Mega blog purge
Well I’ve had an exciting night working on technoranki tonight! OK, maybe not that exciting, but its been productive at least. I’ve tweaked the ranking algorithm for the system, so we’ll see how that affects the scores over the next few days.
I’ve also been going through the error log, checking out lots of the blogs that report errors when our spider visits them. I’ve removed 146 blogs from technoranki (most of them spam blogs), and these should filter through to BritBlog in due course.
I’m hoping to get the blog ranks on BritBlog working again this weekend too, but I’m looking rather short of time. In case I don’t, I’ve put together a Top 200 Chart on the technoranki site too, and this will be published once I’ve verrified my ranking changes are OK.
Right. Really is time for bed now!
RSS Feed for posts
November 9th, 2006 16:14
Mark,
Good work on the rankings and that, but is there any chance of letting us know what contributes to these rankings? I know you can’t give out weightings etc. (so people can’t fudge results), but I’d be interested to know what goes into this clandestine algorithm of yours..
I only ask as it appears there is a higher weighting given to sites that have pictures of cats or kittens. If so, I might include a few myself (under protest)
Ta.
November 9th, 2006 16:31
Hey Mr Angry,
Thanks - but I’m afraid I can’t tell you what goes into the mix! However, we look at traffic (so it helps to have the tracker code installed), and I have to say we do use information from Technorati (their Ts & Cs mean I have to tell you).
I should say though that if you see any blogs that don’t feel right, let mw know. It’s all still experimental, so if I can work out why some blogs are higher than others when they shouldn’t be, I can do something about it.
And I’m more of a dog man myself, so that cat thing is purely coincidence….
November 9th, 2006 23:03
“Current blog ranking systems all have failings; we hope to work out a way to rank blogs fairly and accurately.”
By fairly and accurately I assume you mean placing at number 200 a blog with 9 links from 6 weblogs.
And not even acknowledging my own which has a “better” technorati than your numbers 11, 12 and 13.
Not placing it even in your top 200.
Ranking 421 links from 219 weblogs below the above-metnioned 9 links from 6 weblogs.
I think it’s time you spilled the beans about your algorithm, sir. What a load of crap.
November 9th, 2006 23:05
“mentioned”, not metnioned. Sorry.
November 9th, 2006 23:43
Peter,
I can’t tell you the details behind the algorithm as this will open the gates for cheats. Sorry if you don’t like that, but that’s just the way it is.
As I’ve said before, the project is still in its infancy and from time to time things won’t go to plan. I’ve looked through the logs to see what the issue may be in relation to your blog and it seems that last time we contacted technorati to get your score from them their site was down so we recorded a ‘0′.
I have mentioned elsewhere that two of the factors used in the rankings are traffic and technorati scores, so if you get 0 for one of these it won’t help in your final rank.
But don’t panic. We regularly re-query technorati to keep our data up to date. If (and when) these glitches occur they should be rectified automatically in due course.
We’ll be publishing a rank history soon too, so this will allow you to spot if your rank has changed all of a sudden (which may indicate an error).
Sorry for any distress caused - I’m sure you’ll be back up there soon. (In fact I always thought you were quite high up weren’t you?)
November 10th, 2006 00:11
Thank you for the prompt response, Mark.
My Technorati today is 13,421 and page views bubble over the 1000 a day.
Even though errors occur everywhere, I’m sure you can understand people’s anger at these omissions. Let me mention that another notable absentee from your 200 is the Copper’s Blog. (And he’s got handcuffs.)
November 10th, 2006 09:04
If people let us know when they spot bugs then we can work to fix them.
From what I can see of “Copper’s Blog” (assuming it is aka “The Policeman’s Blog”), then they don’t have the tracking code on their site. Without this we can’t track traffic, which means they will get a zero for this component of the final score. As traffic is highly weighted in the algorithm, this won’t help them at all.
November 10th, 2006 16:05
Hiding the algorithm is not the best answer although it’s attractive to hold your cards close to your chest.
The best answer is to make the algorithm available and call it Version 1. Then let the community tear it apart, chew on the ways that it can be gamed, then create Versions 2 to n.
The clever money happens because as the versions are released, you keep publishing the old values too (for say, the n most recent back-versions) so it’s possible to compare your site over time using the different criteria.
A ranking system that is open to public review will be more useful and can be used scientifically, whereas something clandestine can never be trusted and therefore cannot be used as a reference.
November 10th, 2006 21:20
Thanks for the feedback again Rich. However, the ’secret algorithm’ works with Google…. not that I would dream of comparing this with Google Page Rank
We’ll see how it goes for the meantime. There’s a lot more to do behind the scenes still, and at the end of the day you’re always going to upset some people who aren’t happy with their rank or score. You can’t please everyone.
November 11th, 2006 08:56
Absolutely, which is why publishing several different ranks based on several algorithms and letting the GBP decide which is ‘best’ might be a more manageable long term goal - because you’ll end up with the discussion giving you ideas about how to improve the algorithm, rather than repeated requests and sniping if you keep it a secret.
November 14th, 2006 10:02
“at the end of the day you’re always going to upset some people who aren’t happy with their rank or score. You can’t please everyone.”
How true. You will always find a few outraged bloggers who can’t believe you would somehow have neglected to code for rankings in such a way that they are near or at the top of the pile.
I can say with some certainty, though, that Rich’s blog is ranked too low, and mine is now ranked too high, but it was fun to be in the top 20 for a few days.
One day, my grandchildren will learn how I was bigger than some guy called Pepys.
Is it possible for you to spill more beans on the algorithm (so to speak) without giving more away than you are comfortable with? I agree with those here that are itching to take a look and get a feedback loop going.
November 14th, 2006 10:45
I have a feeling that mine is also ranked too high, but it is ’still in beta’…
I’m still not happy to discuss the algorithm in public, but maybe a few of us can take it offline? Afterall, just because I take one metric as being important, it isn’t to say that everyone else will too. I have to go out now, but will drop you and Rich an email this evening.
November 15th, 2006 09:34
Message received
November 16th, 2006 09:07
Mark - I am assuming you meant you would send Peter an email, and not me. Which makes sense.
November 16th, 2006 11:09
Hi Neil,
I did email you actually, but got a delivery failure: your mailbox was full. If you’d like to get involved a bit behind the scenes, then let me know. No problem if you don’t though.
November 24th, 2006 09:25
My Bad, Mark - I didn’t realise my mail box was full. I’m not sure how much help I can be, but if you don’t mind resending, I can take a look.
After my sudden demotion from the top blogs this morning, I will try to offer unbiased opinions
December 1st, 2006 00:00
geez people, if you don’t like the algorithm, then don’t use it - simple!!
December 1st, 2006 11:18
That’s a fair remark, gotidude, but I would like people to think it’s fair and for them to actually find it useful!