007, -19/+13First of all, a complete ignorance of the process by which Google ranks search results. It is not as simple as "[t]he more sites that link to your site, the higher you go on the list." Not at all. Have you never heard about PageRank? The relevance and reputability of sites linking to yours' has a large effect. The ratio of outgoing to incoming links, the placement and frequency of relevant keywords, the location of these keywords within elements on pages... there are hundreds upon hundreds of factors. Nevertheless, this little article features on just one of these factors, and only one tiny aspect of this factor. To claim that Google are "suppressing" search results based on this tiny aspect alone is nothing short of moronic.
Second, the entire test is far from 100% proof; It's 100% flawed. The Google "link:" protocol has always been a mysterious beast, and one should not even think about using the results of these searches to compare websites. Furthermore, searching for the URLs of these pages to compare the two results is just sheer idiocy. Just because a URL features in plain text on thousands of websites, doesn't mean all of these websites are linking to that URL. In the case of "alternative" news websites, it means morons have been spamming news articles around the internet with the source URLs in plain text. That's not an anchor link, and that gets completely ignored by Google.
I'd say "nice try," but it wasn't even that. Just more sensationalist, inaccurate, damaging, paranoid nonesense.- biggD, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7Dear Mr. theright,
What an interesting online character you seem to be. A couple of weeks registered on Digg, 3 stories dugg, and maybe 20 commented on, with more than a passing interest in the fate of Korey Rowe that suggests you'd love for him to be sent back into military service in Iraq. Heart warming.
Words are powerful as you no doubt appreciate, wordsmith that you are, and it is my view that they should not be used lightly, but with full cognizance of their impact on the reader. It is one thing to disseminate misinformation from an uninformed point of view, and entirely another to knowingly propagate lies (for some meager compensation one can only assume). I have no idea under which category you belong, but I strongly encourage you to consider well your speech. Mere anonymity does not absolve one of one's karma. - theright, on 10/10/2007, -4/+6Personally, I'd encourage you not to resort to the ad hominem logical fallacy in an attempt to impress your ill-informed views on others. Thanks.
- biggD, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7Dear Mr. theright,
- LUCUS123, on 10/31/2007, -5/+15Yea whatever...you have no idea what you JUST SPEWED. Link relevance is THE HIGHEST criteria used in google's ranking system. OK smart guy...explain this...why does hotair.com have a higher link relevance than they do search term? Give me a break...you should rename yourself '"The Wrong"
- pinkSocks, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4When I type in "hotair.com" I get a "link relevance" of 11,400 like you, but a "real number" of 177,000, not 526.
- theright, on 10/10/2007, -4/+3His results were "calculated" (if you can even call it that) complete with the www. at the beginning of each URL. Therefore his so-called "real" number of pages linking to hotair.com is only those that have the text "www.hotair.com" visible on the page. This is, understandly, a rather small number of pages. Considerably more, as you have discovered, feature the text "hotair.com" without the www. prefix. This still remains null and void, however, as just because a page has the string "www.hotair.com" on it, does not mean that it has a link to hotair.com. Much the same, with the "link relevance" figure he has come up with, just because the page does not feature the string "www.hotair.com" does not mean the page is not linking to a page on hotair.com
It's completely dumb logic, and I implore you to see through it.
- theright, on 10/10/2007, -4/+3His results were "calculated" (if you can even call it that) complete with the www. at the beginning of each URL. Therefore his so-called "real" number of pages linking to hotair.com is only those that have the text "www.hotair.com" visible on the page. This is, understandly, a rather small number of pages. Considerably more, as you have discovered, feature the text "hotair.com" without the www. prefix. This still remains null and void, however, as just because a page has the string "www.hotair.com" on it, does not mean that it has a link to hotair.com. Much the same, with the "link relevance" figure he has come up with, just because the page does not feature the string "www.hotair.com" does not mean the page is not linking to a page on hotair.com
- pinkSocks, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4When I type in "hotair.com" I get a "link relevance" of 11,400 like you, but a "real number" of 177,000, not 526.
- DreadPirate, on 10/10/2007, -17/+7Ahh, more tinfoil paranoia from the truther brigade. *buried*
- dancantone, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Figured you would SPEW out the new cutsie wootsie "TROOFERS" like the rest of your boot licking buddies do.
Where did you closeted pedo-cons ever get that word anyway? lm@o
You guys started calling them "truthers" and when they adopted it, the best you wife beating molesters could come up with was "TROOFERS"?
I friggin NEED a tin foil hat!...to keep the pedo-cons stupidness from permeating my skull anymore!
Christ all mighty!
♣
- dancantone, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Figured you would SPEW out the new cutsie wootsie "TROOFERS" like the rest of your boot licking buddies do.
- theright, on 10/31/2007, -14/+11"OK smart guy...explain this...why does hotair.com have a higher link relevance than they do search term?" - Because the vast majority of hyperlinks do not include the URL of the website in the displayed text. When you do a Google search for a URL (i.e. "www.hotair.com"), the only results that will turn up are those with the actual words "www.hotair.com" in the text of the page. It will not include pages that link to pages on hotair.com but do not feature the text "www.hotair.com." The scales are tipped when it comes to "alternative" news sites because their articles tend to get posted on various other websites/blogs/forums verbatim with the source URL written in plain text but not hyperlinked.
I'm sorry, but unlike you I do actually know what I'm talking about, and I'm not "spew[ing]" anything.- greenback1, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4But you are contradicting what occurs then Michelle Malkin's personal site. You sound defensive and you just don't make sense. Maybe you are the paranoid one.
- theright, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0Google "www.michellemalkin.com" => 16,200 pages feature the plain text "www.michellemalkin.com." That has absoultely no bearing whatsoever on how many pages are linking to her site. The pages may have the URL in plain text, but not actually link to her site. Similarly, there may be many more pages that link to her site but do not actually feature the plain text "www.michellemalkin.com."
Google "link:www.michellemalkin.com" => 38,200 pages are linking to www.michellemalkin.com. This figure does not include pages that feature the plain text "www.michellemalkin.com" but not an actual link to her site, but it does include (a vast number of, obviously) pages that link to her site but do not feature her full website's URL in plain text.
Just because the select few "alternative" news sites LUCUS has cherry-picked happen to have more plain text references to their URL than actual links, does not mean there is some sort of conspiracy. Comparing the number of plain text URL references to the number of indexed links is comparing apples and oranges. - theright, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0I apologise for the lack of paragraphing in a number of my comments here, including the one above. It seems there is a bug with Digg/Firefox here on these damned NWO computers that results in my neat paragraphing being lost and everything being thrown into one big mess that I'm sure most people just ignore for lack of effort requried to descramble it all.
- dancantone, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Idiot.... :rollseyes:
- theright, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0Google "www.michellemalkin.com" => 16,200 pages feature the plain text "www.michellemalkin.com." That has absoultely no bearing whatsoever on how many pages are linking to her site. The pages may have the URL in plain text, but not actually link to her site. Similarly, there may be many more pages that link to her site but do not actually feature the plain text "www.michellemalkin.com."
- greenback1, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4But you are contradicting what occurs then Michelle Malkin's personal site. You sound defensive and you just don't make sense. Maybe you are the paranoid one.
- LUCUS123, on 10/31/2007, -6/+14Ahhh...more Filth from the Neo-Con Rove loving idiots who are all part of the bury brigade... The Google "link:" protocol has always been a mysterious beast, Yea, mysterious enough to give low relevance to others but high relevance to hotair.com and michellemalkin.com. Very mysterious indeed. You guys are idiots.
- newsninja, on 10/10/2007, -6/+7it's real sad how anyone who dares point out flaws in your arguments and articulate a bit of common sense is instantly branded a 'Neo-Con Rove loving idiot'
- Herkimer56, on 10/10/2007, -4/+4I don't know that I would accuse theright of being an idiot if I were you. He's clearly more intelligent than you are so what does that make you?
- newsninja, on 10/10/2007, -6/+7it's real sad how anyone who dares point out flaws in your arguments and articulate a bit of common sense is instantly branded a 'Neo-Con Rove loving idiot'
- theright, on 10/31/2007, -11/+8"Yea, mysterious enough to give low relevance to others but high relevance to hotair.com and michellemalkin.com."
I've just explained this to you. "Alternative" news sites don't get a lot of actual hyperlinks, but they do get their URLs written in plain text on a large number of websites where their articles have been copied verbatim with sources written in plain text. Reputable sites such as hotair.com receive a large number of hyperlinks, but as is common in the real world, their full URLs are not featured in text on most of the websites that links to them.- LUCUS123, on 10/10/2007, -4/+8you said "I've just explained this to you. "Alternative" news sites don't get a lot of actual hyperlinks."
Now you're just talking a bunch of malarky!- theright, on 10/10/2007, -8/+7No. Welcome to the real world, where Alex Jones and Dylan Avery are not gods.
- LUCUS123, on 10/10/2007, -4/+5No...welcome to the real world where you FAIL to research. I can 100% for sure promise you that if you do the research you WILL find that there are thousands and thousands of sites linked to infowars.com.
Ha...want the proof, go to altavista and do a link relevance search there you shill and see for yourself how many pages ARE linked to infowars.com - newsninja, on 10/10/2007, -5/+5"link:hotair.com" on Google yields 11,400 results. "link:hotair.com" on Altavista yields 760,000 results. The two search engines use different systems for archiving linked pages. It works both ways.
Thanks for not researching. It never ceases to make my work easier. Can't wait to get my next paycheck from the NWO!
- LUCUS123, on 10/10/2007, -4/+5No...welcome to the real world where you FAIL to research. I can 100% for sure promise you that if you do the research you WILL find that there are thousands and thousands of sites linked to infowars.com.
- theright, on 10/10/2007, -8/+7No. Welcome to the real world, where Alex Jones and Dylan Avery are not gods.
- pinkSocks, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I don't know whether you're right or wrong, but it is your explanation an internet phenomenon, or is there an intuitive reason behind this that I'm simply missing?
- LUCUS123, on 10/10/2007, -4/+8you said "I've just explained this to you. "Alternative" news sites don't get a lot of actual hyperlinks."
- jaysire, on 10/10/2007, -4/+10It appears there might be some validity to your claim. Take www.hotair.com for instance. Google claims on its own "refine your search" tutorial page that "For example, link:www.google.com will show you pages that point to Google's home page.". This means that link:www.hotair.com (which returns the number 11400) should be linked to from 11400 different pages. Still, when you start going through search result -pages, you can only go to page 63 (63*8 links per page = 504, which is very close to the number you get when you just search for www.hotair.com), so if www.hotair.com is *treated* as having 11400 sites linking to it in the competition for ranking, it is definitely given an unjust advantage compared to other sites. That's a big IF though. We can't be sure what number is used in the ranking competition and thus your proof is far from 100%, though it certainly warrants discussion. What if the situation is reversed and www.hotair.com is actually linked to from 11400 different sites? If some pages are left out (since only 504 pages are accessible from google), then shouldn't the webmaster for www.hotair.com be ***** that google "hides" around 10900 pages that link to them?
- ncairns, on 10/10/2007, -15/+8What's this, a conspiracy theory from conspiracy theorists!?
I'm shocked- SHOCKED, I TELL YOU!- greenback1, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2what's this, "the world is always perfect and never corrupt theory from the world is always perfect and never corrupt theorist?
I'm shocked!- theright, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0Who said the world was perfect and that corruption didn't exist? Attempting to impress a ridiculous, false stance on your opposition to refute a perfectly valid comment is more than a little weak...
- dancantone, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1What Dept. you work for dickbag?
C.I.A., F.B.I., Secret Service, BlackWater?
lmao
- dancantone, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1What Dept. you work for dickbag?
- theright, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0Who said the world was perfect and that corruption didn't exist? Attempting to impress a ridiculous, false stance on your opposition to refute a perfectly valid comment is more than a little weak...
- greenback1, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2what's this, "the world is always perfect and never corrupt theory from the world is always perfect and never corrupt theorist?
- Hortnon, on 10/10/2007, -13/+5Well, when you see puffs of smoke and that mean controlled demolition, I guess it's easy to believe Google is censoring you.
- Jockdoe, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1CU Next Tuesday
- Hortnon, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2What?
- dancantone, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1I think he means you have a hard time seeing since your heads jammed so far up your arse! ;)
Sept. 11th happened on a Tuesday ;) ....how soon we forget!
- dancantone, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1I think he means you have a hard time seeing since your heads jammed so far up your arse! ;)
- Hortnon, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2What?
- Jockdoe, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1CU Next Tuesday
- xatom227, on 10/10/2007, -9/+8If you do not vote for RON PAUL in 2008, then you deserve to be put in a FEMA CAMP!
- Herkimer56, on 10/10/2007, -4/+5Why? Because I put true Liberty and the Constitutional rights of everyone ahead of some doddering old fool? I think that you need to get to know your candidate just a little better.
- ringelman5, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Spoken like a true NWO shill babbling Newspeak.
- dancantone, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1MAN!!!
You are WAAAAAAAAY out there, huh?
sad ):
- dancantone, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1MAN!!!
- ringelman5, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Spoken like a true NWO shill babbling Newspeak.
- Herkimer56, on 10/10/2007, -4/+5Why? Because I put true Liberty and the Constitutional rights of everyone ahead of some doddering old fool? I think that you need to get to know your candidate just a little better.
- LUCUS123, on 10/10/2007, -3/+14Want Proof?...Here is proof you fools. My site has a PROVEN 59 links to it...that's PROVEN! do a google search on www.theultimateconspiracy.com then do a search on google for link:www.theultimateconspiracy.com and you will get 0 links. And I can PROVE that there are 59 sites linked to mine. Chew on that shills...Now how are you going to LIE your way out of that one?
- theright, on 10/10/2007, -5/+6Google reports no external sites linking to yours'. Yahoo! reports no external sites linking to yours'. Altavista reports no external sites linking to yours'. Windows Live Search (formerly MSN) reports no external sites linking to yours'.
Either every single one of these privately-owned, completely unconnected search engines is in on this elaborate conspiracy you've just invented... or perhaps your site just isn't important enough to be spidered every other day and therefore the details haven't been updated in a while? You do understand how search engines index sites and incoming links, right? You do know that they do not work in realtime, right? - theright, on 10/10/2007, -4/+7For the record, where are you getting this "59 links" information from? A google search for "www.theultimateconspiracy.com?"
Well, I just performed that search. On the first page of results, we have a number of mentions of the URL on YouTube. All external YouTube links are, by default, nofollow links (to prevent people spamming video links on their websites to get return links from YouTube and increase their PageRank). That means none of the YouTube results are actually noted by search engines. There's one mention in a PDF document; not counted, as far as I'm aware. There is a plain text mention of your URL on Myspace, but it's not a link, so it's ignored by the search engines. I see you posted a link to your website on a "truthring.org" blog post, too. Too bad all the links in their comments are also automatically nofollow-ed to prevent comment spam. That doesn't count either. Haven't seen a single actual link that isn't a nofollow, yet...- LUCUS123, on 10/10/2007, -5/+5www.911weknow.com 111.911blogger.com www.godlikeproductions.com www.10077.com myspace.com www.truthring.org www.nineeleven.co.uk www.aphroditewomenshealth.com just to name a couple...give me a break, I know they are there because I TRADED LINKS with these websites...you are so so pathetic is shocks me how someone could be so lame.
- theright, on 10/10/2007, -3/+6911weknow.com is plain text, it's not a link and it's in a .pdf file. NOT A LINK. Myspace is just plain text. NOT A LINK. truthring.org is a nofollow (will you just look that up, for cripes' sake? you obviously have no idea what a nofollow link is). NOT A LINK.
I've seen two proper links so far. Then again, as I say, search engines are not updated in realtime. You have absolutely no idea how any of their spidering and indexing algorithms work, and you are in absolutely no position to cry any conspiracy whatsoever. - Barrack, on 10/10/2007, -5/+5Haha some ***** kid is confusing plaintext in pdf files as actual hyperlinks. How can anyone possibly take him seriously that he has knowladge of googles complex page ranking. Troofer logic at its best
- theright, on 10/10/2007, -3/+6911weknow.com is plain text, it's not a link and it's in a .pdf file. NOT A LINK. Myspace is just plain text. NOT A LINK. truthring.org is a nofollow (will you just look that up, for cripes' sake? you obviously have no idea what a nofollow link is). NOT A LINK.
- LUCUS123, on 10/10/2007, -5/+5www.911weknow.com 111.911blogger.com www.godlikeproductions.com www.10077.com myspace.com www.truthring.org www.nineeleven.co.uk www.aphroditewomenshealth.com just to name a couple...give me a break, I know they are there because I TRADED LINKS with these websites...you are so so pathetic is shocks me how someone could be so lame.
- actorboy, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3Strangely, when I google, "site: theultimateconspiracy.com bush" I get 714 hits. They're obviously crawling your site man. Maybe you're just paranoid.
- theright, on 10/10/2007, -5/+6Google reports no external sites linking to yours'. Yahoo! reports no external sites linking to yours'. Altavista reports no external sites linking to yours'. Windows Live Search (formerly MSN) reports no external sites linking to yours'.
- LUCUS123, on 10/10/2007, -2/+11All of a sudden when I show PROOF, I hear crickets? Chirp, Chirp, Chirp. A big freaking ROTFLMAO at you shills
- theright, on 10/10/2007, -4/+5See the reply I just posted to your comment. If exhibiting a complete lack of understanding as to how search engines work is what you call proof, no wonder the 9/11 twoof movement is doomed to failure.
- LUCUS123, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4Yea...and go see the 59 sites linking to mine...the proof is right there. Go to google, type in www.theultimateconspiracy.com, when it pulls up the search results, go to the site and look at the freaking EXTERNAL LINK....Are you that stupid? I mean really, are you that pathetic that you can't figure that out?
- theright, on 10/10/2007, -4/+4Yes, you're wrong. Check my analysis in response to your previous post. Most of those mentions are simply plain text references, and are not actual links. All the links coming from sites such as YouTube and a number of the blogs which have actual links to your website are nofollow links, meaning search engines will not follow them and will not record them as links. I suggest you do a little research on that.
Your site probably has one or two proper incoming links, but as I said... search engines are not realtime. It takes time for the spiders to come round, and it takes much longer for less established websites. Live with it; it's not proof of a conspiracy.
- theright, on 10/10/2007, -4/+4Yes, you're wrong. Check my analysis in response to your previous post. Most of those mentions are simply plain text references, and are not actual links. All the links coming from sites such as YouTube and a number of the blogs which have actual links to your website are nofollow links, meaning search engines will not follow them and will not record them as links. I suggest you do a little research on that.
- LUCUS123, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4Yea...and go see the 59 sites linking to mine...the proof is right there. Go to google, type in www.theultimateconspiracy.com, when it pulls up the search results, go to the site and look at the freaking EXTERNAL LINK....Are you that stupid? I mean really, are you that pathetic that you can't figure that out?
- theright, on 10/10/2007, -4/+5See the reply I just posted to your comment. If exhibiting a complete lack of understanding as to how search engines work is what you call proof, no wonder the 9/11 twoof movement is doomed to failure.
- Seeker135, on 10/10/2007, -4/+12Hey, where'd all the internet/Google "experts"go? Geez.There was a bunch of 'em around here a little while ago........Mom must have called "dinner" from the top of the cellar stairs. LOL
- theright, on 10/10/2007, -5/+6Don't worry, I'm still here clearing up after you and your folks' stupidity...
- LUCUS123, on 10/10/2007, -4/+4I know, right? I show proof beyond any doubt that I have 59 sites with EXTERNAL links to my site and google link relevance has 0 and they all just up and vanish like farts in the wind.
- theright, on 10/10/2007, -3/+6Look up. You categorically DO NOT have 59 proper incoming links that are not just plain text and are not nofollow links. I know it's a cliché, but you genuinely don't know what you're talking about.
- LUCUS123, on 10/10/2007, -3/+9It matters not what you digg bury brigade goofballs think or do. The article made TOP STORY on prisonplanet.com and is being propagated around the net as we speak. Nothing YOU SHILLS can do to keep it down other than to make the digg article be lowered...big deal. I WIN.
- DreadPirate, on 10/10/2007, -7/+6you make it sound like prisonplanet is an important site, when it is nothing more than a hangout for kooks such as yourself.
- theright, on 10/10/2007, -6/+6Wow, lies and false accusations being spread around the internet, stemming from the least scientific test in human history. But you made it to the front page of prisonplanet.com with your lies... that's all that matters, right?
P.S. For the last time, I'm not a shill. I wish I was getting paid to do this, but for the minute I debunk nonsense and put morons in their place for free. If the NWO are reading this, please let me know if you have any disinfo warrior openings!- theblueprint, on 10/10/2007, -4/+3I'm not NWO, but some of my friends are.
Me? I'm all Illuminati, and I can assure you... we take care of our own. I rock a platinum Illuminati medallion around my neck that's the size of a dinner plate. Every year, my family and I go release chem trail fumes on African villages...and it's tax deductible!
We'll be watching you. We'll fedex you decoder ring if we decide you have the "right stuff".- Hortnon, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2We've got a sweet Dental and Prescription plan over here at the NWO...
- theblueprint, on 10/10/2007, -4/+3I'm not NWO, but some of my friends are.
- LUCUS123, on 10/10/2007, -4/+10The Right Says "Then again, as I say, search engines are not updated in realtime." LOL...more crock bologna. Watch me PROVE you wrong again...you just don't know when to quit do you? Once again go back to google and type in www.theultimateconspiracy.com and look at number 2...It's THIS STORY!!! The one we are talking about right now. So tell me again how "Real Time" Google is?www.wakeupfromyourslumber.com/node/2986
- theright, on 10/10/2007, -4/+5Digg.com is an extremely popular website, therefore it is spidered by search engines very often (in this case it would seem multiple times a day). Your site, on the other hand, with no more than a handful of proper incoming links and no real importance, will probably be spidered once a month at most.
And no, the fact that Digg.com is spidered regularly does not dispute my statement that the indexing on search engines is not updated in realtime. So no, you haven't proven me wrong at all, no matter how many random words you write in all-caps.- LUCUS123, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5It's not digg you moron! It's this site www.wakeupfromyourslumber.com/node/2986 which is number 2 on the list...strike 3...YOU'RE OUT!
- theright, on 10/10/2007, -4/+5It is not #2 on the list. Hard refresh here, all filters turned off, set to International... no such site has been indexed.
- LUCUS123, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5It's not digg you moron! It's this site www.wakeupfromyourslumber.com/node/2986 which is number 2 on the list...strike 3...YOU'RE OUT!
- DreadPirate, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4You must be looking at a rather different version of google than the rest of us are... I did exactly what you described, and the second link does *not* point to google. The only digg link is at number 15, and points to another truther conspiracy posting from 17 days ago. So try again - you fail this test.
- theright, on 10/10/2007, -4/+5Digg.com is an extremely popular website, therefore it is spidered by search engines very often (in this case it would seem multiple times a day). Your site, on the other hand, with no more than a handful of proper incoming links and no real importance, will probably be spidered once a month at most.
- onetimer, on 10/10/2007, -8/+5Another inaccurate article from some ***** truther kid who doesn't understand how search engine site relevance is systematically calculated.
Buried as inaccurate- LUCUS123, on 10/10/2007, -3/+6First of all, I am probably older than you. Second of all, I have been in search engine promotion for 10 years and a web designer for 14. Third of all, bury all you want. Is that the best you have? And last but not least, is it not past your bed time kid?
- theright, on 10/10/2007, -4/+4It is plainly obvious that you have not been "in search engine promotion for 10 years" judging by your complete and utter lack of understanding regarding how search engines work. You fail to see the difference between an anchor link and a website URL written in plain text. You think the sheer number of pages linking to a website is the single most important factor in that websites' search engine ranking. It seems you have never heard of the nofollow anchor attribute and its effect on external links. You argue when I break it to you that search engine indexes are not updated in realtime. You contest that there is a conspiracy when all the major search engines report you have no incoming links from external sites.
Then there's the fact that the first search engine ever invented, Google, wasn't even created until 1998 (9 years ago). Nice try, better luck next time.- Archos, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2@Lucus: I read all these alternative websites and I would believe it if you had solid proof, but you did poor research on this one. Compare it with other, normal websites. Or count all the real links and url's alone.
@theright: You're wrong about Google being the "first search engine ever invented". Do a wiki on 'search engine'. Before Google, websites could buy their position.
- Archos, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2@Lucus: I read all these alternative websites and I would believe it if you had solid proof, but you did poor research on this one. Compare it with other, normal websites. Or count all the real links and url's alone.
- theblueprint, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3I'm pretty sure I have t-shirts that are older than you.
Regardless, even if you have been in "search engine promotion" for ten years, you apparenlty suck at it if you don't understand what a hyperlink is.
- theright, on 10/10/2007, -4/+4It is plainly obvious that you have not been "in search engine promotion for 10 years" judging by your complete and utter lack of understanding regarding how search engines work. You fail to see the difference between an anchor link and a website URL written in plain text. You think the sheer number of pages linking to a website is the single most important factor in that websites' search engine ranking. It seems you have never heard of the nofollow anchor attribute and its effect on external links. You argue when I break it to you that search engine indexes are not updated in realtime. You contest that there is a conspiracy when all the major search engines report you have no incoming links from external sites.
- onetimer, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4Well, I'm 24 and unlike you have a real job that I didn't make up on the spot (read your reply). If you are older than me, based on the way you articulated yourself in your previous posts, I feel even more pity for you.
- LUCUS123, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1You should spend more time feeling pity for your Mother who had to give birth to such a short bus riding helmet head like yourself. I would offer you a ***** sandwich but I know how much you hate bread.
- onetimer, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3Awww, the little guy gotten cranky. Time for bed maybe? How old did you say you were again?
- LUCUS123, on 10/10/2007, -3/+6First of all, I am probably older than you. Second of all, I have been in search engine promotion for 10 years and a web designer for 14. Third of all, bury all you want. Is that the best you have? And last but not least, is it not past your bed time kid?
- theblueprint, on 10/10/2007, -10/+6These comments are just like the 9/11 conspiracy ones.
A conspiracy theorist takes a small piece of information out of context, and uses it to "prove" a larger, more sinister plot. Factual, empirical evidence is presented to the contrary, and the c.theorist's only retort is to imply that the person presenting the evidence is dumb.
This just goes to show that the "controlled demo" method of arguing can be applied to any other delusions of grandeur.- Herkimer56, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3Speaking of truthers, does this guy remind you at all of a truther with the screen name"jesuswon" that was around for a while? He was that vulgar, foul-mouthed little idiot that absolutely refused to listen to anyone's point but his own. Eventually his language got him kicked from Digg and then he went on one of the Alex Jones sites and whined about it. If this isn't the same guy then he surely suffers from the same mental illness.
- onetimer, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3No this guy is named Lucus Drador who is a well known truther that runs a conspiracy blog. He posts on LCF about 17 times per day, and has conspiracy theories about almost everything. Based on his picture he seems to be an adult in his late thirties...
- LUCUS123, on 10/10/2007, -3/+11Once again, "The Right" has been caught in another blatent lie. If you go here http://www.theultimateconspiracy.com/pics/tuc_ss.jpg and look at the screen shot it clearly proves that Google DOES index sites in near real time...Strike 4...Next?
- theright, on 10/10/2007, -4/+3First of all, Google does not index sites in anything near realtime. That point is not even worth contesting. It's common knowledge that the Google spiders are more active on popular websites, but to expect an article to become indexed within five hours of appearing on the web is stretching reality just a little bit far no matter what website it is being posted on.
This whole issue about that link supposedly being ranked #2 is really secondary. Again, I have cleared my cache multiple times, performed hard refreshes, ensured no search results are filtered via the preferences pane and I still see no mention of that link whatsoever, let alone ranked #2 for your website URL. At least one other person has reported similar findings.- LUCUS123, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2How thick are your glasses? Can you not see the screen shot I just took of the article that I just wrote. Do you need someone to come to your house and show you how to search for stuff on the "Internet(s)"...seriously...I can't really spend anymore time going back and forth with you anymore...The more I read your idiotic rantings, the more my head hurts. I feel a little stupider from reading what you have to say....good day shill boy.
- theright, on 10/10/2007, -4/+3First of all, Google does not index sites in anything near realtime. That point is not even worth contesting. It's common knowledge that the Google spiders are more active on popular websites, but to expect an article to become indexed within five hours of appearing on the web is stretching reality just a little bit far no matter what website it is being posted on.
- MindFork, on 10/10/2007, -4/+11Just to inject a little neutrality into the fight here: 1. How long has your site been online? I am a web designer and all of the new sites that I do take a minimum of 1 month for Google to show a new backwards link to a new site. Often it is 2-3 months. These are normal e-commerce sites for the most part.
Being a webmaster for a number of years, I know a few things about how the intertubes work, and most of theright's technical points are pretty much correct. There are a LOT of plain text instances of infowars.com on the net (there's one, right now) that aren't hyperlinks.
For the record, I believe the towers were brought down with demolitions. I believed it from the day it happened, just like Dan Rather and lot of other rational people, and no amount of "fire melts steel" B.S. in the official story has changed my mind.
I have also seen PLENTY of times where Google video/youtube have reset popularity and viewing counts for videos so they will fall off the front page.
BUT, rather than tell their algorithms to report less backwards links to conspiracy sites, it would be a lot easier to simply have an “exclusion table” that deducts page rank and various other “weighting factors” from all the sites they don't like. Proving that such a table exists is another matter. - rgodfrey, on 10/10/2007, -6/+6100% proof that the paranoid are, well, paranoid!
- whatthefu, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3The irony in this is amazing.
- lolwutpear, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4arguing with and calling every digg user a fool is not the best way to get your story dugg. enjoy your newfound, uh, popularity.
- LUCUS123, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Who said I called "every" and argued with "every"? Give it up already your attempts to troll are clear as day.
- theright, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3Irony+1
- LUCUS123, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Look at you hanging on MY story like a complete troll...Irony+Infinity
- onetimer, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2Irony + Infinity... I heard a good rebuke to that, might have been on the playground across the street...
- dancantone, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Nobody cares about you or your opinion anymore...you're the minority now so just sit down and put a sock in your lying mouth.
- theright, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3Irony+1
- LUCUS123, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Who said I called "every" and argued with "every"? Give it up already your attempts to troll are clear as day.
- biggD, on 10/10/2007, -3/+8Very good article, which explains why there are so many co-intell payroll kids here. Its like the web version of the east German Stasi. You guys should check into that by the way. A real high water mark for western culture in the 20th century. Neighbors snitching on each other and stuff. Real heart warming.
- theright, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4Shh, if anyone finds out I work for the NWO/Illuminati/Mossad they don't give me my paycheck for the month! :(
- dancantone, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I had to digg up this comment since I believe it's true.
- theblueprint, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2So you've got nothing to say about the facts presented in the comments that prove the submission is patently false?
- theright, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4Shh, if anyone finds out I work for the NWO/Illuminati/Mossad they don't give me my paycheck for the month! :(
- LUCUS123, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7I already proven that beyond a shadow of a doubt that hotair.com and michellemalkin.com have higher priority in link relevance. No need to make yourselves look goofy by posting lies that are easily shot down like ones by "The Right" who is very in "The Wrong"
- theright, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0I'm sorry, but I'd like to know which supposed "lies" of mine have been "show down" by you. That's a rhetorical question, of course. The answer is a big, fat zero. Your completely uncalled for ad hominem has also been noted.
Let me get back to the basics here, mmkay? You're comparing the results of Google's unique "link:" protocol — which, as I have previously stated, is a mysterious thing. I believe it has certain criteria for linking sites to get indexed, such as a minimum PageRank of 2 to prevent people just creating more links and artifically boosting their "link relevance" as you have coined the term — to the results of a plain text search for a URL. Can you not see how incredibly stupid this is? Are you unable to comprehend that legitimate, established sites have more established incoming links than plain text references to their url, including the entire "www." prefix? Have you actually looked through the results for your plain text search for "www.infowars.com" and found that an absolutely huge number of the results are not hyperlinks, but plain text references?
Still, I suppose in your mind you've stumbled across the greatest discovery in the history of mankind. Why don't you just go the whole David Shayler and start claiming you're the messiah?
- theright, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0I'm sorry, but I'd like to know which supposed "lies" of mine have been "show down" by you. That's a rhetorical question, of course. The answer is a big, fat zero. Your completely uncalled for ad hominem has also been noted.
- SouthAfrican, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Nice article. Thumbs up!
South African for 9/11 truth! - inDglass, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6I can prove that my site is linked to from several places. They are legitimate links that should be registering on Google, but they don't show up. Only one link is shown, a link that connects to a subpage, not the homepage. I don't think I'm important enough to be the target of a conspiracy, but who knows. If I am not, than what is causing this? I would like it to be fixed.
- theright, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1The best thing to do would be to read up a little on PageRank, the Google sandbox and search engine spidering, among other SEO-related things.
On the contrary, the worst thing you could do is invent your own completely unscientific test to explain the discrepancy, write an "article" about it on a silly little conspiracy website, spam the link on Digg and a couple of forums, scream from the rooftops when you reach the hallowed front page of prisonplanet.com and shoot down anyone who points out the sheer stupidity of your test and consequent conclusions by calling them shills. But I digress, what kind of a... oh, I see...
- theright, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1The best thing to do would be to read up a little on PageRank, the Google sandbox and search engine spidering, among other SEO-related things.
- antiklaus, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Once again, I would like to remind you folks who are insinuating the Google Sandbox is keeping this website from getting the links it legitimately deserves need only look at the evidence. The very day Google took over ownership of Youtube, a strange thing happened. A literal unknown with an account only 1 hr old managed to get over 400K views with the "Albright North Korea" hit piece video - and a HUGE presence on the Google search engine with less than an hour of existence! Meanwhile other users who have legitimate views on Youtube in the same range are often entirely filtered, despite links to other websites!
Another interesting facet of this story. As of the day before the Google takeover of Youtube, Terror Storm was #1 ranked video of all time in news and blogs. I should know. I had posted it and taken snapshots of the rankings. Once again, within one hour of Google's takeover, all honors were stripped from the video... not a smooth decline to #2, #4, #10, etc... it was simply removed from the list.
Google is up to dirty tricks... should it surprise anyone that an organization that was started up with the aid of 2 ex-CIA staffers would play dirty?
Not me, that's for sure! - adam.skinner, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Google is the new arbiter of your paradigm.
- LUCUS123, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1using the google link search and yahoo site explorer which will give you an exact number of sites linked back to a certain website....
prisonplanet.com inlinks
google 2,530
yahoo 524,174
0.479% of prisonplanet.com's "ACTUAL LINKS" as listed on yahoo site explorer made it into google's links
michellemalkin.com inlinks
google 38,200
yahoo 1,177,748
3.245% of michellemalkin.com's "ACTUAL LINKS" as listed on yahoo site explorer made it into google's links
So you asked for proof, there you have it. michellemalkin.com had 3.245% of their actual links make it into google's link category where prisonplanet.com had a measly 0.479% of their actual links get into google's link category
prisonplanet.com on site explorer
https://siteexplorer.search.yahoo.com/advse...i&bwmf=s&bwmo=d
prisonplanet.com on google link search
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=link%...com&btnG=Search
michellemalkin.com on site explorer
https://siteexplorer.search.yahoo.com/advse...i&bwmf=s&bwmo=d
michellemalkin.com on google link search
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=link%...hellemalkin.com
OK...what is your next argument?
You going to say something like the price of fur trading in Honk Kong causes stocks to rise in Germany thus the cross vector of of synapses induces forward momentum in the time space continuum?- theright, on 10/10/2007, -2/+0I'm sorry, but you do not have the slightest clue how Google indexes incoming links to sites. Your phony, made-up-on-the-spot "link relevance" system holds no water, I'm afraid. Compare Google results to Google results and Yahoo! results to Yahoo! results, but the moment you attempt to compare the two, you're comparing apples to oranges.
Just one tiny addition to Google's algorithm such as ignoring links from pages with a PageRank (you're not an SEO professional as you claim, so I suggest you look that one up) of less than 2 complicates matters ten-fold. In that case, it comes as no surprise whatsoever that an established political blog has more incoming links from other established websites than a nutjob conspiracy website.
As for my "next argument," I've maintained a single argument all the way through. You're the one flip-flopping from comparing Google results to Google results, then comparing Google results to Altavista results, then drawing attention to a supposed conspiracy with the indexing of your website, then comparing Google results to Yahoo! results... I have pointed out how every single one of your arguments is flawed, yet you still refuse to retract your inaccurate, damaging accusations.- LUCUS123, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0No sir, you do not have the slightest clue as to how google ranks pages...Google spiders all linked pages, the pages that they are linked to, and the pages linked to them. It searches for relevant content, popular sites linked to, and content of every site all along the lines. It searched even alt image tags (which don' have as much impact as they used to), font size, keywords in the content on those pages, font color compared to background color, and a whole list of things I don't have time to go into...BUT, LINK RELEVANCE after content IS THE MOST IMPORTANT FACTOR. Don't argue with me, argue with this guy who just so happens to be a leading expert in serch engine reg http://www.searchengineguide.com/articles/2004/1027_rc1.html Comparing apples to oranges...LOL...another statement made by you that shows that you have no idea what you are talking about. Yahoo site explorer GIVES YOU THE ACTUAL REAL NUMBER of how many sites are LINKING...not have the word, BUT LINKING...do I have to say it slower? L I N K I N G. If you know how to do simple math, take the number of GOOGLE LINKS and DIVIDE (that's the / symbol) the ACTUAL LINKS (as listed on yahoo site explorer) and TIMES (that's the X symbol) that number by 100, you get the percentage (that's the % symbol) of how many links google gives compared to the actual number. I know things above finger painting and making a bong out of clay are a little hard for you, so have your mommy help you with the equasion, ok.
- theright, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I know where you got your figures from. How else would I have pointed out how utterly useless they are?
I'm glad to see you've finally realized that comparing URLs in plain text and genuine hyperlinks is a massively flawed argument. For the record, this means you also concede that your entire article is bunk, and the sensible option would be to retract it immediately, am I not right?
As for your latest clutch at straws, yes, you are comparing apples and oranges. Yahoo! and Google use different systems to index linked pages. Google obviously has more selective criteria for indexing links than Yahoo!. This can be based on all manner of things, such as the PageRank of linking pages, the relevancy of the link, etc. The algorithm is not public knowledge, so we cannot know for sure (I can already tell this will be your next argument) but It's quite obvious that the end result is Google's "link:" better reflects the number of quality incoming links.
Your "number crunching" and percentages shows nothing other than the fact that, given Google's criteria weeds out lower quality links, established mainstream media outlets and well-known political blogs receive more quality links than "alternative" news and conspiracy websites such as PrisonPlanet.com. One would have thought this much was common sense... - LUCUS123, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0OMG...I feel like I am talking to George Bush or something. I have not conceeded that the article is bunk, because you can not grasp a simple concept. I wish there were a way to increase your IQ so I could help you understand, but that's impossible.
Please go back to watching Fox news because they are "Fair and Balanced"
Just like you said before that google is not close to real time, but yet I proved you were wrong in the screen shot. How do you talk to a mentally challenged person about physics? You can't, so I will stop wasting my time tring to teach you about google. - theright, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1It's quite clear you are unable to contest the overwhelming flaws in your arguments. Please, I would appreciate it if we could debate this without getting bogged down in petty insults and ad hominem attacks at every available opportunity. I have been polite all the way through, and I would expect the same back from you. I have been involved in SEO-related work in a non-professional capacity for more than four years, and I can assure you my knowledge of the subject far outweighs the couple of Google searches you've conducted in the past hour or so.
For the record, nothing I have said is at odds with any SEO experts. Incoming links play a large part in search engine rankings; I never contested this fact. What I contested was your claim that "[t]he more sites that link to your site, the higher you go on the list" as written in your article in the context that this was the be-all and end-all of search engine optimization. This is patently false. You are ignoring hundreds upon hundreds of other factors, many with far greater influence on rankings. You have argued that search engines index pages in "near realtime." I would love to see the response if you approached an SEO expert with that claim. As it happens, the link you claim has been indexed has still not been indexed. I've tried using a number of proxies, all with no filtering. The link has not been indexed. Another commenter also posted at the time you provided the screenshot that the link had not been indexed.
Your latest argument focuses entirely on the quantity of incoming links. You have completely ignored the fact that Google have certain criteria for indexing incoming links, that obviously differ quite considerably from those Yahoo! employ. I would appreciate it if you could address this fact rather than skirting around the issue in favour of hurling petty insults. - theright, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Just to clarify, the discrepancy you have picked up on in the percentage of Yahoo! links being indexed by Google is the result of complex algorithms and indexing criteria employed by Google to ensure quality results and combat link spam. This criteria involves such as things as the PageRank of linking sites, the relevancy of the link related to the content of the sites in question, among countless other factors. Going by your percentages, the higher the percentage, the more quality incoming links the site has. Your "number crunching" proves nothing more than the fact that established mainstream media outfits and well-known political blogs get more quality incoming links recognized by Google than conspiracy websites such as PrisonPlanet and WhatReallyHappened.
I would like to know if you contest these facts, please. Your paranoid conspiracy theory completely ignores them.
- theright, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I know where you got your figures from. How else would I have pointed out how utterly useless they are?
- LUCUS123, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0No sir, you do not have the slightest clue as to how google ranks pages...Google spiders all linked pages, the pages that they are linked to, and the pages linked to them. It searches for relevant content, popular sites linked to, and content of every site all along the lines. It searched even alt image tags (which don' have as much impact as they used to), font size, keywords in the content on those pages, font color compared to background color, and a whole list of things I don't have time to go into...BUT, LINK RELEVANCE after content IS THE MOST IMPORTANT FACTOR. Don't argue with me, argue with this guy who just so happens to be a leading expert in serch engine reg http://www.searchengineguide.com/articles/2004/1027_rc1.html Comparing apples to oranges...LOL...another statement made by you that shows that you have no idea what you are talking about. Yahoo site explorer GIVES YOU THE ACTUAL REAL NUMBER of how many sites are LINKING...not have the word, BUT LINKING...do I have to say it slower? L I N K I N G. If you know how to do simple math, take the number of GOOGLE LINKS and DIVIDE (that's the / symbol) the ACTUAL LINKS (as listed on yahoo site explorer) and TIMES (that's the X symbol) that number by 100, you get the percentage (that's the % symbol) of how many links google gives compared to the actual number. I know things above finger painting and making a bong out of clay are a little hard for you, so have your mommy help you with the equasion, ok.
- theright, on 10/10/2007, -2/+0I'm sorry, but you do not have the slightest clue how Google indexes incoming links to sites. Your phony, made-up-on-the-spot "link relevance" system holds no water, I'm afraid. Compare Google results to Google results and Yahoo! results to Yahoo! results, but the moment you attempt to compare the two, you're comparing apples to oranges.
- NonEuclidean1, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1In April of this year Dogpile along with Queensland University of Technology and the Pennsylvania State University published a study that found 1% overlap in SERP's of the major engines. Different engines, different algorithms, different search results. Apples & Oranges. It'd be pretty boring if they were all the same anyway.
Did you by chance refresh your site explorer data? That number jumps by the thousands. As it's been mentioned, there's more to what each engine counts as a backlink, e.g. page rank for Google. The domain search www.site.whatever, as it's been mentioned, will show plain text mentions of the site in addition to those tucked away in "nofollow" links.
All & all there's simple tests to see if your main premise "100% Proof Google is Keeping Conspiracy Sites Down" is correct: start searching.
Just searched on 9/11, 911 conspiracy and a number of related combinations. Each SERP contained a very well balanced mix of pro and anti conspiracy sites, blog posts, video's etc.
As a consumer looking for information about 9/11, conspiracy theories, whatever, each SERP would have more than satisfied a balanced opportunity to look at both perspectives. It's in the engine's best interests to return the best search results to me, the consumer.
I did notice, however, that The Ultimate Conspiracy wasn't listed on the first few results pages. What does that prove? The engine's algorithms don't think The Ultimate Conspiracy is one of the best results, and given the results that were returned, I doubt I would have clicked through to The Ultimate Conspiracy over the results that were served.
So, this just seems like sour grapes. - Daktor, on 10/10/2007, -2/+0NonEuclidean1 sums it up perfect!
- ctrlshift, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0what a joke... the net is just an extension of the media and look at how that is completely censored. anyone who don't think it would get the same treatment and censorship by the people running the show must have their heads up theirs asses. of course they cant just knock all the conspiracy and truth sites off, that would be too obvious. but subtle jiggerey and pokery of statistics to manipulate what we believe to be the popular consensus has and will go on. i meen, why would a big corporation help the demise of big corporations? wake up, its not called manipulation for nothing, and guess what... they don't give a toss about you or me of what people want doesn't matter what your political stance or what your beliefs are.
- virtualk, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2"theright" is simply WRONG.
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by
