Once again, this site has disappeared completely from Google rankings (under a “shroud of turin” search), and it happened, bizarrely, “overnight”.
One can only speculate as to reasons – which might be legitimate – albeit puzzling in the suddenness if truly determined purely by algorithm, i.e. non-human agency.
This poster is a retired scientist, and scientists operate via hypothesis/testing. So I’ll start with the following hypothesis.
It’s been a while (approx. 5 weeks) since I last posted. Maybe the Google algorithm’s been altered to make it unforgiving on those who fail to post at more frequent intervals. (No, not at the top of my list of hypotheses, but for now the least ‘judgemental’).
But what can I say by way of new posting that I haven’t said already, these last 7 years in some 350 and more postings, either here or on other’s sites (notably Dan Porter’s revived shroudstory site in recent weeks)?
… Oh, and unless or until those who attack the radiocarbon dating as erroneous for one reason or another take steps to get it repeated, then the term “Shroud sceptic” is wholly unwarranted. The default label should be “radiocarbon sceptic”, with us alleged “sceptics” re-labelled as promoters of a 14th century origin (while curious to know precisely how the subtle tone-reversed image was created in a pre-photography era).
I say that Lirey clerics watched bread browning in an oven, and hit upon an idea for trumping the then-celebrated Veil of Veronica that was attracting vast numbers of (paying) pilgrims. “Let’s simulate a second imprint” they said, “not just the face, but the entire body, front and back. Let’s check out the Gospels for a pretext (like, you know, Joseph of Arimathea and his “fine linen”, deployed as a means of concealing and transporting a crucified body, still damp with sweat and blood.”
They were successful – beyond their wildest dreams- at least until those party-pooper radiocarbon daters came along in 1988.
How much longer must we wait for a repeat of the C-14 dating, checking out a wider range of locations on the linen, needing (probably) no more than a few excised threads here and there, well clear of body image or bloodstains?”
Will it do the trick of rendering this site visible once again to that Google algorithm? Or do we have to start looking for more sinister forces at work, either within or without that otherwise impenetrable black-box that calls itself Google?
Oh, and while on the subject of Google and its mysterious MO, I’m not in the least bit worried about the uninformative, yawn -provoking choice of title for this posting. Why not? Because Google rankings totally ignore the titles I give each new posting. They give the site’s title, certainly, and they give some or all of the tagline that accompanies that title. But they totally ignore the posting title, thus removing at one fell swoop any new message one is attempting to place and/or promote online.
Google is what is known proverbially a wet blanket, at least where we private bloggers are concerned. But then it’s not the only wet blanket where ‘sindonology’ is concerned.
Oh no! (Don’t ask…)
Update, Day 2 (March 21, 2019)
Still no listing of this site in the default ‘Any Time’ returns under (shroud of turin).
But we do appear if one clicks on Tools, then Past 24 hours (which I don’t suppose many folk do, bar bloggers like myself who need to keep tabs on what’s new):
Will the site appear in 6 days under “Tools/Past Week”, or in 30 days, under “Tools/Past Month”, or in 364 days under … oh, never mind, this is getting monotonous, indeed faintly ridiculous.
What on earth are you playing at Google? You have near-permanent installations on Page 1 under default Any Time Returns like one, or even (this morning) two entries from a UK tabloid newspaper (i.e. The Express, with mere secondary reporting of other people’s ideas).
Yet you can summarily eject long-established sites like this one overnight from more modest placements (typically anywhere between pages 5 to 10).
Are you really expecting us to believe that your listings are determined entirely by pre-programmed algorithm when they display this degree of volatility – to say nothing of baffling arbitrariness?
You need to re-invent yourself, Google. Try introducing some principles, indeed, published guidelines into your otherwise senseless MO.
Update, Friday March 22, 2019
This latest posting has indeed appeared under Google listings (shroud of turin) for both Past Week (Page 1 of returns) and Past Month (Page 2). But it’s not on Past Year, nor it specifically, or the site in general, under Any Time listings.
Back again (still Friday). Has anyone previously made a link between the Turin Linen and the short-lived “Order of the Star” established by King John II of France at the suggestion, we’re told of, guess who? Yes, first documented owner of the Linen, Geoffroy de Charny, Lord of Lirey!
Well, I just have, the last day or two, on Dan Porter’s shroudstory site, using the Comments facility. Expect to see of copy/paste of the new idea here in short instalments quite soon. Goodness knows why I’m the first (it would seem) to have made what, to me at any rate, seems so obvious a connection!
Oh, and here’s a comment I placed on the same site yesterday, on a different aspect, giving just one reason for thinking the image on the Turin Linen is ‘too good to be true’. It concerns those 372 scourge marks (yes, 372!) which we’re told are entirely blood-imprinted, with no contribution from the body image:
Wow, it’s hard to credit, some might consider a gross deformation of cyberspace, the equivalent of a black hole running in reverse to create a new galaxy, well, asteroid at any rate.
But it’s happened. Yes, this site has reappeared in Google listings!
What can I say?
Best, I say nothing. At least there’s the revived Porter site on which I can continue to articulate so-called “sceptic” views that otherwise get scarcely a look-in there, or scarcely an audience here, thanks in the latter instance to the perverse and fickle nature of the world’s favourite search engine.
“Engine”? It’s made to sound like an inanimate machine, immune from human intervention, except that is for its initial programming.
Ha,ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha …..
Sunday March 24, 2019
Below is a long comment that I placed on the shroudstory site. It’s concerning the role of statistics in reporting of science.
I could have said more, much more. Why? I’ll spare you a welter of detail, except to say this. I did a first degree in a science subject (biochemistry) which included a number of subsidiary subjects (chemistry, botany, German) but statistics was not one of them. It was clearly not seen as de rigeur by my University, nor in all probability by many others. My first paid employment was not in laboratory science but commercial research (commissioning market research, analysing and presenting its findings etc). My employers wasted no time in packing me off to day release and evening classes in statistics, and rightly so, given the research was always based on small but random samples taken from a large population. Statistical significance testing was crucial. When I returned to laboratory-based research (at a medical school) one of the memorable features was seeing colleagues park themselves in front of a particular computer console, usually with a frown on their faces. Why? Because it was loaded with a particular statistics software package: they were “writing up” their findings for peer-reviewed publication. They knew well enough what was “significant” and what was not, through repeating experiments over a period of time in which variations would be introduced to exclude possible interferences of one kind or another. Were those data reported? Generally no! Why non? Because peer-reviewed journals invariably insisted on reporting of standard deviations, significance tests etc. So no, they would not accept what was already in one’s laboratory notebook. All the key experiments had to repeated several times by oneself or a technician, simply to impose standard conditions such that each experiment was an identical replicate, capable of generating those means and standard deviations.
In short, the statistics was ‘icing on the cake’, inserted for the most part to maintain appearances, preventing one from exploring new areas of interest. Invariably I found those colleagues knew next to nothing about statistics theory – they were merely hitting keys on that ‘statistics laptop’
But now we have a ludicrous new paper appear (behind a paywall) one that attempts to dismiss the radiocarbon dating, performed on a corner of the Turin Linen, apparently not on grounds of there being a single sample (which excludes any meaningful statistical analysis), not on scientific grounds , but, guess what? Answer: on statistical grounds (that the data from the corner sample, divided equally with two extra snips and shared between 3 labs, failed a “statistical homogeneity test”.
Takeaway message: statistical analysis depends on random sampling. The 88 radiocarbon analysis made no attempt at random sampling across the entire Linen – nor on the corner cut-out shared between 3 laboratories.
So the new paper that concludes the exercise failed a crucial test of statistical homogeneity is like saying that night-time fails the sunshine test.
You couldn’t make it up! What kind of alleged respected journal agrees to publish that kind of totally irrelevant statistically holier-than-thou garbage?
I’ll say no more for now, and leave you dear reader with what I chose to say, albeit less forcibly on the Porter site:
Here’s a screen shot of the (current) posting on the shroudstory site, regarding that ghastly new publication, still trying 30 years post the radiocarbon dating to destroy its usefulness and credentials on irrelevant statistical grounds:
Authors? I confess to recognizing just one of the 3 authors, namely the second (self-styled Professor Emanuela Marinelli)
Self-styled? Most certainly, if used outside her home country (Italy) in an journal based in Oxford UK. Why do I say that?
See this MSN article where we see the “Prof” Marinelli laying into her anti-authenticity fellow countryman Luigi Garlaschelli. (a genuine prof’ as I recall). Observe especially the parts I have highlighted in yellow and red!
Appendices (graphics etc needed for insertion elsewhere, notably that Porter site)
Appendix 5B (needed for Comment elsewhere_
Technical Appendix. First attempt to copy and save the entire Margin entry from this site, using tail end of a minor posting as temporary home:
Result: it copies OK into the Draft format, going where one pastes it. the problem – as can be seen on the right, is that when one converts back to Display from Draft, the pasted material from a margin transfers tio the margin, and then overlaps/overlays the original. But one can always convert back to draft in order to retrieve what one was trying to save, and rand then maybe, just maybe, go back to Draft and try deleting the passage that was pasted in (one may have to leave the overlap region and clean that up later via Deletion/Re-insertion of the relevant passage).
Addendum: this graphic is needed for inserting into a comment of mine elsewhere. This seemed a handy place to put it, Sep 12, 2020!
Addendum (needed for a comment on my Final Posting):
Retired science bod, previous research interests: phototherapy of neonatal jaundice, membrane influences on microsomal UDP-glucuronyltransferase, defective bilirubin and xenobiotic conjugation and hepatic excretion, dietary fibre and resistant starch.