September 21, 2002

1:41 PM

Neuroprosthesis News This is a self-link, but I am just using it to demonstrate the power of Weblogs on google. On Thursday, Nature Magazine published an article with results related to neurophysiological proof of near-death experience in a single patient. Science journalists, including those of MSNBC Online and BBC Sci-Tech and of course many others wrote about this article on Wednesday, and we mentioned it on our Weblog also. Now if you search for the name of the first author, Olaf Blanke on google, our site comes up first. This is empowering and of course flattering (considering that our site was discussed on MetaTalk once in a related thread) but also somewhat embarrassing. Please don't forget, that we are talking about Nature Magazine, highly funded academic and medical research groups, plus quite a few major online science news sources here. Do you think google search programs will (and should) change because of this strange bias for Weblogs?
posted by neu (13 comments total)

Technically, it might not be a self-link as it's broken and there are other links in the post. You can always put a self-link in a comment, especially if someone else does it. So here is Neuroprosthesis News.

That's impressive, neu - and very interesting. Let me look into it further so I can post this first. Nature indeed - I thought they were above us mere mortals. Cheers!
posted by MiguelCardoso at 1:49 PM on September 21, 2002

It's not a strange bias for weblogs -- it's a deliberate bias toward fresh content, which began roughly last summer, and finally overcame Google's major deficiency up till then: a strong bias against fresh content, which meant that searching on anything suddenly current was often a fruitless affair. You won't be at that top spot permanently, so don't fret if you think it's undeserved.
posted by dhartung at 1:54 PM on September 21, 2002

Having looked at the post in more detail I'm afraid it does seem, however worthy and understandable, to fall squarely into the self-link category. Perhaps if you'd included one or two links related to your final question it would have been acceptable. As it is, I fear it does look like blowing your own trumpet... It's a pity, because it's good work you're doing. But self-links do defeat the purpose of MetaFilter. Sincere congratulations, anyway!
posted by MiguelCardoso at 1:56 PM on September 21, 2002

'though self-linking to the MetaFilter front page will ensure you a place in Google's top spot for quite a while. You're not being naughty and hiding your true intentions from us, are you?
posted by evanizer at 1:59 PM on September 21, 2002

It could have been a good post to MetaTalk.
posted by Apoch at 1:59 PM on September 21, 2002

Do you think google search programs will (and should) change because of this strange bias for Weblogs?

I don't understand your point. Something new appeared on the web, a few sites linked to it, and a Google search on a particular name brings a blog site up first. OK, maybe the Nature site should get higher ranking, but since the pages are fairly new, a full series of links and references has yet to emerge.

Google bases its ratings on content as well as who links to a site. I suspect that, over time, other pages will get a higher ranking for "Olaf Blanke" than the blog site.

Where else do you see a bias towards blogs?
posted by Ayn Marx at 2:04 PM on September 21, 2002

Figuring that sometimes the commentary can be as insightful as the story itself and that most blogs will link to the original story, i see no problem with running into a blog first and then finding the primary source. Generally though, i use google when i'm searching for something i already know exists, and therefore finding a blog which naturally has more links and commentary on the subject i'm looking for seems more helpful then only the original source.

(and has anyone thought to add "blogs" to the spellcheck list)
posted by NGnerd at 2:31 PM on September 21, 2002

It could have been a good post to MetaTalk.

There was a similarly themed thread there some time ago about the prominence of weblogs in Google results. Some interesting tidbits in there.
posted by MUD at 2:43 PM on September 21, 2002

Funny, I'd noticed such a bias *against* blogs in my Googling a few months ago that I started including "blog" or "weblog" in searches to make those results turn up at the top.

Apoch, Matt removed the "general weblog-related" category from Metatalk back in June to move those posts over to Blogroots.
posted by mediareport at 2:47 PM on September 21, 2002

This may be the most twitty thread I have ever read.
posted by inksyndicate at 3:08 PM on September 21, 2002

Metatalk.
posted by owillis at 3:11 PM on September 21, 2002

First of all, I did mean to post this on MetaTalk, but somehow I kept going back and forth correcting the links of the articles and the google search. Then the post finally ended up on MetaFilter.
I have no idea how I managed to do that, and I sincerely apologize now.

As for increasing our standing on google with this one: How do you go higher than Number One (even if only for a day) for a first author of a highly publicized Nature paper? - not with a MetaFilter link post, please believe me.

Yes, placing it in keywords, placing it on the Permanent Links list would help keep it there longer, but that's not the issue here right now.

Even if only for a day, imagine, that we could now criticize a Nature paper, and get the word out fast - not that we wanted to criticize this particular paper.

The other sites I mentioned also had fresh content. That is why I even added the days: Wednesday and Thursday.

Thanks for fixing the link in the remarks. How do I send it to MetaTalk now? - I lost the power over the post after it went to MetaFilter! I think only Matthowie can do it at this point.
posted by neu at 3:55 PM on September 21, 2002

evanizer: a commentary to this Nature Magazine article was already posted here but it got lost in some joke which not too many members could understand.
posted by neu at 4:23 PM on September 21, 2002