In previous research it has been shown that link-based web page metrics can be used to predict experts' assessment of quality. We are interested in a related question: do expert rankings of real-world entities correlate with search engine rankings of corresponding web resources? For example, each year US News & World Report publishes a list of (among others) top 50 graduate business schools. Does their expert ranking correlate with the search engine ranking of the URLs of those business schools? To answer this question we conducted 9 experiments using 8 expert rankings on a range of academic, athletic, financial and popular culture topics. We compared the expert rankings with the rankings in Google, Live Search (formerly MSN) and Yahoo (with list lengths of 10, 25, and 50). In 57 search engine vs. expert comparisons, only 1 strong and 4 moderate correlations were statistically significant. In 42 inter-search engine comparisons, only 2 strong and 4 moderate correlations were statistically significant. The correlations appeared to decrease with the size of the lists: the 3 strong correlations were for lists of 10, the 8 moderate correlations were for lists of 25, and no correlations were found for lists of 50.
In this short paper we estimate the size of the public indexable web at 11.5 billion pages. We also estimate the overlap and the index size of Google, MSN, Ask Teoma and Yahoo!  Recent studies show that a majority of Web page accesses are referred by search engines. In this paper we study the widespread use of Web search engines and its impact on the ecology of the Web. In particular, we study how much impact search engines have on the popularity evolution of Web pages. For example, given that search engines return currently popular" pages at the top of search results, are we somehow penalizing newly created pages that are not very well known yet? Are popular pages getting even more popular and new pages completely ignored? We first show that this unfortunate trend indeed exists on the Web through an experimental study based on real Web data. We then analytically estimate how much longer it takes for a new page to attract a large number of Web users when search engines return only popular pages at the top of search results. Our result shows that search engines can have an immensely worrisome impact on the discovery of new Web pages. In a number of recent studies [4, 8] researchers have found that because search engines repeatedly return currently popular pages at the top of search results, popular pages tend to get even more popular, while unpopular pages get ignored by an average user. This "rich-get-richer" phenomenon is particularly problematic for new and high-quality pages because they may never get a chance to get users' attention, decreasing the overall quality of search results in the long run. In this paper, we propose a new ranking function, called page quality that can alleviate the problem of popularity-based ranking. We first present a formal framework to study the search engine bias by discussing what is an "ideal" way to measure the intrinsic quality of a page. We then compare how PageRank, the current ranking metric used by major search engines, differs from this ideal quality metric. This framework will help us investigate the search engine bias in more concrete terms and provide clear understanding why PageRank is effective in many cases and exactly when it is problematic. We then propose a practical way to estimate the intrinsic page quality to avoid the inherent bias of PageRank. We derive our proposed quality estimator through a careful analysis of a reasonable web user model, and we present experimental results that show the potential of our proposed estimator. We believe that our quality estimator has the potential to alleviate the rich-get-richer phenomenon and help new and high-quality pages get the attention that they deserve.