搜索引擎权威排名与人气排名

分享是关怀!

搜索引擎权威与搜索引擎人气

当搜索引擎响应查询而在搜索结果中返回网页时,大多数人都认为显示的页面是搜索引擎确定的页面。“best”页面以响应其搜索词。但是这个词是什么“best” mean in that context? The search engines attempt to show pages that are both relevant to the query (and the intent of a searcher) and are 流行. But is it better to show pages that are ranked highly based upon a search engine 权威 metric or a metric based upon search engine 人气?

谷歌’s PageRank algorithm can be considered a 人气 algorithm based upon a citation analysis approach to finding pages, or as 谷歌 Founder Larry Page noted in 超文本系统中改进的文本搜索 (pdf):

The intuition is that if your query matches tens of thousands of documents, you would be happier looking at documents that many people thought to mention in their web pages, or that people WHO had important pages mentioned at least a few times.

那里 are other ways of measuring 人气 that the search engines may be used as well, such as the number of times that a document has been read, or the number of times that it might have been linked to or mentioned or shared on a 社会的 network, or selected when shown in a set of search results. A couple of Microsoft patent applications filed this month question the wisdom of using 人气 as a way of ranking pages, and tell us that:

The 人气 of a particular document, however, does not necessarily indicate that the document is relevant to the search query, or that the document is associated with 资源s that are considered reliable concerning the subject matter of the document.

The most 流行 page isn’t necessarily the most 权威性 page.

例如,让’s say that you’重新寻找关于重力如何在黑洞周围工作的最佳信息。您可以在专门研究黑洞行为的科学杂志中找到最好的信息。该杂志上的文章甚至可能由世界某些地区撰写’天文学的最重要专家,专门针对具有科学知识的读者。如果您在Google或Yahoo或Bing上进行了针对该主题的搜索,即使该特定期刊已向公众开放并可以通过搜索引擎免费访问,也有可能是该期刊而不是在搜索结果的顶部附近显示,您会看到为更广泛的受众编写的更多主流页面。

Those mainstream 文章s likely have many more links pointing to them than the journal written for scientists. 他们 likely have highly 流行 pages linking to them from news 资源s, from government agencies like NASA, and from other more mainstream sites that report about science. While 流行 pages can often be useful and informative pages, they may not be the most 权威性 pages that could be shown in response to a query.

作者权威排名

So how would Microsoft use a search engine 权威 metric to show pages that are the most 权威性?

Microsoft专利描述了一种基于作者的页面评分系统’s 权威 ranking, and for reranking search results based upon those search engine 权威 scores.

We’在专利中告诉该词“authority” refers to the following characteristics about an author or 资源 of information as might be associated with that author or 资源 in response to a particular topic:

  • 诚信度
  • 可靠性
  • 知识性
  • 尊重

In a few ways, this search engine 权威 ranking approach reminded me of a recent Microsoft about determining the credibility of resources on the Web that I wrote about in 搜索引擎如何根据信誉可视化和重新排序网页。但是,该论文的重点是评估网站而不是特定作者的信誉。

Determining whether an author might be 权威性 on a topic could be determined 通过 looking at data associated with the author, such as:

  • Educational degrees held 通过 the 资源
  • 获得这些学位的地方
  • Citations of the 资源 in scholarly or technical works
  • Number of publications associated with a 资源
  • Number of 社会的 network connections and/or followers
  • Whether or not the 资源 is employed 通过 and/or graduated from a well respected and/or highly cited institution
  • Social networking information such as a number of posts relating to the 资源 and/or a particular topic addressed 通过 the 资源
  • Number of patents held 通过 the 资源
  • Number of links to content associated with the 资源
  • Number of 文章s citing work associated with the 资源
  • Ratings and Reviews associated with the 资源

Content and specific sites from specific 资源s might be determined to be 权威性 about specific topics, and if a query that someone searches for may also be associated with that topic, then pages from that 资源 might be boosted in search results based upon that perceived 权威.

这里’s a screenshot of a table from the second patent filing that shows 权威 scores and some potential influences on those scores:

A table from the second patent filing showing 权威 scores and some possible influences on those scores.

专利申请是:

权威排名
由Susan T. Dumais,Stefan David Weitz,Alexander George Gounares,David James Gemmell和Paul Yiu发明
分配给Microsoft Corporation
美国专利申请20110246484
2011年10月6日发布
提交日期:2010年4月1日

抽象

Concepts and technologies are described herein for 权威 ranking for real-time and 社会的 search. An 权威 index configured to store data relating to 资源s is generated. Data relating to the 资源s, including an 权威 value, are generated and stored at the 权威 index. The 权威 value may be defined as a function of 资源, topic, and point of view (“POV”)以及其他数据(如果需要),并且可以根据一个或多个排名函数来确定。

The ranking functions are determined, and data corresponding to the ranking functions is obtained. Each of the ranking functions may be weighted according to a weighting function, a confidence value or interval, one or more time functions, and/or other methods. The obtained 权威 value may be used for affecting the ranking of search results or for other purposes.

基于源权限的搜索结果动态排名
由Stefan David Weitz,Alexander George Gounares和Patrick A. Kinsel发明
分配给Microsoft
美国专利申请20110246456
2011年10月6日发布
提交日期:2010年4月1日

抽象

Concepts and technologies are described herein for dynamically reranking search results based upon 资源 权威. A search query is received and analyzed. One or more topics are identified in the search query. An 权威 index is searched to identify 权威性 资源s for content relating to the identified topic(s). Promoted results corresponding to content generated 通过 the 权威性 资源s relating to the identified topics are obtained.

可以将提升的结果呈现给请求搜索的实体,或者将其注入搜索结果中。可以确定与提升结果相关联的贡献维度,并且可以基于实体生成并使用基于贡献维度的过滤器来动态地操纵搜索结果。

这些专利更详细地描述了他们将如何看待来源(一个人,一个组织,一家企业等)与Facebook和Twitter等地方的其他来源的贡献和相互作用,以及该来源的评级和评论。他们讨论有关个人与网站,企业,教育机构等之间关系的学习。

有关的数据“source” might be identified explicitly through author 通过 lines (sound a little like 谷歌’的作者身份标记方法?),通过机构或出版物或域名等某种方式将它们明确地绑定到其他地方。

The patent filings point to other types of data that might be collected and associated with a 资源 as well, such as:

  • Gender of a 资源
  • Country of origin associated with the 资源
  • Language associated with the 资源, entities and/or other 资源s related to the 资源
  • Type of content associated with the 资源
  • 排名或评分数据
  • Descriptions of content associated with the 资源
  • 内容中的字数
  • 与内容关联的版本号
  • 内容的版权日期

在搜索结果中提升的页面可能与更常规的搜索结果分开显示,或者可能被注入到那些结果中。

结论

在许多方面,微软’s approach towards providing a search engine 权威 score for authors or 资源s sound like what 谷歌 is trying to do with their authorship markup, though we haven’Google向他们详细介绍了一些作者的方式和原因’页面或微博帖子可能会在搜索结果中排名。但是我们得到了一些提示,’在以下帖子中写过:

我们是否会看到Microsoft提供的类似方法,可能涉及作者身份标记,或者可能会更充分利用Bing和Facebook之间的关系,或者两者兼而有之?

One question that I have is whether the approach to 权威 ranking described in the Microsoft patent applications is useful. Are degrees and numbers of patents granted or papers published useful signs of 权威? Are there sometimes more 权威性 资源s WHO have degrees from less well known educational institutions? Numbers of links on other pages, and numbers of followers in 社会的 networks still seem to be important under this approach.

但是该专利还着眼于作者与他人可能进行的各种互动,以及其他与’t tied to 人气 as well.

谷歌’使用作者身份标记似乎也旨在增加“authority”也可以作为排名信号’s interesting that next to authorship profile images shown in search results, 谷歌 is showing “how many circles” someone is in, which seems to be more 人气 based that 权威-based.

分享是关怀!

38想法“搜索引擎权威排名与人气排名”

  1. pingback:搜索引擎排名中权威与人气的比较-网站站长论坛
  2. 不幸的是,对于每个人来说,Google并不是尽力而为。“Relevance” is really hard to quantify and that is why 我认为that different search engine versions are a real necessity. I personally use the three majors to see relevant results and filter from there, but as in your example of the black hole research, I tend to go towards other engines like Wolfram Alpha –当然Google会告诉我他们已经可以使用Google Scholar处理…但我喜欢一些非G选项。

  3. 那里 are three things that need to be considered :

    1.权威和事实准确性–您所提到的因素会照顾到您;

    2.相关性 –可能有人想了解海中的卵石,而把他带到描述整个海洋的文章中毫无意义(卵石只是其中的一小部分)。

    3.陈述/可读性– Let’s接受一件事:由倍受赞誉的具有双PHD的科学家撰写的所有学术期刊’对于普通人来说,它们是无可救药的复杂且非常困难的。即使是Wiki,有时也是如此。因此,衡量一个人在向其他用户展示文章时喜欢文章/阅读文章的程度很重要。

  4. Popularity also means quality content. Practically, good and reliable content becomes over time reliable and an 权威 is that field. The problem is that a content become 流行 通过 the feedback various users give, so such data needs to answers the general needs, while the particularities are often regarded as niche.

  5. 这是好东西。谢谢比尔。看来,即使是引擎公司也很难将小麦从谷壳中分离出来。最简单的形式是:质量=权威+受欢迎程度。但这引出了一个问题,“搜索引擎如何确定用户的意图?”G试图让您登录并开发网络历史记录,我’确保M $也需要有关用户的历史数据。确定用户意图并返回相关结果是要破解的难点。一世’d想看到Google开发的Instant与高级搜索相结合,可以指导我进行更好的查询。那将解决确定给定搜索意图的整个问题。

  6. 我觉得你’当您指出以下事实时,请重新做正确的事情“popularity”基于链接,这很可能意味着面向更广泛受众的内容将位于SERP之上。但是,随着社交图谱和其他个性化搜索的加入’这是一个有趣的辩论,因为它们可能会如何影响。登录gmail的科学家可能会看到与Joe和Jane Public不同的结果。但是不是’难道这就是Google最近试图使用Social,Google +甚至rel = author标签完成的所有工作吗?这可能不是显示将您的朋友/联系人添加到他们的结果的正确路径“relevance”但这是另一种形式“popularity”他们似乎正在加紧考虑。

  7. 嗨,iMark Media,

    关联 does come in a number of different flavors, from a straight keyword matching to attempts to fulfill an informational or situational need that doesn’不一定需要所有关键字,例如在[pizza]查询中显示本地比萨饼店的清单,这似乎使搜索者有意在附近找到午餐的地方。

    I would probably be happier with the results at 谷歌 Scholar for my black hole query, but should I be required to perform a vertical search or a search at a different search engine to find the site I want? That might be part of the intent behind Universal Search, to fill in gaps when something like a more scholarly result might be wanted, but 我认为we are going to see more of a role for 权威 in ranking webpages from 谷歌 and Microsoft.

  8. 嗨,拉吉,

    好点,我喜欢你’分解了这些因素。

    My scholarly example was probably a little extreme, but 我认为that these Microsoft patents and 谷歌’s movement toward authorship both illustrate that we are going to see 权威 of an author as more of a factor in ranking web pages.

    It’s interesting that 谷歌 has integrated 谷歌 Scholar into regular search results, and we are seeing things like being able to sort results based upon readability making their way into search results.

  9. 嗨,戴夫,

    非常感谢你。

    意图很难。 Bing应该是“decision engine”因为它具有让您与搜索结果进行互动并做出有关查询细化,混合结果,按类别分组的结果等内容的决策的能力。但是我看到Google也做了很多相同的事情。

    I’m not sure that Web History always does a great job at helping with intent, expecially when the intent behind a search is to help fulfill a situational need. For instance the zoologist WHO has visited a number of biology sites in the past, and wants to find out how well the Jaguars played last weekend might not see sports scores at the top of search results when he types [jaguar] into 谷歌. Your suggestion about 谷歌 Instant and advanced search might help there if he’s提供[jacksonville jaguars]作为建议的查询。 ðŸ™,

  10. 嗨,米娅,

    人气不’t always necessarily equate with quality, though there are times when they will overlap. I do agree with you that there are times when authorities might not always suit mainstream feedback which can place the more accessible over higher authorities. 我认为considering both 权威 and 人气 and blending them together as options within search results isn’必然是一个不好的妥协。

  11. 嗨,Eldad,

    Presenting searchers with some different flavors of search results with some possibly relying more on 人气, and others relying more upon 权威 might be the 最好 we achieve. I do think that the combination of 社会的, 谷歌 +, and authorship markup helps bring us closer to 权威 measures helping shape the search results that we see.

    有时候您的朋友会添加他们的“relevance”结果,尤其是当你’re trying to get the kinds of answer that they might be the 最好 people to answer.

  12. 有趣的信息。新的搜索引擎世界看起来将与当前的世界有很大不同。这么多“LOLCats”和您好,哈佛大学受过同行评审的研究科学家。如果滥用职权成为一个重要因素,它将成为新的增长市场。

  13. i think both 权威 and 人气 are interrelated. most of the times, 权威 sites become 流行 because of their reliable content, on the other hand, 流行 sites can also become 权威 sites since a lot of people are visiting or accessing them. in linking to sites, for me, it’重要的是要同时考虑

  14. 嗨,达伦,

    任何变得更加突出的新排名因素总是会遭受某种操纵和攻击它们的尝试。搜索引擎一直在试图通过使其成本更高来对此做出响应,在这种情况下,这意味着需要花费一些实际的工作来创建作者个人资料,与他人进行大量有意义的互动,并努力创建一个“fake” 权威 become more time consuming and of less value.

  15. 嗨,约翰,

    那里 often is some kind of overlap between 权威 and 人气, but one definitely isn’t the other. For example, Justin Bieber may be very 流行 these days, but I’m not going to rely upon him for suggestions or advice on how to design a web page, fix a car, perform surgery, solve a math problem, write a blog post, and so on. Paris Hilton is even more 流行, and someone I’d几乎不愿意依靠任何事物的建议。

  16. 嗨,罗伯,

    那里 are many 权威性 sites that aren’t very 流行, and many 流行 sites that aren’t very 权威性. For example, wikipedia is a very 流行 site, but while I might start performing research there on many subjects, I’m usually going to follow that up with research at much more 权威性 sites.

  17. Very interesting thoughts, maybe this is one of the reasons why 谷歌 started 谷歌+, to get more information about what people like and share…

  18. 汤米嗨,

    谷歌在社交网络和社交共享(例如Orkut)方面取得了不同程度的成功和失败。 谷歌 Plus的创建似乎在某种程度上考虑了使用信誉评分和权威等级的能力,以及Google将这种社交网络与Google的其他服务(例如搜索)整合在一起的一种方式。谷歌没有’由于无法控制或访问Twitter上与推文或Facebook上的状态更新相关的大量信息,因此这很可能是他们创立Google Plus的动机之一。

  19. 维基百科是您应如何选择的完美范例’认为这是一本百科全书,他们显然已经合并并欺骗了许多个人。我的许多学生仍在进行表面搜索,并认为Wiki是最终的答案。它’s the McDonald’信息站点;快速,便宜且充满垃圾…但我们仍会不时访问它。

  20. @Josh:但是,大G确实很喜欢Wiki,对于大多数搜索查询来说,它们总是将其页面排在第1页上。地狱,根据我最近阅读的一篇文章,大G每月甚至可以为Wiki带来6400万访问者。那告诉我们什么?

    比尔,我’一直是您网站的狂热追随者,但从未对您的任何帖子发表任何评论,但今天我只想说:保持出色!您的帖子总是鼓舞人心,让我想了解更多。.ðŸ™,

  21. 嗨乔什,

    维基百科确实没有’t like “independent research”或意见,即使发布的人实际上是该主题的专家。

    我最喜欢的例子是,贾伦·拉尼尔(Jaron Lanier)试图编辑一个关于自己的维基百科页面,表明他是电影制片人,因为他几年前曾经创作过一部简短的实验电影。他’是著名的发明家,作者,老师和许多其他事情,但没有’不要以为自己是电影制片人。当他去编辑有关自己的维基百科页面时,维基百科的编辑们变得有些敌意。看到: http://edge.org/3rd_culture/lanier06/lanier06_index.html

  22. 嗨,拉吉尔,

    感谢您的客气话语,并决定发表评论。一世’我很高兴听到你’从我这里的帖子中得到了很多。

    Interesting thoughts on Wikipedia and 权威.

    Wikipedia has implemented some really smart approaches to SEO on their site, which accounts for a lot of their success on 谷歌. The fact that the site is user generated, and a lot of people have participated in it means that there are a lot of folks WHO have some interest in its success and link liberally to it. It’也是一个方便人们链接到许多主题的站点,并且’s part of its 人气 in search results.

    I suspect that if services like 谷歌 Plus can help 谷歌 incorporate more “authority” into the signals they use to rank pages that we will see more sites that are more 权威性 start rising about wikipedia. I can hope, can’t I? 🙂

  23. Does 谷歌 consider 社会的 sharings as well to measure a site’s 人气? What about 脸书 statuses then? Most of the people set their profiles as public, so no search engine can really know what the user has posted on their 脸书.

    And for the page rank metrics, which one does 谷歌 value more: the number of times a page has been linked or the quality(page rank) of pages that link to a webpage.

  24. 嗨,Sashwat,

    那里 are a lot of signs that 谷歌 is experimenting with the use of 社会的 signals to measure a site’s 人气. When you are logged into 谷歌, you can see the impact of when you +1 a page on a site for instance, because you’最终,该页面会出现在搜索结果较高的查询中。

    我们对Google如何以及是否会使用这些类型的社交信号来对网页进行排名(与登录时会影响您的个性化设置无关)的想法很少。+ 1之类的社交信号会影响所有人看到的排名,甚至如果他们不是’还没有登录他们的Google帐户?它’他们可能会在此时’很有可能他们将来会以某种方式’Google可能目前就他们可能如何使用这些信号进行了大量实验。

    关于Google使用来自Google Plus的信号而不是来自Facebook或Twitter的信号,’Google可能正在查看它可以访问的所有社交信号,但是对于每种服务的不同信号以及不同的用户,权重可能会有所不同。由于Google可以跟踪有关这些用户的信息,例如他们在Google Plus,YouTube,Blogger等上的活动,因此它可以更多地访问有关Google Plus用户的信息。它可以查看他们是否’设置了作者身份标记,以将他们在自己的网站上创建的内容也绑定到其Google个人资料。

    在PageRank系统下,Google始终重视链接质量而不是链接数量。例如,来自《纽约时报》首页的单个链接可能与来自相当新的Blogspot博客的成千上万个链接的价值相同。对于某种“social” rank, it’s possible that a mention or link or citation from someone WHO has a fairly high “authority” or user rank might be worth as much as many mentions or links or citations from people WHO don’t have much 权威 at this point.

  25. I was going to mention Wiki too. The results are swayed towards this site. Is it the 最好 place for information or are there better 资源s out there. 谷歌 don’似乎没有这么想,因为这是我一遍又一遍读的一件事,Wiki总是出现在顶部。

    Regardless of anything. 我觉得你 have to ask yourself a question. Are you happy with the results that google returns and the reasons it is returning it. In my niche, I have to say the results are pretty poor especially when you get to 2nd and 3rd pages of the results.

    一切都可以摇摆。如果我能以某种方式从权威机构的网站上获得很好的链接,而我的网站还不错,那是否意味着我应该对SERPS情有独钟

    即使带有社交信号。这些可以购买和操纵。

    I’ve经常考虑如何给网站排名。一世’我会回到你身边。

  26. 嗨,大流士,

    维基百科(我相信’(您指的是)有很多链接,遵循一些非常好的做法,例如在Wikipedia条目之间进行链接,以及一些非常聪明的分类方法。对于喜欢从模板提取结构化信息的搜索引擎,他们以非常有用的方式使用模板。有很多非常好的SEO做法可以从Wikipedia学习。

    维基百科可能不是’t the 最好 资源 of information for someone WHO wants an experts opinion on a subject. It’当您想了解某事时,这不是一个不好的起点,但是作为一个小组编辑的站点,它不鼓励专业知识,研究和独特的见解,因此不应’它是任何主题研究的终点。

    有时无法在Web上找到相关信息是 ’搜索引擎的失败,而是网络的失败。在良好的信息来源中,有很多遵循非常差劲的做法的做法,它们是在网络框架内展示这些信息的,例如需要Java脚本或Cookie进行导航的导航,而搜索引擎通常可以’跟随。有许多信息源,需要订阅和/或登录才能访问。有些数据存储库只能通过搜索表单来访问。

    This post describes an approach to ranking pages that looks at different signals of 权威, and relies less upon signals dependent upon 人气 (such as links). Search engines are constantly evaluating different ranking signals and approaches to finding information, and improving the quality of their results. 他们 understand that there are people WHO will work to take advantage of those signals as well, in attempts to manipulate them for their own personal gain.

  27. This entire setup frustrates me. Often 谷歌’的SERP将显示来自eBay和Amazon等网站的页面,即使它们不是’t relevant. This only happens because these sites have a high 权威. I wish 谷歌 would re-evaluate what it deems relevant.

  28. 您好玛丽莎,

    我认为关联 still plays a pretty strong role in how pages are ranked. What these patents are aiming at is providing a wider range of signals to judge the 权威 of the content on a page than just 人气, or the PageRank of pages based upon links to a site. 谷歌 is also attempting to broaden the signals it looks at to avoid the kinds of problems that you’ve pointed out.

  29. 我认为“popular”应该评估人们如何到达那里,这就是@John’关于他们携手并进的观点。如果90%的人点击Google中的链接#1, ’t make it 流行. It might be crap. But if its #1 in 谷歌 it had to get there somehow. That being said, maybe a weight of 谷歌-referred documents is ideal determining 人气. If I make it to page 3 and click on a link it probably has a good title or description, which would seem to increase its weight more than just blindly clicking link #1.

  30. 嗨,托马斯,

    微软专利的目的是寻找表明某种程度权限的信号,这些信号提供一组独立的排名信号,这些信号与谁链接到谁无关。 PageRank,作为排名信号’t看看那些信号,如果该页面作为来自高排名页面的足够链接,则可能导致该页面排名很高。那里’s an assumption of quality or 权威 based upon that 人气, but it’只是一个假设。微软的方法试图做的是防止过分重视这样的假设。

    Click throughs in search results is also often described 通过 search engineers as a 人气 metric, though I agree with you that the quality of a title and meta description is something that should be considered. Still, pages at the top of search results on the front page of those results tend to get a lot of clicks based upon another assumption on the part of searchers that if a page ranks well, it must be a good page.

    微软的专利说,让我们看一下其他一些信号,包括一些可能是脱机信号,或者页面本身可能不可用的信号,这些信号可能使我们对如何“authoritative”一些内容的作者可能是。一世’m not saying that’是一种完美的方法,但这是我们要考虑的问题,想知道微软和其他搜索引擎是否会采用类似的方法。与内容相关联的Google Plus和作者身份标记使Google可以开始查看更多类似的信号,例如某人在哪里工作,他们可能持有的学位类型以及他们在其他地方的位置’已经出版,等等。

    微软的专利中还包括一些“authority” signals that could be considered 人气 signals as well, such as the number of followers in a 社会的 network, so that indicates that they see some level of 人气 imparting 权威, as well.

  31. I hope I can explain me meanings to 权威 and 人气:
    我认识许多德国的网页设计师,所以我创建了一个圆圈,为其命名“WebDesign” and follow them.

    但是这几天我取消了大多数的关注:因为我’ve read “cat的内容,有关新聚会的信息,但绝对没有有关Web设计的内容,自2011年7月以来根本没有内容。

    他们’ve got much +1 and have a great 人气, but they are no longer have web-design 权威 for me.

    所以我可以’t understand that the level of 人气 imparting 权威. This doesn’t make sense for me.

    还是我误会了什么?

  32. 嗨,莫妮卡,

    在这种情况下,我们’与Microsoft合作’s definitions of 权威 and 人气, and in the patents I’我写过关于他们似乎专注于他们所说的东西的文章“source 权威,”就像试图确保某些内容来自特定来源时一样,我们可以查看一些信号来尝试确定它们是否有权讨论他们所做的主题。那’这就是为什么他们讨论研究诸如教育程度,同行评审出版物中的引用,授予的专利等问题的原因。

    Systems like PageRank are more of a 人气 signal since they focus primarily upon the quantity and quality of links pointed to a page. Looking at things like how many people click on a particular result in search results is also more of a 人气 signal than an 权威 one since the numbers of clicks are more important than WHO it is WHO might be clicking.

    但是像谷歌这样的东西’的作者身份标记开始将社交共享和认可等与拥有Google个人资料的人联系起来,这些个人资料中有关自己的信息(例如,他们在哪里工作,上学的地方等)以及与他人的互动都可以被查看看看他们在不同学科上是否具有一定的专业知识或权威。的“who”分享或认可某件事变得很重要– it’s a move towards ranking things based more on 权威 and less on 人气.

评论被关闭。