- From: Trejkaz Xaoza <trejkaz@trypticon.org>
- Date: Sat, 8 Jan 2005 17:22:50 +1100
- To: www-html@w3.org
- Message-Id: <200501081722.56898.trejkaz@trypticon.org>
On Sat, 8 Jan 2005 07:53, you wrote:
> > distinct.) It seems to me that it's the search engine's problem if it=20
> > somehow fails to find important information.
>
> Often such heuristics are defences against abuse by authors trying to
> increase their rating. Metadata, because it doesn't get displayed in
> HTML 4/XHTML 1, is a good place for keyword stuffing by people who don't
> really care about its true purpose.
Nothing stops the search engine from stopping indexing of keywords after a
certain point in the page either.
Although in all honesty, you would get better results if you _did_ index the
entire page. Then you can trivially detect keyword abuse by counting the
number of keywords in the page and penalising for large numbers. I thought
this was already how Google worked anyway.
But like I said, if they skip _important_ metadata, then it's their own
problem. They would quickly get supplanted by superior search engines, just
like Altavista did when their results started getting crap.
TX
--
Email: Trejkaz Xaoza <trejkaz@trypticon.org>
Web site: http://xaoza.net/
Jabber ID: trejkaz@jabber.zim.net.au
GPG Fingerprint: 9EEB 97D7 8F7B 7977 F39F A62C B8C7 BC8B 037E EA73
Received on Saturday, 8 January 2005 06:22:29 UTC