I think that using "trustrank" will just confuse matters. Drop that termnology and the discussion will go a lot further.
I think that using "trustrank" will just confuse matters. Drop that termnology and the discussion will go a lot further.
You might not realize this, but that is sort of cryptic. Could you elaborate on what you mean? Is there a different terminology that I should use, or is trust rank a bad word of sorts? Sorry if I seem overly uninformed, but that's why I'm asking....
TrustRank has been used by different professionals in different contexts to refer to entirely different algorthmic features. 数据挖掘研究院
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TrustRank
What most people mean when they talk about "trustrank" is actually outbound link weight.
Pages that link to bad neighborhoods lose outbound link weight.
Is that what you were referring to?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TrustRank
What most people mean when they talk about "trustrank" is actually outbound link weight.
Pages that link to bad neighborhoods lose outbound link weight.
Is that what you were referring to?
The algorithm that begins with something like 200 seed sites that are hand selected as "quality" and "trusted" sites. The so called "Trust Rank" trickles down by following the links from the seed sites and isn't based on link relevance or page rank. Is that outbound link weight?
I have read the original paper done about Trustrankhttp://www.vldb.org/conf/2004/RS15P3.PDF (Yahoo! related) a while back just after Google registered the Trademark. But the spam fighting algo of Trustrank would not be practical for use by Google imo. Perhaps if it is tweaked up a bit more, but I cannot see it as described in the paper as being applied at the moment.
what's ironic is that trustrank's emphasis on old sites as seed sites with lots of TR has resulted in a new opportunity for spammers. What can I say? Google sucks
