Print

Print


*****  To join INSNA, visit http://www.sfu.ca/~insna/  *****

Bloggers can of course have worthwhile content.  I believe the root
cause of this problem is Google's ranking scheme, which relies on a
sort of link centrality measure.   Bloggers are compulsive linkers to
other bloggers, so this tends to result in high ranking for them.
Google changes their ranking scheme every month, so probably they will
try some sort of adjustment to decrease the ranking of bloggers.
Whether they can do this and maintain the quality of their results
remains to be seen.

"Woodlief, Tony" <[log in to unmask]> writes:

> Perhaps it shouldn't be surprising that bloggers have weighed in on a
> topic relating to web traffic. In other words, your sample may be
> biased. Google searches of "steady state theory" (
> http://www.google.com/search?num=100
> <http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&newwindow=
> 1&q=steady+state+theory>
> &hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&newwindow=1&q=steady+state+theory) and
> "structural functionalism" ( http://www.google.com/search?num=100
> <http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&newwindow=
> 1&q=structural+functionalism>
> &hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&newwindow=1&q=structural+functionalism), for
> example, show that the experts (i.e., those with appropriate letters
> after their names and some form of university affiliation) are not
> drowned out by bloggers on every topic.
>
> I think it is true that bloggers deserve blame for everything from poor
> grammar to bad logic to dissemination of uncredited, incorrect
> information. Unfortunately, the same can be said of university
> publications. It may be unwise to dismiss all bloggers out of hand, even
> if most of them do not have tenure at a university. Some of them are
> very good at 1) pointing out critical omissions and errors of logic and
> fact in major media outlets; 2) explaining complicated economic and
> scientific concepts to laymen; and 3) offering cogent points of view
> that are underrepresented among the anointed experts. In fact, a look at
> some of the bloggers listed in your search revealed fairly intelligent
> explanations of the topics you were searching. If your goal was to find
> "certified" sources, you could add "-weblog -blog" to your search. You
> would still be left with several non ".edu" citations, however. Perhaps
> a better solution than segregating the weblogs would be to segregate the
> university-affiliated sites?
>
>
> Tony Woodlief
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Cynthia Typaldos [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2003 8:57 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Bloggers add Babble
>
>
> Today I looked -- via Google -- for a credible source (e.g. university
> publication) on the relatively newly discovered "power law" comparing it
> to the "bell curve".  I used these search terms: bell curve internet
> traffic power law.  Try it yourself --
> http://tinyurl.com/ctdw <http://tinyurl.com/ctdw>
>
> I find it disconcerting that approximately 6 of the top 20 Google links
> are from bloggers.  Prolific bloggers to be exact.
>
> Will Google's usefulness be drowned by babble?
>
> Cynthia
>
> www.typaldos.com <http://www.typaldos.com>
> www.softwareproductmarketing.com
> <http://www.softwareproductmarketing.com>
> http://typaldos.blogspot.com <http://typaldos.blogspot.com>

_____________________________________________________________________
SOCNET is a service of INSNA, the professional association for social
network researchers (http://www.sfu.ca/~insna/). To unsubscribe, send
an email message to [log in to unmask] containing the line
UNSUBSCRIBE SOCNET in the body of the message.