Unknown COVID vaccine side effects may appear after millions immunized—but benefits outweigh risks, asserts News Week. (More, by KASHMIRA GANDER
“Unknown COVID Vaccine Side Effects May Appear After Millions Immunized—But Benefits Outweigh Risks.” Really? That assertion is pure speculation. The side effects are unknown. It is unknown whether they will or will not appear. Furthermore, it is unknown how severe or prevalent the side effects will be, if they do appear. Therefore, no one cannot accurately estimate what the risks are and calculate whether the benefits of the vaccines will outweigh the risks they may pose. Still, educated guesses can and are being made. Nevertheless,
Should you ask a barber whether you need a haircut?
Vaccines typically require years of research and testing before reaching the clinic, but in 2020, scientists embarked on a race to produce safe and effective coronavirus vaccines in record time. Researchers are currently testing 64 vaccines in clinical trials on humans, and 19 have reached the final stages of testing. At least 85 preclinical vaccines are under active investigation in animals. (More)
Was enough testing done? It appears that, in the rush, there was not enough time to do animal tests. Obviously, a lot of information about COVID-19 vaccines is yet to be discovered, and 85+ vaccines provide a very large selection to choose from. Let’s hope that the information relating to the vaccines that are being rushed to market after a few months of testing is sufficient to ensure that those vaccines will truly provide more benefits than risks.
In the meantime, I will stay at home as much as possible, try to stay out of senior care centres, avoid becoming a resident in any of them, hope for the best, prepare myself to accept the worst, and hope to live long enough to see how it all will turn out.
By the way, here is what prime minister Trudeau had said during his address from outside his home in Ottawa, on the ongoing COVID-19 (coronavirus disease) pandemic, with respect to the progress of vaccinations in Canada. (apparently Dec 18, 2020):
Justin Trudeau, making announcement about vaccine “gold standard”
“….Canada has the most, most vaccines secured per capita, and the most diverse portfolio of vaccine options in the world….Indeed, we have secured, as you pointed out [the reporter had *not* pointed that out at all –Walter], one of the best ranges of vac vac vaccine vaccine portfolios of any country in the world, and we have secured more potential doses of of vaccines per Canadian than anywhere else….with a gold-standard for Canadians that is the envy of the world….” (see video) Yeah, right.
Reality, as of Jan. 31, 2021, falls short of that claim. Canada ranks 24th (25th, as of 2021 02 02) out of about 50 countries for which Our World in Data tracks vaccination data (click on bar chart, to gain access to the latest version; interactive at the source).:
Usually, Canadian Federal Gross-Debt History focuses on only the accumulated budget deficit. The expression extremely rarely focuses on the remaining 80 percent of government deficits, that is, on unfunded or unsecured liabilities. Take this example:
FRASER RESEARCH BULLETIN; April 2019
Examining Federal Debt in Canada by Prime Ministers Since Confederation, 2019
Figure 1: Federal Gross Debt, 1870-2019 (in 2019 $)
Note: Few people ever (and neither do Fuss and Palacios) address governments’ unfunded liabilities (at least not in the indicated report).
Commonly, Gross Debt is the sum of the accumulated budget deficit. That is allocated or borrowed money to pay for government expenditures. It can be identified portions of tax revenues or loans for which interest must be paid by current and future tax payers. That covers roughly 20% of government liabilities.
Unfunded Liabilities are the 80% portion of the accumulated government deficits not mentioned in the budgets. They are accumulated government liabilities for which no securities exist. No money has yet been borrowed to pay them back. They are liabilities that have not yet but will inexorably come due. They are, for example, future demands for payouts from government pension plans, medicare, social security, old age security and employment insurance, etc.
Unfunded Liabilities, a massive Ponzi Scheme
Unfunded Liabilities are moneys that will largely come due and and must be paid during the lives of our children, grandchildren and subsequent generations. Canadian governments’ unfunded liabilities are roughly equal to four times the current accumulated federal budget deficit. That is, 4 x $1.2 trillion or about $5 trillion, over and above the official accumulated federal budget deficit.
That makes the Canadian Unfunded Liabilities a massive Ponzi scheme. It is an elephant in the living room that no one wants to see. Federal and provincial politicians and bureaucrats, economist and journalists studiously avoid mentioning it. Perhaps many politicians and pundits may even be totally ignorant of unfunded liabilities.
Omitting Unfunded Liabilities from the Prospectus of a Corporation is a Criminal Offence
Directors of public corporations who fail to disclose the unfunded liabilities of the corporate entities in their charge are guilty of a serious criminal offence. It is a criminal offence for which – if discovered and prosecuted – they serve substantial prison terms.
For anyone not aware of the issue of unfunded liabilities, this undated Fraser Institute article explains:
A $243,000 bill courtesy of Canada’s governments
By Milagros Palacios and Hugh MacIntyre; Fraser Institute
(That is, $243,000 for every Canadian man, woman and child. — Walter)
“Imagine receiving a credit card bill that totaled $243,476. This would no doubt be a shock for most Canadians. But if you add up all the liabilities of every Canadian government–federal, provincial, and local–that is in fact how much each taxpayer would owe of the $4.1 trillion total in direct debt and unfunded liabilities.
This admittedly is a very large number and much bigger than what is usually talked about by both politicians and pundits alike. So let’s deconstruct it to gain a better understanding….” (Full text of article)
UN world population projections are widely known. Two other sources of world population projections deserve to be known as well. They are the Wittgenstein Centre and IIASA. The credibility of any of those sources is in the eye of the beholder. Time will tell whose projections realistically predict what the future brings.
Contrary to the UN projections, the IIASA medium (most likely) scenario indicates that world population will increase to 9.2 billion by 2050, peak at 9.4 billion around 2070 and start a slow decline to 9.0 billion by the end of the century.
Progress with Reducing Extreme Poverty in the World
The number of people living in extreme poverty fell from close to 2 billion in 1990 to 0.7 billion in 2015 (see here). On no day in this 25 year period was the headline of any newspaper in the world “The number of people in extreme poverty fell by 137,000 since yesterday”. This is despite the fact that – on average – this would have been an accurate headline every single day during these 25 years.1 Because the media – as well as schools and universities – largely neglect reporting slow but transformative news the large public is extremely poorly educated about these developments. Even the decline of global extreme poverty – by any standard one of the most important developments in our lifetime – is only known by a small fraction of the population of the UK (10%), South Africa (14%), Norway (17%), Sweden (23%), and the US (5%).2
It is at least interesting that, as so many others, Our World in Data, too, concerns itself with saving the world from over-population, while promoting health for all, more education, reducing mortality rates, increasing life expectancy, and – importantly – hopes to reduce child mortality:
Demographic progress comes at a heavy price. It requires the killing of about 50 million children due to be born, annually, worldwide. The website of Our World In Data does not mention that, let alone stress it. The promotion of population control through coercive and at the very least persuasive and effective abortion policies is a major goal of the UN as well as of one of the major funders of Our World In Data, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
“If we have gotten to the point in our desperate culture in which we feel obligated to kill children, regardless of why or of what color, then we do not deserve to survive and probably won’t.”
— William Faulkner
How Many Abortions Took Place Last Year?
Is there an elephant in the living room?
Obviously, the most expedient way in which to deal with the by far largest single cause of deaths in the world, is not to mention 50 million abortions, annually, worldwide. Everything will then be fine, and we can deal with the causes of deaths that really matter.
The number of 50 million abortions, annually, worldwide, is the result of a quick, back-of-of-the-envelope calculation. Here is a more precise estimate of the annual number of abortions, worldwide:
Abortion was the number one cause of death worldwide in 2018, with more than 41 million children killed before birth, Worldometers reports.
As of December 31, 2018, there have been some 41.9 million abortions performed in the course of the year, Worldometers revealed. By contrast, 8.2 million people died from cancer in 2018, 5 million from smoking, and 1.7 million died of HIV/AIDS.
Worldometers — voted one of the best free reference websites by the American Library Association (ALA) — keeps a running tally through the year of major world statistics, including population, births, deaths, automobiles produced, books published, and CO2 emissions.
It also records the total number of abortions in the world, based on the latest statistics on abortions published by the World Health Organization (WHO)….
(more: How Many 2018 Worldwide Abortions Occurred? — Truth News Network)
Politically-correct fence-sitting and which side to come down on
Then again, preferences vary. Some may not wish to refer to an objective source of information on the annual number of abortions, a subject of literally vital importance. They may rather go to a source such as Snopes, which will inform them that,
“…the most recent figure on abortions from WHO we could locate dated from 2014 and was slightly higher than Worldometers’ tally. WHO estimated that between 2010 and 2014, an average of 56 million induced abortions occurred worldwide each year….
We can infer from WHO statistics that the difference between the number of abortions worldwide versus the number of deaths from heart disease and stroke worldwide is not a new dynamic, although viral stories proclaiming that abortions “now” outnumber deaths from those other causes imply that fact is a recent development.
Stating that abortion is the “leading cause of death” worldwide (as opposed to a medical procedure) is a problematic pronouncement, because that stance takes a political position, one which is at odds with the scientific/medical world. The medical community does not confer personhood upon fetuses that are not viable outside the womb, so counting abortion as a “cause of death” does not align with the practices of health organizations such as WHO and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC),….(more)
The Snopes article presents a good number of rhetorical devices which illustrate that abortions involve “fetuses”, not human lives, and that many authorities consider them to be acceptable. To the credit of Snopes, its article avoids declaring the assumption that abortions are a cause of deaths as being false.
Snopes therefore permits anyone to come down on the side of the fence they prefer in the debate on whether abortions are deadly or not. Snopes essentially argues that abortion is a therapeutic medical procedure, designed to cure the fatal condition of living, viable “fetuses,” by killing them. It is a procedure that causes the deaths of babies that would otherwise be born alive and grow with virtual certainty from lovable, cuddly human bundles of joy into fully functioning, productive adults capable of experiencing the full range of things humanity offers. That leads to this practical conclusion:
“I’ve noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born.”
Freedom and equality vs rules and power — all are essential for symbiotic coexistence in a successful, thriving society.
Many clamor for “freedom and equality” and forget that the price for that is “duties and obligations.” Fairness is a bit more difficult to achieve.
There is little fairness in equality of outcomes. The latter is the enemy of and defeats the former. The concepts of fairness and equality of outcomes are incompatible. Still, a successful, thriving society uses the right tools to establish a good balance in the apparent conflict between freedom and equality vs rules and power, by allowing and promoting them to exist in a constructive symbiosis.
“The young men who are not embraced by the village will burn it down to feel its warmth” – African proverb,
(h/t JT Coriolis)
That proverb appeals to many. Most appear to feel that a village that fails to embrace its young men must suffer the consequences. Fewer (if any) feel that children must be raised to be likeable, so that a village will embrace them when they become young men and women, as readily as when they were helpless children.
Duties, Obligations and Civility, to Balance Freedom and Prevent Chaos
Fewer yet feel that young men and women need to curb their wants somewhat, so that they fulfill their duties and obligations to serve their village sufficiently.
It appears that no one or hardly anyone considers that, even when the village tried to raise its children right, to the best of its ability, there were still some young men and women who did not wish to be embraced but rather go out of their way to burn the village down.
Civility is the tool chest holding the tools with which to construct successful civilizations. Those are societies in which everyone can enjoy the freedom of choice to reach the heights he can achieve. Such societies have rules designed to protect that freedom, without enforcing it.
Balancing Freedom and Force
No society can function well without rules. A society in which rules rank supreme, no one is free. It is a totalitarian regime. On the other hand, a society in which everyone is free but lives without or in spite of any rules will be utterly chaotic.
Freedom and Equality
A successful solution to that dilemma will have the best possible combination of freedom and equality vs rules and power. There will never be a clear dividing line between the two. There will always be gaps in some as well as some overlap in other areas of the boundaries between freedom and equality vs rules and power. Moreover, those gaps and overlaps will change and shift with time and changing circumstances, as will – if left alone – the balance between freedom and power. Any system, if left alone, will sooner or later collapse; catastrophically or gradually run down to its demise.
“A society that puts equality—in the sense of equality of outcome—ahead of freedom will end up with neither equality nor freedom. The use of force to achieve equality will destroy freedom, and the force, introduced for good purposes, will end up in the hands of people who use it to promote their own interests.”
—Milton and Rose Friedman, in Free to Choose: A Personal Statement
A successful society adapts to maintain the best possible balance between freedom and equality vs rules and power. It does so with the least possible amount of conflict but also the greatest possible extent of satisfaction. Still, one thing is certain.
Inevitable Exceptions to Balance of Freedom and Force
There can never be a society that makes everyone equally happy or equally miserable. There will always be some people who, for whatever reasons, are eager to burn down the village to feel its warmth. Let’s hope that enough rules and the power to enforce them will always be in place to keep the ‘arsonists’ in check.
Freedom and Equality! one hears proclaimed,
The peaceful citizen is driven to arms,
The streets are filling, the halls,
The vigilante-bands are moving,
Then women change into hyenas
And make a plaything out of terror,
Though it twitches still, with panthers teeth,
They tear apart the enemy’s heart.
Nothing is holy any longer, loosened
Are all ties of righteousness,
The good gives room to bad,
And all vices freely rule.
Dangerous it is to wake the lion,
Ruinous is the tiger’s tooth,
But the most terrible of all the terrors,
That is the mensch 1 when crazed.
Woe to those, who lend to the eternally-blind
Enlightenment’s heavenly torch!
It does not shine for him, it only can ignite
And puts to ashes towns and lands.
— Quoted and translated from Song of the Bell By Friedrich von Schiller
(The excerpt is part of his description of the impressions the French Revolution left on him.)
___________ Note 1: The definition of mensch given in Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, 10th edition: “[Yiddish, mentsh human being, fr. MHG mensch, fr. OHG menisco; akin to OE man human being, man] (1953) : a person of integrity and honor.”
Click-Through Rate (CTR) vs Page Views per Visit – The first is high on Google’s priority list, the second apparently not so much, leading to Google ignoring 94 percent of the traffic to dads&things, or does it? Search Engine Optimization (SEO) and Google Search Console (GSC) help with sorting some of that out.
Click-through rate (CTR) is the ratio of users who click on a specific link to the number of total users who view a page, email, or advertisement. It is commonly used to measure the success of an online advertising campaign for a particular website as well as the effectiveness of email campaigns.
The Wikipedia article discusses the CTR in the context of advertising. An individual click-through is when someone clicks on the anchor text of a link at an originating location of a link to the target location, visits the web page that the link leads to, and then clicks on another link at the target page. Obviously, some (perhaps many) visitors to a given page will leave the page again without doing, or without going to, anything else that the target page leads to. If the page does not interest the visitor, he will not do what he should and leave the web page (thereby leave the web site, and that is not a click-through).
What does the CTR measure?
The CTR can pertain to a specific advertising campaign, or a key word or phrase, in relation to a target page, a sub domain on a website, or all web pages at a given website. Arguably, the number of pages viewed per visit on a website divided by the number of visits to the website for a given interval of time should essentially be the same as the CTR for the website for the selected interval. If it is not, it could be possible that what CTR measures is incorrect or at best incomplete.
CTRs are expressed in percent. The number of pages viewed per visit are expressed in terms of numbers, including decimal fractions.
CTRs differ much from the number of page views per visit
Curiously, CTRs for websites differ enormously from the number of pages viewed per visit on websites. They are related and should have at least some correlation but do not. That is apparently because the number of page views indicated by analytical tools, such as Google Analytics or blog software, take into account only traffic directed by search engines that had visitors whom clicked on a given page. On the other hand, the volume of all traffic to a website is substantially larger than just the portion that comprises search-engine-directed traffic. Look, for instance, at the differences over time for dads&things, between total monthly page views and page views counted by analytical tools:
Monthly Page Views – Search-engine directed traffic vs all traffic
Focusing on daily page views
This is what happened during the last two months of that interval:
All of the trend lines for page views in that graph show values for the very same stream of traffic to dads&things. Of the analytical tools indicated, only GSC (Google Search Console – I activated that on 2019 04 05) provides information on CTRs. GSC shows a CTR of 2.3% for the interval, versus the total number of visits to the site having a CTR of 64.9%.
Click-through rate, 2019-04-06-to-04-15
There is little doubt that the visitors who came to dads&things through direct links, through any means other than being directed through search engines, were far more interested in the information at the blog than those who came by means of search engines. Is Google’s analysis of traffic that goes to a website objective? How can it be? In the case of dads&things, it ignores 94 percent or more of the traffic that goes to the website. That leaves the issue of web rank.
Is web rank a good measure of web site popularity?
The preceding graph shows a trend line for web rank (data produced by Alexa.com). Those figures relate to the whole domain of Fathers for Life, of which dads&things is a subdomain. Therefore, that trend line is not quite accurate (no need to go into the details for that, here). Still, it is more accurate than the page ranks or web rank assigned by Google to dads&things. Earlier this year, Google down-ranked the web rank for dads&things from about 4 down to 0 (zero), over night, in spite of dads&things having experienced a 93% annual rate of growth in volume of traffic during the last two years.
Search Engine Optimization (SEO) is a very complex issue. It grew into a multi-billion dollar industry during the past decade or so. I will not attempt to become an expert at SEO and am happy with what little I know and do about it.
Others are far better at it than I could hope to become during the few years that may remain of my life. You may wish to learn about the pros and cons of the latest Google search-and-ranking algorithms. Their exact impacts on the rank of anyone’s website are important and noticeable. Have a look at what an SEO expert, one of the best, wrote about that, but it is long:
There is no doubt in my mind that neither the Google web rank nor the Alexa.com web rank bear much relationship to either reach or popularity of dads&things. Nevertheless, after being systematically and intensively involved with SEO for dads&things for almost two years, I am absolutely certain that SEO is a good thing. It has done a lot to vastly improve the quality and attractiveness of the blog.
Are CTRs important when ad-revenues are not?
Why should I care about how important the results are that I experienced on account of doing a lot of hard, time-consuming work in relation to ad-revenues? I have no financial interests relating to that. Much information is not, hardly or even only shoddily covered by the main-stream media and social researchers. Many people like to learn more than what the MSM permits them to see, to learn about the objective truth. No one can be free of bias. Is my bias or that of any other conservative writer worse or greater than that of the media? The readers of what I write about will gain at worst an alternative view point. In matters of life and death, it is always worthwhile to get a second opinion. That is my motivation for doing SEO.
If I spend time to offer my opinions to someone, I may as well make sure that I make good use of the time and effort doing it. SEO makes it possible to reach more people, four times as many people than I managed to reach two years ago.
Google Search Console makes SEO more constructive and effective
There is one more thing about SEO and using the tools available that help making a good job of it. I wish I had paid more attention to making use of Google Search Console. I am using it now, found a few problems that I had not known about and fixed them. More need to be fixed. Some will take a bit of time, but the fixing is largely for the good, not just for Google and any other search engine provider, but for improving the quality and attractiveness of dads&things.
The conclusion that Marcus Tandler presents in his article is correct:
“Most importantly, don’t worry about visibility. The more efficient your site is, the better.”
That means that web rank is somewhat overrated. Still, I am not at all convinced that the high CTR on non-search-engine-directed traffic should be ignored. Google Search Console results and the results by many other analysis tools ignore it. I had a suspicion that there had to be a good reason for the traffic to dads&things having increased so enormously, especially during the past year. GSC results do not state anything about that. The odds are 64.9 against 2.3 in favour of GSC being incorrect with ignoring 94 percent of the traffic going to dads&things.
The next installment for this article series will be made in about June. I will then recount the impressions I gained after having used GSC for a while.
Addendum 2019 04 22: Perhaps the next installment will attempt to come to terms with the illusion that the much-touted web ranks for individual web sites have any realistic meaning with respect to the relative popularity of web sites. Consider:
There is a URL that permits comparisons between websites, in terms of a number of parameters. That is Easy Counter (essentially based on what alexa.com makes available).
Here is a comparison of website stats based on what is available through Easy Counter (essentially based on what alexa.com makes available) and on what is available to me through the host server for fathersforlife.org and dads&things:
Web-rank comparison, Easy Counter vs Reality
I don’t want to beat this to death, but what is publicly available for such comparisons is a farce and cannot be relied upon.
Adele Horin (†2015) was a feminist who wrote about female innocence. The Australian Advocate should have been so hard on Adele Horin. The editors of the Sydney Morning Herald she wrote for obviously felt that she was doing a good job, or else she could not have been a media award winner. Adele Horin was just trying to make a living and delivered in her articles nothing more than what her editors expected of her.
“Adele Horin, writer for the Sydney Morning Herald, is no stranger to the trappings of wish-fulfilment journalism. For many journalists, you see what you need to see, and in the case of Adele Horin, men are inherently evil, as one can see from the litany of her work.
Her recent article, “Revenge and Despair place Children at Risk“, is another piece of fanciful writing from a Horin, who can always be relied upon to creatively re-interpret the facts to absolve females of the same crimes that men are vilified for….« More
Truth in reporting, in the media and in the courts
Credible and trustworthy social researchers will not base their research on court files, cherry-picked files, to boot. They will use randomly selected data from the general population to draw their conclusions. That is, because court decisions reflect the sum of the bias inherent in society, the media and jurisprudence. They often reflect at least a somewhat rose-tinted view of reality as we wish it to be.
Neither in the media nor in the courts is one likely to see the truth, all of the truth and nothing but the truth about female innocence. They can and will do what they do, because there are no consequences if they err or deliberately distort. It is extremely rare and virtually never happens that anyone will hold them accountable. For them, there is no such thing as “bad news.”
When it bleeds, it leads, and “bad news” become much juicier when they pertain to crimes that involve villains, all the more so when a woman doing a crime can be shown to be innocent, because a man, the Devil or – if all else fails – her inner demons made her do what she did. However unlikely it may be that female innocence was what drove her to do a crime, the myth of female innocence must be maintained at any cost.
Rising sea levels could wipe entire nations off face of Earth — Fake news are easy to come by, even from ‘reputable’ news agencies, but give a little. Predictions are hard, especially about the future.
If you have not done any worrying, today, you may wish to read the AP article identified by the following link and be off to a good start. Thirty years went by since the publishing of the article, June 29, 1989. If you never yet worried much about anything mentioned in the article, isn’t it high time that you begin to worry?
By PETER JAMES SPIELMANN, June 29, 1989
UNITED NATIONS (AP) _ A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000…. (Full Article)
“[E]ntire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels…” It is odd, that a UN official would say that. New countries come into existence all the time. No one knows that better than the officials at the UN.
The ocean blue submerged how many nations?
There were 46 nations on Earth at the onset of the first world war. Today, the CIA World Factbook identifies 228 nations and territories. The CIA’s list ranks them by their GDP per capita figures (in terms of GDP purchasing power parity). From that list, it becomes immediately apparent that poverty is real, and that it is a real world problem that is a far greater threat than the largely imaginary hobgoblin of rising sea levels or climate change.
Of those 228 nations and territories, 193 are UN member nations, according to the UN. The following graph shows how the number of UN member-nations grew over time.
No Shortage of Nations Contrary to popular fears, by the year 2000, rising sea levels had not wiped a single nation off the face of the Earth. Nor did that fate befall any nations in the years since.
Although the fears of rising sea levels were fed throughout all of the time since 1989 and before, sea level rise wiped not a single nation or country off the face of the Earth, not even close to it. Clearly, we have nothing to fear but fear itself. Still, the fear of climate change and rising sea levels serves as an attention-getter, a red herring. The fear of climate change serves as a tool to draw attention away from what really matters: Poverty. The people know that.
The people know better
The UN very own survey, My World, which canvassed close to ten-million people throughout the world, indicates that fears of climate change, rank dead-last (by a substantial margin) on the list of people’s concerns.
UN poll, My World (2015) — Concerns over climate change dead-last on the list of things that concern the World’s people
Google Timelapse is a reasonably good tool by which to observe whether any nation on Earth became inundated, as predicted, by the ocean blue. You should take a look. Perhaps you can find the smoking gun. Go to Google Timelapse and enter the name of the poster child of sinking nations, Maldives, into the location field in the upper-left corner of the tool. Hit <Enter>, and Google Timelapse will take you there.
There’s no evidence of a sinking nation in that corner of the world, not even if you expand the time interval past the ominous year 2000. No! None of islands in the Maldives are sinking or being submerged by rising ocean levels. They all stubbornly refuse to become submerged.
Sea level rise happens at the rate of less than 2 mm a year. Obviously, some of the doomsayers appear to feel, that is too fast for anyone to outrun. Nevertheless, the resolution of Google Timelapse is perhaps not good enough to observe the rate at which islands doomed to sink becoming submerged beneath the rising sea.
Rising sea levels sink no nations
Reputable authorities and reputable individuals working for and even independently studied the issues with far greater attention to detail than Google Timelapse can. They found no sinking islands anywhere in the Pacific Ocean or anywhere in the world, let alone any nations that were wiped off the face of the Earth. To the contrary, collectively, the many islands surveyed with great precision grew in area during the interval examined, not all but vastly most of them. Take a look:
Still, the alarmist hysteria over rising sea levels persists. We all must atone, and all of us normal mortals must comply by buying indulgences in the form of carbon taxes. Whether any souls were ever saved through indulgences is a matter not yet resolved, although highly unlikely, but that issue went into the dustbin of history — so will the indulgences in the form of carbon taxes, surely. The question is only whether that will happen because we ran out of money, out of the willingness to be successfully conned, or perhaps both.
After all, the UN survey of what concerns people most indicated that people not only deem climate change least worthy of concern, but that they value a good education far above everything else. Educated people cannot so easily be conned into confusing the importance of mitigating climate change with the importance of almost everything else.
Let’s educate people, to enable them to solve all the problems that need to be solved. It is nonsense to force people into squandering their abilities and resources on anything that does not require fixing, but forcing them to do that is a form of totalitarianism.
Commenting at the related Facebook discussion thread:Follow this link and leave a comment.
Why suddenly outrage over touching by Sen. Biden? No one should be eager to participate in the campaign of outrage, disdain, scorn and outright deprecation against touching by Sen. Joe Biden. The largely hysterical reactions against him in the aftermath of the #MeToo movement address nothing criminal, as far as anyone has determined, so far. It does not seem likely that anything worse than that will surface.
The curious aspect of the media’s overreaction is that, if Sen. Joe Biden did anything that warrants the media feeding frenzy now, what is it that triggered it? Is there anything at all in what accusers object to now any different or worse than what Sen. Joe Biden did in the past? It is not as if his unusual behavior with women and young girls was discovered just recently. There is nothing new about it. It took place in full public view, for years, on literally countless occasions, got noticed all along and is on record. Many people expressed their objections throughout all of those years it was happening.
Sen. Biden explains his need for touching the females of the species
The question is, what warrants a sudden hysterical overreaction in the form of a media feeding frenzy? Sen. Joe Biden apologized for it, or, rather, he explained it. He loves to come close to women and young girls because he has an abundance of and a never-ending love for them. What could possibly be wrong with that?
Too close for comfort — Sen, Biden explains
Is it not time to let it go, to forgive and forget?
A far more important issue is what Sen. Joe Biden did for his country or, more to the point, for the women of his country. That must be kept in view.
Sen. Joe Biden deserves credit for the things he achieved. Much of his career was dedicated to catering to the feminist agenda for the planned destruction of the family. We must not lose sight of the fact that American women have a grave duty to be grateful to him for that.
Sen. Joe Biden was instrumental in fashioning the American social and legal context of domestic relations according to the feminist scheme for liberating women from oppression and suffering. His hard work saved millions of women from the ravages of toxic masculinity. In doing so, he put millions of men into their place, preferably outside of the families that the feminists kept insisting all along were nothing but men’s instruments for oppressing women.
Earlier, Sen. Joe Biden designed and pushed through the blessing of the Violence against Women Act (VAWA), even made it possible not to let it die but to intensify its benefits to women. How can the largely feminist-dominated media be so ungrateful? How can they possibly forget how much VAWA contributed to the quality of everyone’s standard of living by properly identifying and punishing severely all men who relished the suffering women experienced from the pain of massive, widespread brutality that men and their toxic masculinity heaped upon literally hundreds of millions of American women over time?
Do the media not have any compassion for the man who arguably did more than anyone in American history to liberate American women from their oppression, by making the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 reality?
It is truly absurd to forget all of the good things Sen. Biden did for women during a political career dedicated to serving women and thereby gathering their votes for his party. It is outright ungrateful to complain now about and heap scorn upon Sen. Biden for deriving little pleasures from being in close touch with women and young girls whom he all along so exceedingly adored.
Are there no bounds for the hatred that feminists have for men who love women? Will love itself be outlawed next?
Update 2019 04 09
Objections to Sen. Biden’s disturbing behaviour divert attention from the great harm he caused to social fabric of his country
There is arguably no other US politician who caused greater harm to his country’s families, the institution of the family and the social fabric of his country’s people than did Sen. Biden, through the unwavering support he gave to the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (VAWA), from its initial design and introduction, to its first approval in 1994 and all of its subsequent re-authorizations.
VAWA was reauthorized by bipartisan majorities in Congress in 2000 and again in December 2005. The Act’s 2012 renewal was opposed by conservative Republicans, who objected to extending the Act’s protections to same-sex couples and to provisions allowing battered undocumented immigrants to claim temporary visas, but it was reauthorized in 2013, after a long legislative battle. As a result of the United States federal government shutdown of 2018–2019, the Violence Against Women Act expired on December 21, 2018. It was temporarily reinstated via a short-term spending bill on January 25, 2019, but expired again on February 15, 2019. (Wikipedia; Preamble, 3rd par.)
In an April 5, 2019 Facebook discussion thread, I asked why no one seems to pay very much attention to what Sen. Biden had done in connection with VAWA.
‘Touchy’ behaviour diverts attention
ERoss ER identified a crucial factor that was an important influence in Sen. Biden’s unwavering support for VAWA:
By Eric Ross, Ph.D. March 02, 2012
How did VAWA, the most unconstitutional, sexist legislation, became adopted and why? – In the January 24, 2000 issue of the U. S. News, on p. 12, a syndicated columnist John Leo wrote:
“The Violence Against Women Act slipped into law in 1994 without most members of Congress quite knowing what they were passing. We have Andrea Dworkin’s word on this. Dworkin is surely a contender for the North American title of most overwrought, man-hating feminist. She told the New Republic at the time that the only possible explanation for the bill’s popularity in the Senate was the ‘senators don’t understand the meaning of the legislation that they pass.’”
From that, one gains the impression that Andrea Dworkin and collaborators considered Sen. Biden and the U.S. politicians who helped him to get VAWA approved to be nothing more than proverbial ‘useful idiots’ supporting the cause of radical feminism (which happens to be the implementation of the agenda for the planned destruction of the institution of the family). The quote is from an article ERoss ER identified in one of his comments at the FB discussion thread:
VAWA is the Fraud of the Millennia
E Ross augmented that link with this one:
The fraud of VAWA
Peter van de Voorde contributed a comment, with a link to his exhaustive analysis of VAWA and similar, family-hostile legislation designed to help deconstruct the cultural traditions of the developed nations. I asked that he supply an introduction:
Western civilization is in the grip of a societal cancer that continues to remove millions of children from the protection of their families each year, for the benefit of those profiting from widespread community ignorance.
Knowledge is the enemy of ignorance. For concerned citizens willing, able and interested in breaking the curse society has inflicted upon itself, this book finally provides the big picture information absolutely necessary, if one is to even think of mounting a challenge to those peddling the mountain of misinformation artfully underpinning the current narrative.
Packed with devastating statistics and analyses, Children of the State, initiates the foundation for change and aids the formulation of new narratives. Sound knowledge of the big picture is essential for those calling for a halt to the dreadful government supported use of societies’ children, as an economic commodity.
Web pages, page rank, page reach, web rank, canonical tags, organic search returns and more strange expressions are becoming ever more important in the billion-dollar SEO industry, and an industry the SEO business grew into. Web page popularity, more commonly called page reach, is deemed of lesser importance and not stressed that much. For example,
What Is a Canonical Tag and How Can It Help Your SEO?
Do you know why your website ranks where it does on a search engine results page? Would you like to improve your site’s ranking?
It would be nice if Google provided a full report as to why a website ranks where it does. Unfortunately, even the most experienced SEO professionals don’t have the full answer sheet. Over time, however, Google and the other search engines provide the public with information on how they can improve their search ranking by implementing technical changes to their website. One of the biggest evolutions to come out of these releases, and still one of the most misunderstood, is the development of the canonical tag….
That article contains a concise summary of what canonical tags are and how good judgment in using them impacts web rank of web pages and websites. No doubt, canonical tags are important for achieving high web ranks. The received wisdom is that, therefore, web rank is important for the popularity of a website. That is not quite true, better, it is neither all of the truth nor the main reason why web pages and their websites become popular.
The essential web rank
Web rank is important for the ranking of web pages on SERP (Search Engine Results Pages). The SERP for a single search may comprise many pages that contain a list of many hundreds of links and their descriptions that a given search found. Web rank determines whether a web page containing the given search term will be found and where is will be placed on that list (at the top of the first page, farther down, towards the end of the pages or on none of them). That is all that web rank or page rank is being used for. It does not determine whether a web page and its related website will be popular.
Page rank and page reach serve different masters
Far too many writers who address SEO (Search Engine Optimization) obsess about doing SEO to achieve a high page rank (PR). That is, they mention all sort of tips and offer advice on how to make a web page obtain a high page rank but tell very little or often nothing on what makes a web page popular. Page rank and page popularity are not synonymous. Page rank is no the primary factor that determines how popular a web page gets to be. The popularity of a web page decides how much traffic a web page with good information will enjoy.
Page rank is arguably a function of page popularity, but popularity is only one of the factors that determine page rank. Popularity is a consequence of the appeal a web page and its contents have with people, while page rank serves primarily the interest of search engine providers who make their living from web pages that were made to carry advertisements.
After all, how would any web page ever acquire great popularity or even go viral, if popularity were not the determining factor in a web page becoming popular? Few examples other than web pages prove the truth of the maxim “nothing succeeds like success” as well as the popularity of web pages does. Furthermore, as explained in Part 2 of this article series, what is one to think of the fact that doing hard work to achieve the best-possible SEO can cause web rank to decline steadily, even precipitously, while it also causes web traffic to increase enormously?
Why does SEO lead to increased traffic and falling page ranks?
That dilemma is described in more depth in the third part (appropriately called “Conundrum : SEO rising Traffic falling Web Rank“) of this article series. The following graph illustrates the conundrum. It shows the portion of traffic received by dads&things that is used by Google to determine web rank and the much larger portion of the traffic that plays a small role in that and is not even brought to the attention of the webmaster for dads&things. Host servers track all and not just a minuscule portion of such data and do so for very good reasons, with the tracking in this case also being done with the use of Google Analytics.
Page Rank vs Page popularity – Which is more important?
(The legend entry for the gray trend line is missing from the graph. The gray trend line shows rising daily numbers of page views over time and is based on traffic data provided by the host server for dads&things.)
What is GADWP?
It stands for:
Google Analytics Dashboard for WordPress Use the latest Google Analytics tracking to get in-depth website stats right inside your WordPress Dashboard.
Yes it does that, and it can be downloaded for free. The statement from the promotion is true, but notice what you get. Look at the difference in accuracy and precision, by comparing what I got to reality, as I did in the preceding graph.
The statement in the promotion is not false advertising. It is misleading, without a doubt, but accuracy and precision are not mentioned anywhere in the promotion for the plug-in. Omitting that more than 90 percent of a website’s traffic is not shown in the clever reports that the user gets to see is not a lie, right?
No doubt, Google rose to prominence. It controls web ranks. Web ranks are important for generating advertising revenues. The latter enable Google to make a lucrative living and may even motivate Google to engage in what it tries to discourage all others from doing: rank sculpting. That is, the playing of games with SEO to drive more traffic to a given web page. While Google loves making money from advertising displayed on web pages, a portion of the ad-revenue generated from each click on an ad gets allotted the owner of a web page on which ads are being displayed.
That does not always work as intended. Many games are being played with displaying ads. For instance, web page owners may find that they are tricked into displaying ads for which they get no revenues. Some large software companies engage in those games, and Google is one of the largest. That does not mean that Google plays those games. Why then is Google so concerned about having webmasters do things in a prim and proper manner, while undoubtedly there is the “Conundrum : SEO rising Traffic falling Web Rank“?
What happens when a website owner has no interest in any of those games? Good or bad, those games don’t matter when a website owner has no interest in ad-revenues. They don’t matter when a website owner only wishes to bring information that he deems interesting and important to the attention of anyone who looks for such information, when neither a website owner nor his prospective clients having the slightest interest in the corporate welfare of Google.
That, without hard and cold evidence to the contrary, is only a hypothesis. The hypothesis leads to speculation. Still, although fathersforlife.org and its blog are only two of many millions, of more than a billion Websites in the world, and while the domain fathersforlife.org has a low web rank, and its blog no rank at all (it recently acquired the dubious distinction of containing a thousand web pages with a page rank of 0 (zero), their traffic is growing at substantial rates. It stands to reason that a fraction of the more than a billion websites in the world (only 200 million of them are active) experiences down-ranking. Some of those websites experience as well rising volumes of traffic accessing them, in spite of them having low page ranks.
Whatever the reasons may be that motivate Google to down-rank websites, even if Google justifies doing so by rationalizing that it will serve the proper aims it is after, Google achieves that less and less traffic is “directed through search engines” to down-ranked websites. Still, for at least some of those down-ranked websites, something is at work that causes them to experience growing traffic volumes. What is that?
The role of backlinks
In the case of fathersforlife.org and its blog, a large volume of traffic is received through direct links (a.k.a. backlinks, “About 110,000 results” on a search for links linking-in to dads&things and “About 41,200 results” for the website – those results vary daily). A minuscule fraction of traffic is “directed through search engines” (about 2% of all traffic) to both websites. Backlinks are links contained in the text of web pages, in shared links, in web directories, in bookmarks, e-mails, etc.. In short, the links are being made known through word-of-mouth advertising. Anyone finding them of value is inclined to bookmark them and to contribute to the good work of making them ever more popular through discussing the information the web pages contain that they lead to. That has an inescapable consequence.
Popularity vs rank penalties
Interesting web pages will be discussed. The more interesting they are, the more they will be discussed. The more they are being discussed, the more often they will be visited. That takes place without any help by search engines, regardless of whether interesting web pages have high, low or no page rank at all. Speaking of no page rank at all,
Dads&Things: Page Rank 0 (that is, zero!)
“Dads&Things: Page Rank 0 (that is, zero!)” How does it matter? Let’s see:
A page rank of zero causes a very low volume of traffic to be directed to dads&things. That drives down the page rank (mind you, it already did that, it can’t go lower than zero). That drives down the traffic, which drives down the page rank, ad infinitum.
Still, even Google states that there are “About 110,000 results” on a search for links linking-in to dads&things and “About 41,200 results” for the website (those results vary daily). Some may figure that the numbers are too high, and results vary with the tool one uses, but consider the next point.
Dads&things has now close to 120,000 page views a month, with the volume of traffic growing at 93% per year. It is not due to a page rank of zero, because that brings only about 2% of daily traffic to the blog. It sure as heck makes a mockery of the concept of web rank, as far as the popularity of a website goes.
The snippet from easycounter.com states: “Blog.fathersforlife.org is not yet effective in its SEO tactics: it has Google PR 0. It may also be penalized or lacking valuable inbound links.” Yoast SEO results for dads&things disagree with the first part of that, and so do I, for the reasons discussed in this installment of the article series. The second part is true. A Google PR of 0 is a penalty! A blog that is not even open for commenting and has a page rank of zero is perhaps not affected at all by that penalty, when it has 120,000 page views a month. It is most certainly very popular, in spite of Google’s page rank assigning a penalty of ZERO.
SEO for dads&things is good! So states a well-informed source: Yoast SEO.
Still, is it necessary to cater to the needs and wants of search engine providers and have many people become interested in the content of a web page? Certainly it is.
How to make web traffic grow without advertising
That is how traffic to websites that have extremely low web ranks can nevertheless grow at very substantial rates. No matter whether that may or may not fit Google’s intentions and purposes, such web traffic growth fits in very well with the original intent of the World Wide Web (WWW). That was to aid the free spread of information, at no charge.
The WWW got launched in 1991. Google got launched years later, in 1998, when Google had the bright idea that the spread of advertising should aid and control the spread of information. The idea was that information was without a doubt often interesting, but what made it truly valuable to those inclined to cash in on the thought was to stick advertising to treasured information.
In other words, advertising gets attached to and hitches a free ride on free information, for which the advertising earns revenues. The owners of the web pages carrying the information that has ads attached may get some of that revenue, and Google most certainly gets revenues from all such advertising, and Google becomes unimaginably rich and powerful.
Advertising now is an influential factor that determines whether and what sort of information is conducive to promoting advertising and therefore worthy of being spread. That is quite the departure from the good intentions that resulted in the launching of the World Wide Web in 1991.
The good thing about that is, the spirit that drove the launching of the WWW is still very alive. So is a far more powerful driver for the spread of information than advertising is. It serves as a plausible explanation why Google would not be interested in promoting the knowledge of the important role of backlinks, let alone analyze backlink traffic and to report it accurately to everyone concerned.
Share, bookmark, use links often
Yes, there is life without page ranks, a lot of it. Nurture it, make it grow and do well. Share links, bookmark them, and use and share links often.
The conundrum of SEO, increasing traffic and declining web rank caused me to send out a help request (SEO: search engine optimization). That opened a Pandora’s box. With that help request, I posted a graph that illustrates the nature of the problem. The following is a more recent version of that graph.
Comparing daily page view data for dads&things, per data provided by Google Analytics for the host server, for WordPress and for GADWP (Google Analytics Dashboard WordPress) vs daily Alexa web ranks (The gap in the tracking data by GADWP is due to me having to disable GADWP for a while, to enable trouble shooting relating to a problem I had with WordPress.)
That Google Analytics for WordPress had all along shown only a tiny fraction, only about 2%, of the actual daily page views that the host server indicated per its version of Google Analytics data did not bother me so much.
Nor did it bother me all that much that the tiny fractions of the actual daily page views that Google Analytics data showed per WordPress and per GADWP differed so greatly from each other. They both indicated a common trend, even though they did not represent reality, not by a long shot. Even though it is unfathomable why Google Analytics data for WordPress and for GADWP differ so much from the more accurate version of reality employed by the host server, I knew what the respective data sets represent.
Not even the fact that the daily web rank values produced by alexa.com for dads&things did not faithfully track daily page view trends bothered me all that much. There was at least a hint that all data series related to the same website and the traffic it receives.
It rattled me that, on 2019 02 11, in spite of an enormously increased volume of traffic to the blog, there began a sudden, steep, downward departure of website rank that shows, as of now, no sign of letting up.
Obviously, thousands of hours of hard work to achieve good SEO, using the best tool I had been able to find for doing it with, Yoast SEO Premium, had been to no avail. Not only was the enormous rate of growth in daily page views not reflected in traffic data produced by Google Analytics for WordPress and for GADWP. If anything, the Google Analytics data showed ever more decline in traffic, the more the traffic increased. At least there is method in that madness.
There was no method I could discern in the madness and absolute irrationality of the sudden departure from a web ranking trend that had corresponded at least somewhat with the extent of SEO I had been doing and the annual doubling of traffic it had achieved or at least substantially contributed to.
I searched for information that would explain the puzzle and, after a few days, found nothing. As a last resort, I posted my help request, to Facebook:
March 15, 2019
Can you help with giving some advice? For anyone who has some experience with running a website or blog, that may be easy, especially for someone who knows something about SEO.
Please, have a look at the appended graph. It displays an obvious problem for which there may be an obvious solution. I have some ideas on what may be causing the problem. It seems unlikely that the problem is caused by faulty SEO. The latter is up-to-par for the blog.
What is the first thought that comes to your mind, when you look at the sudden downturn in ranking, while the daily number of page views keeps slowly going up?
Note: The large disparity between the number of daily page views per Google Analytics and as per 1&1.com (the web-host provider) is due to Google Analytics apparently analyzing only visits directed through search engines. Search engine traffic to the blog is very low (presently about 1.7% of traffic). That is off-set by a very large portion (close to 80%) of traffic coming to the blog direct.
The ensuing discussion
Sure enough, I soon had a response (only one, in total, and that shows how much things changed since the advent of the social media, as in the days of e-mail discussion forums there would have been many more people willing to offer tips and advice):
March 18, 2019: Tommy Wennerstierna: seo-hacker.com
The January release of Google Algorithms most likely did have an influence by causing the sharp down-turn in web rank for dads&things, while the March release should not have had an impact beginning February 11, 2019, when the down-turn of the web rank had its start. I had a quick look at the two articles, and discussed my impressions with Tommy.
Walter H. Schneider:Tommy Wennerstierna, Thanks for that. I will investigate that a little more closely, especially this part: “Updating older content is also effective, as they would be able to recapture traffic, and become an evergreen source of content that users would come back to.” That is exactly what I have been doing for the past year, as part of my effort to spruce up search engine optimization (SEO), upgrading older content. That involved fixing a lot of broken links, such as finding new locations or making an effort to locate copies of articles I had linked to, copies on the Internet Archive.
I can safely say that I edited all of the articles on my blog (except for 17 that I still have to do), close to about 980 articles.
What I don’t understand, though, is that I slowed down with doing that, lately. If Google penalized me with their January Algorithm update, why did I not see a more marked change in page ranking before the [11th] of February this year? That is when the downturn in ranking began in earnest, contrary to a steadily growing number of visitors and page views. Don’t answer that. It is just a rhetorical question.
Here is something else that may or should interest you. I am using Yoast SEO. I like it, because it permits me to format new and old article a bit better. It bother me more than a little that Yoast SEO caters to Google’s standards. Particularly[, in relation to] composition of writing, e.g.:
Not enough passive voice is bad,
Too much passive voice is bad,
The best ranking is for the correct percentage of sentences that use passive voice.
There are similar constraints for sentence length, reading difficulty, paragraph length, frequency of identifying headings, use of images, although I am not aware of a recommended constraint. There’s a large body of reading required to get the hang of all of that. There is even a specification for the minimum length of the text of an article (about 250 to 300 words).
That bothers me very much. Why the Hell does Google reward articles whose intellectual content has been dumbed-down with a high page rank and punishes articles that have a high level of intellectual content? What happened to the free market system in relation to such things, to having supply and demand determine what sort of things people prefer? Google has no business controlling such things and steering them into a direction that is to their liking. That is a form of brainwashing.
If someone wishes to appeal to intellectuals, his articles [receive] a lower ranking than articles that are appeal to morons. Stupidity is rewarded and excellence punished. That is very seriously wrong and worrying, especially given the fact that I have not read anything by anyone that comes close to criticizing Google’s role in dumbing-down intellectual discourse.
Google has, of course, reasons for doing that. They do not publish their algorithms, but a large number of Google’s employees is hard at work constructing algorithms that will enable their machines to comprehend text. Complicated sentences are not conducive to achieving that. Complicated sentences are, among other things, ways to work around censorship algorithms and can, for instance with Facebook, be used to work around some algorithms that[, otherwise,] land people in FB jail.
[The good side of censorship]
Tommy Wennerstierna: Intellect is an odd asset nowadays
Tommy Wennerstierna: And censorship is a real thing
Tommy Wennerstierna: Google have destroyed access to Breitbart deliberately in order to defund them and make their content inaccessible. There is no threshold barring them from adding political bias into their algos.
Walter H. Schneider: Tommy Wennerstierna, re: “Intellect is an odd asset nowadays”
Not so much odd as it is being *deprecated* by Google, Facebook, and anyone else collaborating with intensifying the Tsunami of censorship that has been launched and is coming our way. There is a good side to it all.
Even though a very, very low percentage of the traffic to my blog is being directed by search engines (1.7%), the total traffic volume is nevertheless increasing. Close to 80 percent of traffic comes through direct links, and more than a 1000 websites have links to my blog. There are close to 50,000 links to my blog [and website].
The large volume of traffic they bring is of a very high quality. The average session lasts for close to one hour and involves an average of 20 page views and has a very low bounce rate.
Bounce Rate: 13.1%
Daily Pageviews per Visitor: 20
Daily Time on Site: 49′:39”
In comparison, a “normal” blog receives about two-thirds of its traffic through search engines.
Bounce Rate: 86.4%
Daily Pageviews per Visitor: 1.1
Daily Time on Site: 1′:48”
I have to start tracking those statistics to better understand them, and to see whether the number of links coming in is increasing over time.
Tentatively, I am inclined to guess that I am witnessing a new form of samizdat. It is very time-consuming to track that, for which reason I do not wish to keep track of a running comparison between my blog and blogs that are not being punished. For now, I will track only stats for my blog.
As of now, I have not been able to get an impression of how the March release of Google Algorithms may have affected the rank of dads&things, but I had a quick look at the article. We discussed my first impressions.
Walter H. Schneider: Tommy Wennerstierna, I will look at that more closely and assess what Google is after.
Here is something of interest: “The latest edition of the Quality Raters Guidelines has been updated with many references to “E-A-T,” which stands for “expertise, authoritativeness, and trustworthiness.” In many places in the document, the phrase “high-quality” has been replaced with “high E-A-T.”
It will probably take a few hours of reading and trying to comprehend that. Nevertheless, I seem to be on the right track with what I stated in my comment relating to the first of the last two links you had sent, e g.:
“That bothers me very much. Why the Hell does Google reward articles whose intellectual content has been dumbed-down with a high page rank and punishes articles that have a high level of intellectual content? What happened to the free market system in relation to such things, to having supply and demand determine what sort of things people prefer? Google has no business controlling such things and steering them into a direction that is to their liking. That is a form of brainwashing.”
Walter H. Schneider: I’ve got to go back to bed and get some more sleep, again, thanks for those links.
Walter H. Schneider: Just one last thing (I can’t resist drawing your attention to it):
“It’s also important to note that E-A-T applies to all websites and topics, not only those that deal with serious or life-altering issues. Due to their solid industry reputation, even gossipmongers such as TMZ and Perez Hilton can be considered “experts” in celebrity news. Fields such as fashion and humor also have experts whose content should be prioritized according to the E-A-T standards.”
Tommy Wennerstierna: btw. Bing have 30% of the global searches thru agreements with Yahoo and others
Walter H. Schneider: Tommy Wennerstierna, I don’t quite see how “Yahoo and others” can determine what portion of global searches go to Bing. The choice of a specific search engine is about the only thing in the scope of a search that an Internet user has any influence over, given that he has no control over whether something he is looking for will be at the top of or lower down on a search return list. Mind you, the smart Internet user has an extensive and detailed index of bookmarks and avoids the use of search engines as much as possible.
[Comparing search engines]
My blog has an independent, site-specific search engine, FreeFind. As far as I can tell, it has no pronounced search-engine bias. It indexes and searches all of my blog and website. It also can search all of the web. https://search.freefind.com/
Some time ago I made a comparison of the quality of some popular search engines. I should redo that comparison, but have a look at what I determined:
So, how well do those search engines identified above perform with the ranking of web pages at Fathers for Life when doing a general search of the Web for the term fatherlessness? Websites that mention the search term often and on many web pages should obviously rank high on a given search-return list. With respect to the term fatherlessness, the website of Fathers for Life should always be listed as one of the first few entries on such a list. If there are many websites that use the term fatherlessness, then the list of entries on the search return list should be long.
FreeFind: #2 of 690 entries on the list of results. More…
Duck Duck Go: #2 of 178 entries on the list of results. More…
Bing: #3 of 813 entries on the list of results. More…
Ask: #111 of 129 entries on the list of results; More…
Google: #202 out of 297 entries on the list of results. More…
Note: The first try of that search, using Google, provided 491 results but no hits for Fathers for Life. The second try, a few hours later, produced the result indicated, #202 on a list of 297 entries. The third try, about four hours later, produced no hits for Fathers for Life on a list of 295 entries on the search return list. What good is a search engine that does not produce consistent results?
Source: “Search-engine censorship, socialism, ant hills, and female supremacism”
Posted on August 12, 2008
Last Update: May 9, 2018 https://blog.fathersforlife.org/…/search-engine…/
Walter H. Schneider: My concern, wrt your original statement, is that I don’t think that the respective market shares that search engines have cannot be determined through an agreement between search-engine providers. They are determined by consumer choice and marketing strategies.
The remarkable aspect of Google’s first rank is that it reached and retains first place, in spite of its constantly declining product quality and value. That shows the power of advertising and the extent of the gullibility of the majority of the consumers.
I use anything but Google for searching. Google Search is simply and plainly *far* too unreliable to be worth using for searches.
Aside from that, I will set out to repeat and update my comparison of search engine performance. I’ll let you know about the results, later today.
Walter H. Schneider: Tommy Wennerstierna, here is the promised change to the search engine comparison:
Updated 2019 03 18: Added links to related articles and revised search engine comparison tables to include 2019 03 18 search results. The information may help you to decide why you should prefer some search engines over others. This link will take you right to the key change: https://blog.fathersforlife.org/…/search-engine…/…
Yes, the website for Fathers for Life and its affiliated blogs are being slandered and censored.
Whether you are a fathers-rights activist, a pro-family activist or a skeptic of environmental alarmism, it is quite likely that your website or blog is being slandered and censored, too. It is being done on the sly. No one will tell you about it. If it happened, you will have been found guilty and were sentenced in the Star-Chamber court of a multinational corporation (by an obscure clerk, in an obscure office), and it is not likely that you will be able to appeal.
Check the rating of your website or blog.
I had asked O2 to review and explain their website rating policy in regard to Fathers for Life. They did not respond.