August 28, 2007

Kraus Celebre

Allen Kraus, a focus of the NY Times' Google-power article, already has a web page, as pointed out by Jon Garfunkel in his piece:

Search Engine Obfuscation.

Jack Shafer of Slate (Page Rank 6/10) tells Mr. Kraus to get a web page. But the man has a web page (which I linked to as my random act of charity for the day). It's just that nobody else linked to it [Ed. note: the back links feature of Google and Yahoo is well-known to be highly inexact, er, wrong, with Yahoo being slightly better, so the link is there for dramatic effect]. And as such, his page, and his company (ImplexHealth), have a PageRank of 0/10. ...

["My readers know more than I do" :-)]

So here's another link for it.

I suppose the web propagandists, I mean, evangelists, could object that they said to start begging A-listers for links, I mean, blogging - not just have a web page. But I think the above point is powerful evidence about the scamminess of that idea, if any more was needed.

By Seth Finkelstein | posted in google | on August 28, 2007 11:59 PM (Infothought permalink)
Seth Finkelstein's Infothought blog (Wikipedia, Google, censorware, and an inside view of net-politics) - Syndicate site (subscribe, RSS)

Subscribe with Bloglines      Subscribe in NewsGator Online  Google Reader or Homepage


I've been watching "Allen Kraus" search results over the last day (for lack of having paint drying around to watch). His page has now slipped to 30 in el Goog. I figured that all he needed was S-E-Orientation to get on the map. Maybe he needs to put his name in the TITLE of his web page.

Still, there's the question of whether a Times search page should be in Google-- since, after all, Matt Cutts said Google doesn't want 'em. (see the fourth link here)

Meanwhile, another outbreak arm farting. All of this raises the question: why isn't this man's piercing analytical skills being employed by the national intelligence community?

Posted by: Jon Garfunkel at August 29, 2007 09:35 AM

Jon: It's possible that the Times search page will rank lower in the future. What Matt said is presumably general goals, but doesn't give any guidance to how strictly Google will apply them, and in what timeframe.

Posted by: Seth Finkelstein at August 29, 2007 09:48 AM

That's a plausible explanation. You'll notice in my post above another outbreak syntax errors. :-)

Posted by: Jon Garfunkel at August 29, 2007 11:52 AM