- From: David Woolley <david@djwhome.demon.co.uk>
- Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 07:09:34 +0100 (BST)
- To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
> which is about information, not 'keyword stuffing' The problem is that tools that can be used for one job are often usurped for other jobs. As a result, search engine operators have policies that are designed to cope with the real world, not with a world behaving nicely. Even the most respectable of blue chip companies have been known to keyword stuff with white on white text - the keywords tend to be relevant in those cases, but it is still producing a page that doesn't match the visible content. You are using an end justifies the means argument, but the people trying to increase their sales consider their sales a justified end. When making proposals, you have to consider how the technology will be abused and how the abuse counter-measures will impact you. If you want to make reccommendations with current search engines, you need to make those reccommendations explicit and visible and then, for popularity based engines like Google, make your page popular. As I hinted, there are ideas, I think amongst the semantic web people, for having mechanisms for reccommending pages with specific annotations, but these seem to be limited to a small academic community at the moment. One reason for this is probably that commercial web sites are not in the businesss of reccommending other commercial web sites (they rarely even link to them). Another reason might be that the search engine operators see too much potential for abuse - any means of abusing them *will* be used; that's the way the world works. Yet another reason might be the legal risks associated with making negative comments.
Received on Tuesday, 18 June 2002 02:09:52 UTC