[rerevisionist]

by rerevisionist » INSERTED 3 OCTOBER 2015

[1] Google is firmly established as the leading search engine, at least in the Anglo and white world. (Baidu, Sousou, Yandex seem important in China, Japan, and Russia).
[2] I'd like to briefly debunk the magical status attributed to Google. In the late 1990s it was obvious a good search engine was needed. I don't take the 'two brilliant mathematicians' idea seriously (maybe they gave the name). What was needed was huge storage capacity, i.e. huge numbers of hard disks with ventilation requirements and hardware replacement-on-failure requirements. This meant money, and this suited the Jewish paper money fraud. The whole model was and is built on advertising.
[3] It's not necessary to assume Google's file downloads and sort-and-file system was phenomenally skillful. Most commercial websites are geographically and product located, so that (say) Melbourne taxidermists, or air flights from New York to Mumbai, or plumbers in Idaho, or fast food places in Peoria, or universities in Paris are found easily enough by keywords: all that's needed is a large number of directories. And many sites are named after their owners: it's very likely that ikea.com or macys.com or nbc.com or cia.com are found there (I haven't checked).
[4] However, informational and misinformation sites aren't easily classifiable. The Zundelsite was (I think) one of the first alternative sites. At one point Google apologised for some keyword arrangements listing such sites in the top few.
[5] As everyone knows, links were used to help out with page rankings, and a parasitic quasi-industry of fake links soon grew up. Similar parasitism grew up around the use of estimated time on pages: if Google could be persuaded some pages had high bounce rates, they could be demoted. (There are of course Jews who spend their time on Amazon, clicking down reviews&—same idea).
[6] The obvious thing to do is to rate the sites in some automatable way. It seems Google’s Quality Rater’s Handbook wants content to reflect expertise and be authoritative and trustworthy—E-A-T is their acronym. Obviously, with any controversial topic, there's a potential problem: a simple technique is to grade links by quality but the problem is of assessing expertise etc. Google's CEO, Schmidt, is evidently keen to bury sites he doesn't like at the bottom end of Google's results pages.
[7] I have no idea what will happen; maybe (i) disliked sites will simply be censored out altogether; (ii) sites which mention anything alternative may be handicapped by being marked down; (iii) there will be campaigns to make sites show up as inexpert—maybe the current 'flat earth' promotion is intended to identify sites weak on physics; (iv) 'EAT' sites will be given accreditation if they are state, official, professional, or whatever; (v) perhaps some algorithm can be found to identify two groups, A and B, and somehow try to assess the quality of debate between them; (vi) perhaps there'll be a disaster—maybe Windows 10 will be equipped to erase any disks attached to the remote computer during (for example) a declared or undeclared war.
[8] If fightback is needed, maybe (i) there's scope for meta-searchers: if Google's data can be searched (a 'metasearcher' looks at several search engines, and combines the results) a revisionist metasearcher might boost sites which include chosen keywords; or (ii) a smaller subset of sites might be filed away, omitting most of the commercial stuff, and used in a totally new search engine; (iii) maybe operating systems outside anything commercial could pop up; after all, much of the working deals with standard files. Internet may prove resilient to official attacks. <


Google's 'lite' link, googleweblight.com (this note inserted 20 July 2016 - Rerev)
Google has its own short versions of some Website pages. Graphics etc can be cut out—and so can information. Googleweblight appears to be aimed at India, where download speeds must often be slow by modern standards. Googleweblight.com/?lite_URL=http://www.big-lies.org is their syntax. Google has taken the opportunity to cut out my nuclear, holocaust, and Jewish material. Maybe they think impoverished Indians might not appreciate having been ripped off with nuclear frauds, the Holocaust fraud, and other Jewish frauds?

[rerevisionist]

Self-deception and hit-rates

Alexa note added 16 Jan 2014:
[1] Only people who have the Alexa toolbar installed appear to be counted by Alexa. The percentage of PCs which have it is not disclosed anywhere that I could find.
[2] The only people with a motive to instal Alexa's toolbar, and to ask others to instal it, are those wanting to boost their ranking. So there seems to be no reason to suppose Alexa is reliable. (This site does not object to its Alexa figure showing more hits).
[3] Alexa is owned (or run or something), by Amazon; Google's figures must be much better. So must figures from website hosts. Probably there's a competitive situation. maybe Amazon wanted to keep out other online selling companies, for example.
[4] Experiments show just one toolbar can change a ranking by a million or so. (Big-lies has varied from 40,000 to 2 million with similar numbers of hits).
[5] Conclusion: Alexa operates by feeding back its own biased samples. Don't assume the figure have any validity. This is quite apart from the question of deliberate adjustments of figures. It's up to you to assess whether there's an advantage to you in being listed better by an unreliable source.

Self-deception and pages downloaded: The page rate is of course boosted if articles are separate, each found by its own link. If articles are collected together, and this is easy as RAM and disk space continue to go up, they of course include all the separate articles. Bear this in mind when trying to assess pages downloaded.

Self-deception and 'referer spam', 'comment spam', trolls, timewasters: 'Referer spam' is hits from sales companies typically in China, Ukraine and Romania, which look like hits from embedded links, but aren't; the only point is to hope spammed people list their site somewhere, and boost the sales site's hits. 'Comment spam' tries to open forums, and post comments which are advertising links spam to their sites. These are not usually harmful, but they boost the page figures artificially: they have no interest in websites - a computer equivalent to automated fly-posting on the outside of a building full of information. (Another rough indicator is the 'visits duration' - people who go within a few seconds can't be reading a site. It's a rough indicator because people who stay > 1 hour are assumed by Awstats to have gone).

Awstats (only available to people with access to their own websites online; typically cPanel records all data saved about files which are sent out to Internet users). Obvious things: like the file name, the date and time sent, the number of bytes both in the file and actually sent, details of the request, and the I.P. address (four bytes - i.e. 4 lots of numbers from 0-255). This raw log information needs to be processed to make it readable. For example, if half a dozen people are browsing the website, if the files they are sent are ordered by time, their different files can be sorted by I.P. and a picture built up of each user.
    To get a picture of a website's readers, the most important figures are 'Unique Visitors', 'Number of Visits', and 'Pages'. 'Unique Visitors' number cannot be greater than 'Number of Visits'; if it's a lot less, most readers of the site must know it already. If the ratio approaches 1, almost all readers are new. In practice, Awstats restarts its count each month, and starts recording previous visitors as new, so 'Unique Visitors' overstates somewhat. Also, the same person using different computers or cloaking software may be counted as 'Unique'. 'Number of visits' is therefore more reliable, basic information, straight from the server, which presumably ought to know what it's done.
    'Pages' are screens of HTML data, represented by one .html file, which may be a small simple file, up to an entire online book. The pictures and formatting files and java aren't counted since they are needed as part of the page. However they are counted as 'hits'—so that, for example, an index.html page with a dozen pictures, some javascript to control its menus, a style sheet, and small images of flags, buttons, arrows, rounded corners & so on, can easily total 40 'hits'. From a hardware point of view this is important; from the reader point of view it isn't.
    The Page to Visitors Ratio gives some feel for the number of pages readers look at. A big complicated site with many pages naturally expects people to browse more pages than a simple one-page site of just a few sentences. Some sites have several or many entry. log-in, FAQ, and other pages.     Page counts, and visitor counts, can be inflated by site users who are not normal browsers.
• Search-engine spiders of which Google is currently the most important for general sites. Their endless search, for content to index and add to their databases, consumes quite a high proportion of all Internet activity. We have Bing, MSN, YahooSlurp, Yandex (Russian), Baidu (Chinese), SoSo (Japanese) and so on.
• Site information collectors such as Alexa and ahref which collect evidence about links between sites. These are more or less analogous to business information directories, and will not usually lead anyone to click on your site.
• Your own site searcher if you have one. Obviously, this has to spider your site and collect keyword information whenever it's index is updated.
• Site grabbers such as WHTT and WebReaper can be useful items of archiving software. They can download entire sites, or parts of sites, for future reference—though in practice there are complications. Obviously they may grab every page of a site, and equally obviously may inflate the page count.
• Content thieves who may operate 'scraper sites', consisting solely of advertising plus stolen content. 'Autoblogs' automate this. The crawlers may 'spoof' well-known robots. Google have taken steps to demote scraper sites in their listings. Some copying may of course be legitimate, and encouraged. And many sites use photos or images stored on other sites. Their activity will increase apparent hit rates.
• Automated spammers—see Fraud and Advertising Spam—fortunately, these are usually easy to keep away with Captcha or Question screens.
• Trolls and timewasters and incurious people are of course entitled to look at sites but effectively add nothing. Here's a detailed account of trolls
• Friendly or Maintenance views—people you know, people maintaining a site, the site users themselves will increase raw counts.

The fairly good news is that Awstats excludes robots, spiders, and crawlers, even ones it doesn't recognise, from the count. It can identify site grabbers, but includes their hits, and as far as I know includes everything lower in the table.
    Note that Webalyzer has no discrimination at all, so that its reported page rates are far higher than Awstats.
    CloudFlare is supposed to have mechanisms to detect and reduce spam, but comments on it (including its own information) are not very clear.

---

Another approach is top-down; the overview. 'InternetWorldStats.com' gives, now, 2.3 billion 'Internet Users', about 1/3 of the claimed entire world population. Obviously, large numbers of these scarcely count as users. The total number of domains is listed as about 140 million, about 20 people per website.

[NUKELIES]

From infowars.com http://www.infowars.com/you-tube-admits ... ent-video/

You Tube Admits to Censoring View Count on Biden Impeachment Video

Youtube has admitted to freezing the viewcount on a viral video of Vice President Joe Biden that highlights the hypocrisy of the Obama administration as it engages in military aggression against Libya.

The video was posted at the top of The Drudge Report earlier today, a website that conservatively receives 36 million visits per day, making it the most highly ranked news website on the web.

While such activity would normally send the video to the top of searches and to the front pages of Youtube.com, where many millions more would see it, the viewcount on the video is stuck firmly at just 301 views.

Suspecting foul play, CNS News contacted Youtube to seek an explanation and received the following reply:
“YouTube employs proprietary technology to prevent the artificial inflation of a video’s viewcount by spam bots, malware and other means,” said the statement. “We validate views to ensure the accuracy of the viewcount of all videos beginning with the first view. This validation process becomes publicly visible when the viewcount reaches 300.”
“At this point, the viewcount may slow or temporarily freeze until we have time to verify that all further views are legitimate,” said the statement. “Rest assured that the views system is working as intended, and that the viewcount will update as soon as the system has verified the legitimacy of the views.”
Or as soon as the link on Drudge is removed and people stop clicking through to the video perhaps?

The monopoly is becoming transparent. After infowars published the above article, YouTube was forced to show a more believable number, although there's no telling if it's more accurate. The video can be seen here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Adpa5kYU ... r_embedded

[NUKELIES]

GOOGLE LIES LIES LIES

GOOGLE LIES.jpg (548.46 KiB) Viewed 779 times

Somebody at Google has arranged the search results (see above) for the term "nuke lies" to highlight the post by TVOW linking to his video "Nuclear Weapons do not Exist (New Version)" in which he states:

By this time of course, after much research and money spent, they were beginning to understand truly how to make genuine nuclear explosions. But of course they would not tell the public how.

Why would Google highlight this post out of all the posts on NUKE LIES Forum? Is it because TVOW / Edmund Matthew's video spins the idea that nuclear weapons do exist into a video entitled ""Nuclear Weapons do not Exist (New Version)." All respect due to Edmund, and I'm greatful for his contributions to this forum, but why the spin Edmund? We need you on our side. Nuclear bombs are outdated propaganda. If you want to control the masses you're going to have to come up with something new.

And in case anybody reading this thinks I'm making unsubstantiated assumptions about Google's listings, check out the third listing:

Nuke Lies
Conspirary nuts tells us how nuclear bombs are actually a governement hoax Nuke Lies.
http://www.poetv.com

That negative poetv listing calling us "Conspiracy nuts" - whatever that means - has been the number one search result for the term "nuke lies" for years - after the youtube video links - until the inception of NUKE LIES Forum. Add this to the publicity YouTube has been getting for changing view counts and you've got an apparent attempt to stifle the message that nuclear bombs do not exist.

[FirstClassSkeptic]

Early this morning, there was a Google Bot on here, as a registered member.

And, there's no such thing as bad publicity.

[rerevisionist]

Bing gives a different sequence and has no 'nut' material. Interesting and I'm sure NukeLies is right regarding the spin. However I'm not 100% convinced - for one thing, this site could be barred entirely, but isn't. I'm a bit disappointed not to show up more, but never mind.

By the way - it's nice to know who TVOW is!

It's a tremendous opportunity for google to plot the way a new meme spreads. I hope they keep some sort of decipherable records.

I do wish the Canadian and Spanish sceptics would add comments here. And maybe there are French, Chinese, Indian and Pakistan sceptics - My best guess is that the nuclear programmes sold to Pakistan and India are money-absorbing fakes, and quite likely our 'aid' money goes to them in some backhander way. And that China builds coal power stations because they've worked that out.

[TVOW]

I really don’t know what your complaining about it is called Nuclear weapons do not exist , what more do you want I’ ll remake it is a work in progress, your right the use of the word genuine is to strong, the point does need to be made clearer. But I’m not changing my potion that such a thing may be possible , and their behaviour did change, we need to account for that As for the google thing I have no idea about any of that , it hasn’t done any good I’ve had two hits from this site and I think one of them was me checking the link. With the numbers we are reaching google couldn’t possibly care to take such action , and your slaughtering me in the hit counts so why complain.

[rerevisionist]

NUKELIES, don't forget there are other search engines. And there are meta search engines, e.g. metacrawler.com and dogpile.com and a lot more. Your site comes out on top usually given 'Nuke Lies' as keywords (but some show no sign of it). I was pleased to see some of my own videos showing up for people - presumably not very many as yet - who entered 'nuclear test fraud'.

There are some oddities out there - e.g. a supposed industry to detect fake old wines and whisky by looking at radioactivity in them! Presumably they say you don't need to open the bottle.

[NUKELIES]

FirstClassSkeptic wrote:

there's no such thing as bad publicity.

Let's hope so. I want people to contemplate the possibility that nuclear bombs might not exist.

TVOW wrote:

I really don’t know what your complaining about

I'm weary from other conspiracy forums of having this forum inundated with trolls, operatives, and provocateurs, so if anybody mentions orgones or says nuclear bombs don't exist but there are genuine ones that do exist what do you expect?

[rerevisionist]

Looks like Yahoo doesn't index this site much. They had a system of editors, and maybe still have - if their selected 'expert' doesn't like a site, it doesn't appear. It's irritating, because they do spider the site, unless the robot is a fake.

[NUKELIES]

Alexa.com [corrupt] search rankings

Blah Blah Blah

I reluctantly explored the notorious alexa.com rank site and found that we are listed as being number 2,252,701 in internet traffic rank. I do not trust alexa.com and do not really care much for their ranking, but I did find it interesting that some snide soul had taken it upon themselves to describe our site in the following keywords: nuclear power, youtube script, websites, magnetic orbit on earth, twilight zone

The "Twilight Zone" is intentionally dismissive and obviously creative--someone had to think about that one.

alexa.jpg (357.85 KiB) Viewed 692 times

[rerevisionist]

"Magnetic orbit on earth" has absolutely no hits at all in Google! The 4 words magnetic orbit twilight zone give a few sites (including NASA) of a solar system type. It's *possible* the 'keywords' listed by Alexa were harvested when TVOW was around several months ago. I'VE JUST FOUND - Their 'search analytics' gives 'milgram's experiment twilight zone' which explains one puzzle - they seem to list phrases which were used to find the site, so they don't have to spider it for themselves. In other words, if some weird keyword found the site, they list that, irrespective of the site's contents. I hope you don't mind, but I removed 'corrupt' because of this. (But feel free to put it back!)

I tried clicking the phrases (they are links too) and got a few links back to e.g. physics sites and howstuffworks.com though they all seemed trashy sites to me. I tried to write a review of nukelies, but their login process defeated me.

Out of interest, CODOH.com is listed as about 1 millionth world wide, and about 500,000th in the USA, with keywords united we [sic], japanese war crimes [sic!], brad smith, war crimes, jurgen graf

I don't object to alexa as much as you do! - Mainly because it listed bnp.org.uk in an optimistic type of way, putting it way above the British 'main parties'.

[rerevisionist]

Alexa now has 5 links to nukelies.com and they seem to have done something on queries:-

Query Percent of Search Traffic
1 hiroshima nagasaki radiation health genetic damage survivors 7.22%
2 "ganges river" taboo 4.72%
3 phony nazi websites 4.53%
4 dumpload nuclear power 4.35%
5 nuke bertrand 3.70%
6 3500 yards in miles 2.21%
7 jimmy carter nuclear codes dry cleaning 1.94%

A bit odd, but not as odd as before. Maybe someone noticed your 'corrupt' comment!

[NUKELIES]

Yeah Rerev - That's the closest thing I've seen to obvious surveillance yet!

Alexa is political. If they list a certain site higher than another they have their reasons.

[rerevisionist]

Quite a useful site www.blacklistalert.org is a metasearcher of IPs, which looks at IP addresses and checks them against databases of suspect IP addresses. There are vast numbers of IPs which send out spam including 'referer spam' and email spam and more dangerous things—attempts to break into systems etc. They are a nuisance; it's up to site administrators what to do—personally I ban quite a few, though there is a risk that legit people sharing those IPs may be banned.
    Anyway, having my very own IP address with my host, I looked to see what, if anything, blacklistalert.org would come up with, and was irritated to see just one database, 12.apews.org listed it, though obviously I never spam and have no interest in doing so. 'APEWS' have quite a bit of evasive drivel on their site, which they claim only represents their opinion. Well, my opinion is: probably another lovable bunch of Jews doing what they do, or people who've been taken in.
    I *think* serious hacking is not much of a problem. (I hope that's not too optimistic). Hosting companies do not want to get a reputation for vulnerability. The main problem with spam isn't really seriously damaging: it's the feeling of many site owners that they get far more serious hits than they in fact do. This can be quite a harsh psychological blow.

    [Possibly the database name is a mimic of ASPEWS.org]