UT, of course, I did a quick prior search here to see if there had been a previous post of this image, but the search capabilities of the Cellar don't match Google. Heck, we can't even do a search of the term "CIA" (probably for security reasons, since we don't all have the Toad's clearance level).
On the subject of the pagerank, Google has this to say for itself:
Quote:
PageRank Explained
PageRank relies on the uniquely democratic nature of the web by using its vast link structure as an indicator of an individual page's value. In essence, Google interprets a link from page A to page B as a vote, by page A, for page B. But, Google looks at more than the sheer volume of votes, or links a page receives; it also analyzes the page that casts the vote. Votes cast by pages that are themselves "important" weigh more heavily and help to make other pages "important."
Important, high-quality sites receive a higher PageRank, which Google remembers each time it conducts a search. Of course, important pages mean nothing to you if they don't match your query. So, Google combines PageRank with sophisticated text-matching techniques to find pages that are both important and relevant to your search. Google goes far beyond the number of times a term appears on a page and examines all aspects of the page's content (and the content of the pages linking to it) to determine if it's a good match for your query.
|
So, you see, UT's previous refering link from the Cellar, which
must be regarded as one of the most "important" sites on the Internet, explains the mystery.
Unless, of course, the cia.gov site itself is regarded as "important" by Google for some reason. But that would be classified.
Does
In-Q-Tel have an investment in Google?
Quote:
We focus on identifying commercial analogs to the CIA’s own enterprise problems—where the needs of the market and the CIA meet. Our priority areas:
Internet Search and Discovery:
web crawling, indexing, ranking
|
Given that priority, they
admit to investments in Intelliseek and Northern Light (and even
SAIC, which explains another mystery), and Safeweb, but no mention is made of Google. They must not have heard of that one. hmmm.
