<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Googlekook</title>
	<atom:link href="http://scepticalbanter.com/2009/12/googlekook/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://scepticalbanter.com/2009/12/googlekook/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 04 Feb 2012 23:10:58 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: uksceptic</title>
		<link>http://scepticalbanter.com/2009/12/googlekook/comment-page-1/#comment-33</link>
		<dc:creator>uksceptic</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 11 Dec 2009 21:49:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://scepticalbanter.com/?p=336#comment-33</guid>
		<description>Thanks for your comments Peter, I did have a fairly decent understanding of how google produces its results although not nearly as comprehensive as you have outlined. 

If you read through my post and the original paper I referred to you will see that the issue is not how google produces its results but whether it has an ethical responcibility for the results it gives out. That the results are created in an unbias way does not mean that the results themselves are irresponcible. Perhaps you might not think so but I still think it is something worth thinking about especially when google has such a stranglehold on the search engine industry. 

Speaking of your essex based web design company, have you put a link to my blog on there yet!?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks for your comments Peter, I did have a fairly decent understanding of how google produces its results although not nearly as comprehensive as you have outlined. </p>
<p>If you read through my post and the original paper I referred to you will see that the issue is not how google produces its results but whether it has an ethical responcibility for the results it gives out. That the results are created in an unbias way does not mean that the results themselves are irresponcible. Perhaps you might not think so but I still think it is something worth thinking about especially when google has such a stranglehold on the search engine industry. </p>
<p>Speaking of your essex based web design company, have you put a link to my blog on there yet!?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Peter</title>
		<link>http://scepticalbanter.com/2009/12/googlekook/comment-page-1/#comment-32</link>
		<dc:creator>Peter</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 11 Dec 2009 15:57:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://scepticalbanter.com/?p=336#comment-32</guid>
		<description>Interesting post, however as an experienced website designer/builder I think I should put my two cents in here.

You have to realise that the links that appear when you search for something on Google are the result of an incredibly sophisticated and complex, unbiased system of finding sites relating to the keywords you type in. The rankings relate to the keywords on a web page, at no point does Google filter its results according to the opinion or philosophy the website is promoting, whatever that may be.

Any website has the ability to be optimised for any keyword, and there are hundreds of factors which need to be taken into account when optimising a website correctly. (see below for factors that influence search engine rankings).

As far as the sponsored advertising goes Google has no direct influence here either. The sponsored links at the top either come from a pay per click system or a lot of the time sponsorship can be arranged through your Internet Service Provider. Sponsored links are often seen as a cheap alternative to getting an SEO company to optimise your website properly.

Factors that influence your Google rankings:
1. Good domain name. Having keywords relating to the content of your site in the actual name of the website can help your rankings massively.

1. Organic optimisation of your site (100&#039;s of factors relating to how the website is built, &#039;alt&#039; , &#039;title&#039;  tags on images and headers relating to content, accessibility of site for hearing or sight impaired)

2. Your page title tags must relate directly to the content on your site (the page titles of websites also appear as the main link to a site when searching on Google)

3. Low percentage of bounces (i.e. people who click on your link from Google and immediately click back to Google because your site was irrelevant to the keyword you searched for)

4. A mixed range of inbound links from other websites relating to your content. Indeed, putting a link to my &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.sixredsquares.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;essex based web design company&lt;/a&gt; here will help its optimisation.

5. Google &#039;trust&#039; rankings
Google also has a complex &#039;trust&#039; system where websites usually for large brands and organisations are given a high &#039;trust&#039; ranking. If you gain a link directly from a highly &#039;trusted&#039; website it boosts your trust ranking and in turn your google ranking.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Interesting post, however as an experienced website designer/builder I think I should put my two cents in here.</p>
<p>You have to realise that the links that appear when you search for something on Google are the result of an incredibly sophisticated and complex, unbiased system of finding sites relating to the keywords you type in. The rankings relate to the keywords on a web page, at no point does Google filter its results according to the opinion or philosophy the website is promoting, whatever that may be.</p>
<p>Any website has the ability to be optimised for any keyword, and there are hundreds of factors which need to be taken into account when optimising a website correctly. (see below for factors that influence search engine rankings).</p>
<p>As far as the sponsored advertising goes Google has no direct influence here either. The sponsored links at the top either come from a pay per click system or a lot of the time sponsorship can be arranged through your Internet Service Provider. Sponsored links are often seen as a cheap alternative to getting an SEO company to optimise your website properly.</p>
<p>Factors that influence your Google rankings:<br />
1. Good domain name. Having keywords relating to the content of your site in the actual name of the website can help your rankings massively.</p>
<p>1. Organic optimisation of your site (100&#8242;s of factors relating to how the website is built, &#8216;alt&#8217; , &#8216;title&#8217;  tags on images and headers relating to content, accessibility of site for hearing or sight impaired)</p>
<p>2. Your page title tags must relate directly to the content on your site (the page titles of websites also appear as the main link to a site when searching on Google)</p>
<p>3. Low percentage of bounces (i.e. people who click on your link from Google and immediately click back to Google because your site was irrelevant to the keyword you searched for)</p>
<p>4. A mixed range of inbound links from other websites relating to your content. Indeed, putting a link to my <a href="http://www.sixredsquares.com" rel="nofollow">essex based web design company</a> here will help its optimisation.</p>
<p>5. Google &#8216;trust&#8217; rankings<br />
Google also has a complex &#8216;trust&#8217; system where websites usually for large brands and organisations are given a high &#8216;trust&#8217; ranking. If you gain a link directly from a highly &#8216;trusted&#8217; website it boosts your trust ranking and in turn your google ranking.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Peter</title>
		<link>http://scepticalbanter.com/2009/12/googlekook/comment-page-1/#comment-31</link>
		<dc:creator>Peter</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 11 Dec 2009 15:57:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://scepticalbanter.com/?p=336#comment-31</guid>
		<description>I wanted to find out how many people actually search for the keywords you discussed in this post so I used the very useful google adwords tool to find out (link below). Heres the results:

Vaccination 
Global: 673,000
UK: 246,000

Climate Change
Global: 1,000,000
UK: 450,000

Moon landing
Global: 201,000
UK: 74,000

Moon landing conspiracy
Global: 14,800
UK: 6,600

Swine Flu Treatment
Global: 12,100
UK: Not enough data

Homeopathy
Global: 550,000 
UK: 110,000

Evolution
Global: 13,600,000
UK: 4,090,000

Creationism
Global: 201,000
UK: 22,000

9 11 2001
Global: 22,200
UK: 1,300

conspiracy 9 11
Global: 135,000
UK: 18,100


Google adwords tool:
https://adwords.google.co.uk/select/KeywordToolExternal





To understand why websites a</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I wanted to find out how many people actually search for the keywords you discussed in this post so I used the very useful google adwords tool to find out (link below). Heres the results:</p>
<p>Vaccination<br />
Global: 673,000<br />
UK: 246,000</p>
<p>Climate Change<br />
Global: 1,000,000<br />
UK: 450,000</p>
<p>Moon landing<br />
Global: 201,000<br />
UK: 74,000</p>
<p>Moon landing conspiracy<br />
Global: 14,800<br />
UK: 6,600</p>
<p>Swine Flu Treatment<br />
Global: 12,100<br />
UK: Not enough data</p>
<p>Homeopathy<br />
Global: 550,000<br />
UK: 110,000</p>
<p>Evolution<br />
Global: 13,600,000<br />
UK: 4,090,000</p>
<p>Creationism<br />
Global: 201,000<br />
UK: 22,000</p>
<p>9 11 2001<br />
Global: 22,200<br />
UK: 1,300</p>
<p>conspiracy 9 11<br />
Global: 135,000<br />
UK: 18,100</p>
<p>Google adwords tool:<br />
<a href="https://adwords.google.co.uk/select/KeywordToolExternal" rel="nofollow">https://adwords.google.co.uk/select/KeywordToolExternal</a></p>
<p>To understand why websites a</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Adrian Bailey</title>
		<link>http://scepticalbanter.com/2009/12/googlekook/comment-page-1/#comment-26</link>
		<dc:creator>Adrian Bailey</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 01 Dec 2009 20:13:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://scepticalbanter.com/?p=336#comment-26</guid>
		<description>I think you&#039;re being unfair on Google if you think it shouldn&#039;t list homeopathy websites first, when someone&#039;s searched for homeopathy!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think you&#8217;re being unfair on Google if you think it shouldn&#8217;t list homeopathy websites first, when someone&#8217;s searched for homeopathy!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: uksceptic</title>
		<link>http://scepticalbanter.com/2009/12/googlekook/comment-page-1/#comment-25</link>
		<dc:creator>uksceptic</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 01 Dec 2009 17:40:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://scepticalbanter.com/?p=336#comment-25</guid>
		<description>Thanks for your comments. 

As you picked up on in your blog entry I would be interested to find out more information about how whatdoestheinternetthink calculates its results. Unfortunately this information isn&#039;t very forthcoming on the website.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks for your comments. </p>
<p>As you picked up on in your blog entry I would be interested to find out more information about how whatdoestheinternetthink calculates its results. Unfortunately this information isn&#8217;t very forthcoming on the website.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Endless psych</title>
		<link>http://scepticalbanter.com/2009/12/googlekook/comment-page-1/#comment-24</link>
		<dc:creator>Endless psych</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 01 Dec 2009 16:33:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://scepticalbanter.com/?p=336#comment-24</guid>
		<description>I blogged about this ages ago also:-
http://andyourelectronmicroscope.wordpress.com/2009/06/19/what-does-the-internet-think-about-scam/</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I blogged about this ages ago also:-<br />
<a href="http://andyourelectronmicroscope.wordpress.com/2009/06/19/what-does-the-internet-think-about-scam/" rel="nofollow">http://andyourelectronmicroscope.wordpress.com/2009/06/19/what-does-the-internet-think-about-scam/</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Endless psych</title>
		<link>http://scepticalbanter.com/2009/12/googlekook/comment-page-1/#comment-23</link>
		<dc:creator>Endless psych</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 01 Dec 2009 16:31:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://scepticalbanter.com/?p=336#comment-23</guid>
		<description>Why not use http://www.whatdoestheinternetthink.net ?

Vaccination has apparently apparently 86.8% positive results
Climate change - 53.1% positive
Evolution - 84.6% positive</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Why not use <a href="http://www.whatdoestheinternetthink.net" rel="nofollow">http://www.whatdoestheinternetthink.net</a> ?</p>
<p>Vaccination has apparently apparently 86.8% positive results<br />
Climate change &#8211; 53.1% positive<br />
Evolution &#8211; 84.6% positive</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

