So here's a question for the group mind...a weird question that my
agent asked me, when he noticed it, and I didn't have an answer, so I
figured somebody here might.

If you do a google search -- web or blog -- on my name, and sort date
to the most recent, you hit a lot of B5 stuff, some comics stuff, and
the like. You see very little on Changeling.

But if you do a search for Changeling for the same period, and sort
date, even though my name is all through those entries, almost none of
them showed up on the other Google search, even though Changeling and
my name were in the same areas and thus should have been sorted
equally.

It's almost as if Google is weighted to search in some areas, and
disregard others. Kind of a weird internet typecasting.

Whuzzup wit dat?

jms

On Sep 28, 11:02=A0pm, Matt Ion <soundy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> jmsa...@aol.com wrote:
> > So here's a question for the group mind...a weird question that my
> > agent asked me, when he noticed it, and I didn't have an answer, so I
> > figured somebody here might.
>
> > If you do a google search -- web or blog -- on my name, and sort date
> > to the most recent, you hit a lot of B5 stuff, some comics stuff, and
> > the like. =A0You see very little on Changeling.
>
> > But if you do a search for Changeling for the same period, and sort
> > date, even though my name is all through those entries, almost none of
> > them showed up on the other Google search, even though Changeling and
> > my name were in the same areas and thus should have been sorted
> > equally.
>
> > It's almost as if Google is weighted to search in some areas, and
> > disregard others. =A0Kind of a weird internet typecasting.
>
> > Whuzzup wit dat?
>
> Search engines generally rank on what searches lead to a certain result,
> rather than simply how often a given word or phrase appears. =A0If ten
> people google your name, and eight click on a B5 result, and two on a
> Changeling result, the B5 results will rank higher on subsequent
> searches... the next time someone searches, they're likely to click on
> the results they see first... and thus keep the B5 hits higher as the
> Changeling hits fall down the list.
>
> Since there were lots and lots of "JMS" searches that led to B5 long
> before Changeling came around, B5 already had a significant head start.
> =A0 People would need to search your name, then bypass the B5, the
> Ghostbusters, the Murder, and everything else that comes up first, and
> click the Changeling links, in order to move it up the ranks.
>
> I don't think (just guessing, really, though a somewhat educated guess)
> that most search engines distinguish names from any other part of speech
> in a body of text. =A0The occurrence of the word "the" is no more likely
> to push a given search up the rankings than the occurrence of the word
> "Joe" or "Straczynski" or "Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious".
>
> The most important factor for any search is how useful the searchers
> find it... thus the ones that are clicked more, get ranked higher, plain
> and simple.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

It ain't the ranking...I mean it doesn't show up at all.

Try it. Go to blog search. Type in the name. Go for a search on
just entries in the last 24 hours, since that'll keep the number
small, sorted by date. You get lots of B5 hits, but almost no
Changeling hits.

Then try Changeling for the same 24 hour period. The Changeling hits
will very often have my name, but they never even showed UP on the
prior search. It ain't a ranking question, they simply aren't there.

Puzzling, that.

jms

Just had someone who's worked with Google explain it to me. It has to
do with the search algorithms that are used to help prevent spamming,
so that someone who enters "britney spears" won't get immediate hits
to monopolize or jump to the top of the list. The algorithm changes
over time so that what doesn't show up now will show up later.

It always seems to come down to math....

jms

On Sep 29, 2:39=A0pm, Amy Guskin <aisl...@fjordstone.com> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 13:37:10 -0400, thus spake John W. Kennedy (in art=
icle
>
> <36f24302-d163-4d30-b6b3-5cf02d237...@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>):
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 29, 1:43=A0am, "jmsa...@aol.com" <jmsa...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> So here's a question for the group mind...a weird question that my
> >> agent asked me, when he noticed it, and I didn't have an answer, so I
> >> figured somebody here might.
>
> >> If you do a google search -- web or blog -- on my name, and sort date
> >> to the most recent, you hit a lot of B5 stuff, some comics stuff, and
> >> the like. =A0You see very little on Changeling.
>
> >> But if you do a search for Changeling for the same period, and sort
> >> date, even though my name is all through those entries, almost none of
> >> them showed up on the other Google search, even though Changeling and
> >> my name were in the same areas and thus should have been sorted
> >> equally.
>
> >> It's almost as if Google is weighted to search in some areas, and
> >> disregard others. =A0Kind of a weird internet typecasting.
>
> >> Whuzzup wit dat?
>
> > The key (it's no big secret) is that search engines assume that, if
> > someone is searching for "J. Michael Straczynski", they want to learn
> > about J. Michael Straczynski, not something else. Things that
> > reference B5, the comics, and so on, are often about you, and a lot of
> > them cross-reference each other. Things about "Changeling" generally
> > mention you only in passing, and relatively few other web pages that
> > reference you have links to them, which makes any modern search engine
> > assume (with considerable truth) that people who are interested in you
> > aren't much impressed with those pages, and that someone searching for
> > you won't be much impressed by them either.
>
> > You want to see more "Changeling" pages turn up on searches for you?
> > Encourage more of them to have interesting content about you. How do
> > you do that? Heck, I've already told you what to do on this very
> > thread. Get yourself on Leno and Letterman. Good for "Changeling",
> > good for you, good for the WGA. The film's got major industry buzz,
> > and the other major players aren't available, so get out there and
> > carpe that old diem (or rather noctem in this case) to tell the people
> > that you're the Somebody who Wrote That. While you're at it, do
> > interviews with bridge media -- old media with major Internet
> > presence, like the NY Times, and (when it's time) the BBC.
>
> > I /know/ you can do it, because I've /seen/ you do it. No matter how
> > uninteresting you may think you are, the fact is that you're as much
> > fun to watch in personal appearances as the late Isaac Asimov was.
> > (And your agent can damn well quote me on that.) <<
>
> I think JMS is undervaluing himself in this regard, as well. =A0Being an =
old
> hand at cons, he's more equipped than many Hollywood writers to take
> unexpected questions and instantly provide entertaining and informative
> answers to them. =A0No risk of dead air when interviewing JMS, that's for=
sure.
>
> Amy
> --
> "In my line of work you gotta keep repeating things over and over and ove=
r
> again for the truth to sink in, to kinda catapult the propaganda." - Geor=
ge
> W. Bush, May 24, 2005- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Along these lines...there will be a Q&A after the Sunday screening of
Changeling at NYFF, and I'll be there to answer questions, as well as
attending the premiere the night before.

jms