- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Sat, 5 Dec 2009 21:56:07 +0000 (UTC)
- To: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
- Cc: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>, "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
On Sat, 5 Dec 2009, Tim Berners-Lee wrote: > On 2009-11 -25, at 10:50, Larry Masinter wrote: > > > > Presumably you mean "by Google". Whether the same is true for any > > other search engine is unclear, but I suppose other search engines are > > forced to reverse engineer Google's page ranking in the same way that > > browsers are forced to reverse engineer Internet Explorer. > > No, they compete to make them better. There is no reason to copy > Google's faults. If they can find a more relevant page then more power > to them. Indeed. In fact we (Google) find ourselves reverse engineering browsers quite a lot, but to my knowledge are not aware of cases of search engines reverse engineering each other. The few times search engines have implemented similar search-specific features (robots.txt, rel=nofollow, rel=canonical, sitemaps), the features were developed in conjunction with other search engines, not via reverse engineering. HTH, -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Saturday, 5 December 2009 21:56:35 UTC