[ART1] Hi Dave, can't say I have missed you specifically... but I do miss the "old days" when you could have a discussion about "Internet search" that wasn't just about Marketing. [1] [NetE2] Personally, I don't think that Internet search is just about marketing, but I do think that a great deal of content on the Internet is commercial, that a great deal of that content has value, and that anyone who hopes to distribute non-commercial content over the Internet needs to accept the fact that they are going to be competing with commercial content, some of which is exceptionally high quality. [2] [ART3] One only needs to accept this "fact" if I'm correct in my premise that our culture is incapable of doing better, and therefore deserves the ash heap George Bush will dump us on. You didn't answer the question. If it were to be proposed tomorrow, for the first time, would you support the creation of public libraries? [NetE4] Short answer: Yes. Long answer: I think that all expenditures of public funds should be allocated by a budget ballot where members of the voting franchise indicate where they want their per capita share of tax revenue to be spent. Even if a budget ballot was subject to a legislative veto, it would give all voters a meaningful voice in how their tax dollars are spent. I first toyed with this idea during my first year of law school, and I wrote a paper on it for a class covering elections and political campaigns; I also had some direct experience with a budget ballot when a court decision was handed down prohibiting the use of student fees to advance political or religious agendas that students might not agree with. After checking with some of the law school's professors as to the legality of a budget ballot, the Law Student Association (LSA) at UC Davis Law School moved forward with the idea. The implementation of the budget ballot was pretty straightforward: Law students were given a list of the various law student groups that were seeking funding from the LSA, and they were allowed to allocate a total of $16 to one or more law student groups, dividing that money up in $1 increments among the groups. Astonishingly, about half of the law students who took the time to cast a ballot deferred to the LSA to make decisions regarding allocations of their share of student fees. Of those who expressed a preference, the Environmental Law Society was the clear first place winner, the "Students Associated for the Advancement of the Bar" (a drinking club) took second place, and the Federalist Society -- with less than a dozen official members -- demonstrated that it had a huge hidden constituency, collecting several hundred dollars from the various students who took the time to cast ballots. Eventually, the implementation of the budget ballot as voted was overruled by the university counsel, which set forth some alternate bureaucratic procedures for the allocation of student funds. Nonetheless, the results of the budget ballot gave me a tremendous amount of lobbying power as the Vice President of the Federalist Society, money which the Federalist Society used to sponsor a weekly free speech forum on Tuesday nights. [4] [ART5] Bringing up your (semi irrelevant) proposed improvements to our democracy I think just further proves my point. [NetE6] Like the issue of whether Saddam had WMDs, *YOU* brought up the red herring of whether I, as a libertarian, would support the creation of a public library system if one was not already in existence today. [ART7] I am advocating for the internet equivalent of a public library [for the internet] and you call that question a red herring? You must be wearing red herring colored glasses. [7] [NetE8] Previously, you asked me, "If it were to be proposed tomorrow, for the first time, would you support the creation of public libraries?" [ART9] and you answered "yes if but"... alternative universe...[9] [NetE8] I answered that question, separating it from the red herring that you draggged across the fox's trail: "I suppose your fanatical libertarianism would obligate you to say no... and that about says it all." [ART9] ask a simple question... get a preposterously convoluted answer... laugh at it.... and then get an opportunity to laugh at it again.[9] [NetE8] Here we have an example of a fallacious _argumentum ad hominem_, in addition to the _ignoratio elenchi_ fallacy. [8] [ART9] This was your defining moment, and as they say in the movies, your definition was Latin ****. The readers obviously understand the difference between bookstores and libraries. No doubt the readers are intelligent enough to extrapolate the analogy to the Internet... the Internet has bookstores...google, yahoo etc but it at present has no public libraries (or more specifically no peace of infrastructure comparable to the "library card catalog".) this is not brain surgery, or preposterous doomsday self-defense rocket science, honest people can see the simple truth once the clouds of "marketing consultant propaganda" are logically lifted.[9] [NetE6] I gave you a short answer -- i.e., yes [ART7] with a bunch of if-but stuck to it [7] [NetE6] -- and then I offered a longer exegesis regarding the paradox of how I, as a libertarian, could in good conscience support the public funding of anything. [ART7] So it is "yes", but only if we are living in a radically different world. [7] [NetE6] If anything, my answer was actually *MORE* relevant to the underlying issue of what ails the search industry than yours. [6] [ART7] I thought you said the SE industy was not ailing? by logical conclusion you imply that libraries have not been a very good method of providing access to recorded human knowledge and therefore a public index of the Internet would not be of value to the public.[7] [NetE8] This is a classic example of the strawman fallacy. [ART9] what?...you forcing me to type library as many times as you have typed Wikipedia.[9] [NetE8] I have implied no such thing. In any event, the public index of the Internet that you see as the Holy Grail of comprehensive Internet indexing and search bears no relationship whatsoever to public libraries. [ART9] ...this ought to be pretty funny....[9] [NetE8] Public libraries do not contain a comprehensive collection of all printed works that have ever been published. [ART9] But the card catalog in the library of Congress might come pretty close to referencing it all.[9] [NetE8] Rather, each public library contains a relatively small number of published works which the powers that be at that particular public library consider worthy of acquisition. [8] [ART9] the "powers that be" line is pretty insulting to the vast majority of librarians who I think make a honest effort ( unlike some news organizations) to be truly fair and balanced. Also the "hard drives", so to speak, of libraries are all interconnected... my public library for example has often provided me with books from as far away as California.... at no charge.[9] [ART5] Top 40 search engines aren't gonna index such content in any meaningful way. [NetE6] What content are we talking about here? Wikipedia? [ART7] No I was talking about the content of your post that included your editorial voting plan thing and my defense of a third-party friendly second choice voting system. [7] [NetE6] A great deal of Wikipedia content comes up high in Google searches, albeit most of it co-branded. [ART7] bush sucks[7] [NetE6] Moreover, Wikipedia has reached a critical mass where it doesn't really need Google to continue to succeed and grow. [ART7] bush really sucks[7] [NetE6] Enough people know about Wikipedia, and are committed to making Wikipedia a continuing success, that Wikipedia could be intentionally banned by Google and be more or less unaffected. [6] [ART7] I could be banned by google and see no decrease in relevant traffic also....because google sucks![7] [ART5] I've had this (15 year-old) idea floating around in cyberspace for nearly a decade but in practical terms it does not exist on a bookshelf you access through current Internet infrastructure. [5] [NetE6] Ah, vanity . . . *definitely* my favorite sin. [ART7] So it's "vanity" to question why google can't/will not index content links on a 3 year old site. The way you are allways pulling on that "red herring" I would have guessed something else was your favorite sin.[7] [NetE8] When the site in question is your own site, I'd say that such vanity is nothing less than self-aggrandizing narcissism . . . [ART9] I will leave it to the reader to find the "self-aggrandizing narcissism" in trying to get the Public Service website inmendham.com ranked in the top-5 on the keyword Mendham, where it belongs without rational argument. A google ranking in the '60s has no rational defense.[9] [NetE8] and I mean that in the *nicest* possible way. [ART9] I disrespect, and hate you to.[9] [NetE8] To be clear, the reason that Google is not indexing your site is because very few people consider your site particularly noteworthy. You are a voice in the wilderness, [ART9] True the SEO'ers I anti on don't like donotgo.com... but who else has had exposure, and done a fair evaluation. As for InMendham.com non commercial enterprises have no incentive to link to it being that that would likely offend the "official government" ...Commercial sites have no incentive because the fight likely provides links to competing providers. Google Catch-22 you're nothing until your something but we will not make you anything unless you already have everything.[9] [NetE8] and you will remain a voice in the wilderness as long as you choose to promote your site using tactics that alienate your potential audience. [8] [ART9] the search industry and the marketing controlled media hasn't let my potential audience within the hundred miles of me.[9] [NetE6] I can honestly say that I've never really had any trouble getting people to take notice of good ideas. [ART7] funny how you libertarians can't beat Ralph Nader then. [NetE8] Yet another red herring. [ART9] well let me gut that fish and say quite clearly that libertarians don't have any good ideas and that's why they don't have a viable political party--- even though they have had substantial financial support from the very rich.[9] [NetE8] As I have been known to say, on more than one occasion, I am under no obligation to save anyone from his or her ignorance, and I have no desire to do so. [ART9] if we probably already heard it you probably don't need to say it again. [9] [NetE8] As such, my involvement in the Libertarian Party has always been as a fringe member. [ART9] who cares [9] [NetE8] In any event, the principles of libertarianism have less to do with effecting social change than the way in which such change is effected. [ART9] It also has lot to do with the wealthy, saying wealth makes you more worthy... Street muggers are libertarians they just use a different standard to defend their exaggerated perception of their own worth an entitlement.[9] [NetE10] Actually, members of the Libertarian Party are required to sign an affirmation of the following statement: [ART11] yah right, and presidents take an oath to the Constitution...hahaha[11] [NetE10] "I do not believe in or advocate the initiation of force to achieve as a means of achieving political or social goals." [ART11] as I stated, muggers just make a slight alteration to the standards, instead of wealth making the man, or intelligence making the man, they believe that brute force and the willingness to use it makes the man. the muggers "survival of the fittest" ethics are in practical terms no less meritorious than the gluttonous self-indulgence of a lazy rich.[11] [NetE10] As such, the street muggers you mention would (by definition) not be libertarians. They would be narcissists.[10] [ART11] libertarian, narcissist, exploitalist... same difference.[11] [NetE8] To wit, the end never justifies the means.[8] [ART9] oh of course they can... stealing a loaf of bread to feed a starving child. certainly is justifiable... there's only about 2 zillion other examples.[9] [NetE10] Ah, the old utilitarian response to Immanuel Kant. I use that all the time, but the bottom line is that the virtuous goal of feeding a starving child does not make stealing bread a virtue, _a fortiori_ when there are other alternatives, and there are always other alternatives. To wit, why not buy the bread?[10] [ART11] the metaphor, I think presumes the nonexistence of the financial wherewithal to buy the bread. virtuous and justification are to entirely different words... look it up at Wikipedia.[11] [NetE12] Actually, utilitarianism makes no such presumption. Rather, it seeks the greatest good for the greatest number and leads to some truly bizarre justifications for morally reprehensible actions. [ART13] like what, progressive taxation?[13] [NetE12] In practical terms, the reason that the end never justifies the means is because the means has a way of changing and corrupting the ends being sought. [ART13] this is stupid semantics or is it metaphysical mumbo jumbo... every circumstance has complex nuances that may be irrelevant or that may completely alter the equation. You attempt to modify the frame to make the picture fit your pointlessly rigid principle... that frame "modification" is ironically an unjustifiable means.[13] [NetE12] "To illustrate, consider the following scenario: A surgeon has six patients: one needs a liver, one needs a pancreas, one needs a gall bladder, and two need kidneys. The sixth just came in to have his appendix removed. Should the surgeon kill the sixth man and pass his organs around to the others? This would obviously violate the rights of the sixth man, but utilitarianism seems to imply that, given a purely binary choice between a) killing the man and distributing his organs or b) not doing so and the other five dying, violating his rights is exactly what we ought to do."[12] [ART13] Is there actually a person on planet earth suggesting we should force people to surrender their life [organs] for transplant... No I don't think so.... so I guess this is all just more red fish bait.[13] [ART7] sence no one is taking much notice of this "Xodp group" I guess it was not one of your "good" ideas. [7] [NetE8] I wholeheartedly disagree. My intent in creating the XODP Yahoo! eGroup was to provide a free speech forum where people could discuss progressive ideas about how the Internet should be indexed. It has been very effective in this regard, [ART9] that's not the funniest thing I've ever read, but it was pretty damn funny.[9] [NetE8] and it has had the added benefit of creating all sorts of business opportunities for me. [8] [ART9] a neighbor of mine gets a lot of business through his church... same kind of cheap exploitation I guess.[9] [NetE6] What is problematic is getting people to embrace good ideas, but I came to the conclusion long ago that I am under no obligation to save anyone from his or her ignorance, and I have no desire to do so. [6] [ART7] being too lazy to, I could understand...no "desire"...that's evil. In any case your rescue mission would definitely qualifie for description as the blind leading the blind[7] [ART3] I suppose your fanatical libertarianism would obligate you to say no... and that about says it all. Capitalism is no Holy Grail, it's only value is in the incentives it creates, but those incentives can be manufactured other ways, ways that view the long-term, and the future as far more important than short-term gains. [NetE8] Logical relevance is a vague and ambiguous notion, but I think it's safe to say that my "fanatical libertarianism," which you clearly do not even begin to understand, [ART9] elitist double standard greed isn't hard to understand.[9] [NetE8] has little or nothing to do with with my position on whether public libraries are a Good Thing (TM), [ART9] -->..."a good thing" has been a part of my almost daily vocabulary sence 1970... I ought to sue that take everything billionaire. I don't care where your convoluted opinion comes from... the point is you don't think publicly funded libraries are legitimate part of social infrastructure.[9] [NetE8] and even less to do with your critical appraisal of capitalism as an economic system. [ART9] why would your libertarianism have something to do with my appraisal of anything?... whatever.[9] [NetE8] What were we talking about again? Oh, yeah . . . what's wrong with the current state of search engines. [ART9] After 4+ years of off and on argument with me on this exclusive subject, you're really should have the routine down by now.[9] [NetE8] Clearly, this is a topic where Karl Marx qualifies as an expert. [8] [ART9] I suppose anyone who understands what a public library does, and what a bookstore does, could be considered to have substantial expertise.[9] [ART3]Having a exclusively capitalized search industry, has, and will, cost us untold fortunes in human progress. Straight lines between production and consumption, between those hungry to learn, and the information they seek-- is the only rational future possible--and the sooner we start building the super- highway that will get us there the better. [3] [ART1] Your fence metaphor I think kind of misdescribes the reality, as it is usually used when things are equal but different. Realistically, how many "Internet idealists" actually still exist on planet earth? [1] [NetE2] Clearly you have yet to discover Google Watch... [ART3] Such patronizing, arrogant, and petty rhetoric has all the appearances of "rude". There are only about a half dozen links from my site to google-watch. The unfortunate truth is google watch isn't doing much for the cause, it's offering no alternatives, it's helping organize nothing, and apparently has a policy of not linking to any related content. Coincidently, just last week I sent another e- mail, inquiring regarding the possibility of some collaboration, as always no reply. [3] [NetE2] Daniel Brandt and you have a great deal in common. He is just as concerned as you are about the commercialization of the Internet, and he is just as concerned as you are about Google's failure to index the content that he considers worthwhile. I might also add that there are hundreds, if not thousands of people who regularly contribute time and money to Wikipedia, a totally free encyclopedia. While Wikipedia is not a Web directory or a search engine, [ART3] Well then I guess it doesn't have much to do with the subject of indexing the Internet. Spraying some mist in the bottom of a glass, doesn't fill the glass, or even make it half-full. Wikipedia is a nice drop in the bucket-- but it's no solution to the infrastructure drought [NetE4] I wholeheartedly disagree. Wikipedia is an unqualified success. [ART5] "Wikipedia is an unqualified success"... at mitigating against the numerous problems apparent in having a search industry completely controlled by capitalist industry? [NetE6] A fallacious recapitulation. [ART7] Yours [7] [NetE6] Nothing can be all things to all people, but for what it hoped to do and hopes to do [ART7] who cares, not relevant to the subject. [7] [NetE6] , Wikipedia is an unqualified success. [ART7] not at indexing or "mapping" the Internet [7] [NetE8] IMHO, indexing or mapping the Internet is part of a much larger problem. [ART9] like equitably [fairly] indexing web content isn't a big enough a job... you need to enlarge it? suit yourself but I'm not applying. [9] [NetE8] In the largest possible context, the underlying problem is how to help people find useful and interesting information on the Internet, [ART9] News flash, that's a smaller context. The Internet is more than just information, it is access to producers of all imaginable human consumables. ( including free software like powercons) [9] [NetE10] [all the stuff that Gary can't seem to sell so he's trying to give it away] [ART11] Another professionally cheap, cheap lawyer slander. Don't bother proving insincere motives, just imply them, and force your adversary to waste his time proving away the implication. I suppose content on my web sites speaks for itself, and I will leave it at that.[11] [NetE12] But isn't that the very thing that you are complaining about? You have content on your Web site that you consider worthy of a more prominent ranking on Google [ART13] So it is your speculation that I started the website donotgo.com because I knew two years later I would become a rather inventive JavaScript programmer... and I just wanted to start complaining two years ahead of time. I've never tried to make a single dollar off any content I have produced. I got my first exposure to the whole concept of "Internet indexing" trying to get fair representation at go.com for the site visiting dental Dot com which I was hosting for free because I knew it to be a very valuable service. I soon realized that there were no powers that be in the "Internet indexing industry" who had any interest at all in providing persons with Internet access any realistic hope of rationally or logically navigating the Internet. Chios is the vested interest of the marketing pimps, without it they have no opportunity to exploit. In simple truth, Internet navigation has been sold out to the marketing interest to the harm of humanity and its future.[13] [NetE12] ,and the solution that you propose is a government sponsored Internet index that would help your Web site achieve the prominence that it has failed to reach on its own.[12] [ART13] if it would make a critical difference in achieving my goals. I am willing to promise to never publish any Internet content if some reasonable facsimile of my proposals are put in place. [NetE14] Whatever content you publish on the Internet, or promise not to publish, will have no appreciable impact on the success or failure of your ideas for reforming the search indexing industry. May I suggest a hunger strike instead?[14] [ART15] You implied that the ideas were tainted by personal self-interest and I offered what guarantees I can to clear the air of this fishy implication. First to say it matters that I have a self-interest, then you say it doesn't matter if I remove it.... Sorry, but that has every appearance of duplicitous self-contradiction.[15] [NetE16]And the guilty flee where none pursueth. I think it's fair to say that all human beings suffer from narcissism, which is why I so frequently respond to you with the aphorism, "Vanity, . . . *DEFINITELY* my favorite sin." The fact that you perceived my comment as a personal challenge to your integrity means that you failed the Rorschach Test, and the fact that you then responded to this perceived challenge with an offer to martyr yourself for the greater good speaks to your exagerrated sense of self-importance. And I mean that in the *NICEST* possible way. [16] [ART17] "that would help your web site achieve the prominence that it has failed to reach on its own" Your words were hardly an obscure, subject to interpretation "Rorschach" accusation.[17] [NetE18] Actually, your "conclusion," and the "premises" on which it was based, are responses that can be interpreted using a Rorschach technique. To wit, *YOU* are the one who frequently laments the fact that *YOUR* Web site has failed to achieve the prominence that *YOU* feel it deserves; when these facts are recapitulated and fed back to you, you respond as if you've just been unfairly judged and left wanting. Perhaps there's some truth in that. [n] [ART19] "some truth in that" ...so faced with the challenge to defend the accusation of "personal interest" , with some reasonable evidence, you instead just redraw another, cheap yet artful, belittlement. visiting dental dot com isn't in any meaningful way "MY website". [19] [NetE20] When I attempted to visit < http://dental.com/ >, the page would not load; ditto for < http://www.dental.com/ >. It's sort of hard to get fair and proper indexing for a site that doesn't actually exist. [20] [ART21] You accidently slither under too heavy a rock last night and oxygen starve yourself out of a few billion brain cells? Over the years there has been more than a few references to the website VISITINGdental.com [21] [NetE22] Gee, how could I have missed that. Perhaps because you wrote "visiting dental dot com." And when I visited the URL for < >, I found myself redirected to < >. The site in question is hoplessly locked up in spider-unfriendly frames, so it's highly unlikely that it will ever get properly indexed by any search engine. [22] [ART23] Instead of simply conceding the undeniable fact that the Internet search industry has not been structured to properly consider important features of relevancy including location and subject (professional service provider)-- you have instead provided nothing but another lame excuse concocted out of meaningless mush. Search Engines have had no difficulty finding the website, and they have in fact index the text. The problem is that ignorant stupid moronic algorithms' cannot make the rational connection between a site about visiting dental services in the New Jersey area and search query's referencing dentistry in New Jersey-- and when they do make the connection this site doesn't have the required "popularity" or rank to overcome the noise of the less relevant. [23] [ART19] Like millions of other small business websites it was created on the cheap, to serve a singular, logical purpose-- to give Internet users access to basic product/service information. Its inability to accomplish that logical purpose, isn't a failing of the content, it is a failing of a "search system" that can't index its relevance or appropriately provide reference to it on relevant search query's. InMendham.com also is not in any meaningful way "MY" website, it is strictly a very useful public service website and yet the "search system" provides no meaningful access even on search terms of very narrow and extremely high relevance. [19] [NetE20] I wholeheartedly disagree. Both the non-existent dental dot com and the obscure InMendham.com are your Web sites, and your interest in promoting them is what brought you into conflict with the powers that be at places like ODP. [20] [ART21] In the first place I defy anyone to concoct a RATIONAL justification for the website InMendham.com to be OBSCURE on the search term MENDHAM. [21] [NetE22] Rational justification? How about the fact that the *OFFICIAL* Web site for the Borough of Mendham comes up number one on the search term "Mendham," the *OFFICIAL* Web site for the Mendham Township comes up second, deep links for the Mendham Township come up third, and the *OFFICIAL* Web site for the Mendham High School comes up fourth, deep links for the Mendham High School come up fifth, and the *OFFICIAL* Web site for the Mendham Borough Library comes up sixth? The rational justification for InMendham.com being buried at number 50 out of some 129,000 search results for "Mendham" is the fact that it is not an official Web site, and is not particularly popular among Mendhamites. [22] [ART23] The fact that it is not the official website does not in any way justify a ranking in the '50s or '60s and occasionally in the 600s. It is certainly no less offical than the numerous Spam sites between it and a top-10 ranking. As to your claim of unpopularity--here you show your true colors --as they say. Obviously you have declared "popularity" based on googles definition. As it is my fundamental claim that that definition has no validity in many circumstances, and that it is in fact a form of willful discrimination and censorship-- your citation, and implied defense of, googles definition proves you to be as ignorant and small minded as the google algorithm itself. "Rational justification" in this context required you to demonstrate by "content comparison" evidence defending the correctness of the poor google ranking. On every measure relevant to the general term Mendham the website is without rational dispute the most complete, current and "authoritative" source of information. Your slanderous rhetoric, is shown by the facts, to be nothing more than a cheap effort to malign through empty accusation and proves you to be a person of a very low integrity. [23] [NetE22] Compare and contrast this with a search for "Davis, California," where a FAQ that I published some ten years ago comes up as the 22nd link indexed out of some 5 million links, or "Yolo County, California" where a FAQ that I published some ten years ago comes up as the 5th link out of some 170,000 search results, just *AHEAD* of the official county site. [22] [ART23] big fucking deal ...donotgo.com is number #1 out of 500,000 on the search term "feeling spectacular". If that doesn't prove the google algorithm doesn't know it's ass from its adsence... [23] [ART21] ...Second you have again butchered the facts. During my 24 hours at the ODP the website InMendham.com didn't even exist and I never submitted the dental site. I'm not going to rehash old history but I will simply say quite emphatically, no honest, sincerely motivated, logical person could confront the corruption of the "powers-that-be" at the ODP without significant "conflict". [21] [NetE22] Even during my tenure at ODP, my sympathies typically lay with ODP's critics and outcasts. Unfortunately, many of ODP's critics are their own worst enemies, and whatever legitimate messages said critics might have to convey is usually lost in the noise that they make. [22] [ART23] ...and some pompous XODP ass wipes are enemies of the Internet and the worst kind of shyster shit. [23] [ART21] ...This petty attack based on completely fraudulent misinformation proves beyond doubt that you, and this website, are in fact an insincere contrivance. The knowledge that websites that are not promoted ( through link exchange or link purchase) are in most cases going to remain a seldom relevantly referenced part search engine databases, regardless of their actual relevancy or merit, is common to even inexperienced SEO practitioners. For you to attempt to imply some other truth by attacking my examples with fallacious mis-characterization goes beyond the level of disrespect I'm willing to tolerate. [21] [NetE22] But, you see, the whole theory behind Google's enormously succesful algorithm is that relevancy and merit are best determined by link popularity. I agree that this general proposition has specific, palpable flaws, such as the fact that an authority on one subject is considered an authority on all subjects, but I am not prepared to throw the baby out with the bathwater. [22] [ART23] what baby or bathwater am I suggesting we throw out? as for your "successful algorithm" rubbish this nonsense has to be the most repeated google history lie. I contend that there are no facts to defend the notion that it was anything other than googles "clean speed" that was most responsible for its "enormous success". the fact is "all the Web" was providing results comparable to google very early on but ironically the "fast technology" was just too slow by comparison. [22] [23] [ART21] ...If you had a quality worse than your insincerity, it is your other lack of imagination. In the four plus years of our exposure to one another your rhetoric hasn't evolved beyond spouting, with sickening redundancy, the same fairy tale platitudes. You say there's no free lunch-- I point out that public libraries are "free" to the consumer and a valid expense and duty of government -- you just ignore that fact and reiterate the same mush as if the refuting facts don't exist.[21] [NetE22] Dude, libraries are *NOT* a free lunch. They are paid for through taxes. As for libraries being a "valid expense and duty of government," I don't think that qualifies as a "fact." Rather, it is your opinion. [22] [ART23] More fucking word games... I was not stating that --libraries were a valid expense and duty of government-- for the fact of the matter. In the context of this conversation, the clear point was that we as the people (excluding asshole libertarians) have embraced publicly funded libraries as a useful part of social infrastructure.... and I have made the suggestion that there would be a parallel wisdom in making a similar investment in Internet infrastructure. [23] [NetE22] To be clear, I am not in favor of government funding for libraries any more than I am in favor of government funding for public golf courses or roller derby competitions. However, I see a much more clear and palpable benefit being derived from government funding for libraries, so I am less likely to complain about it. [22] [ART23] Now if you would have just answered the fucking question this completely from the beginning we could avoided this whole stupid argument. I wouldn't In my right mind argue with the person who sees golf courses and roller derby as comparable to libraries. Obviously if you can't see the wisdom and "necessity" of the public role libraries play you aren't going to be able to see the wisdom or "necessity" of my proposal. I mean if a dickhead can't add 2+ 2 you don't bother explaining 3 * 5... God really should put a warning label on morons of your magnitude. [23] [NetE22] As I stated previously, I would like to see all government expenditures, no matter how meritorius, subjected to a budget ballot; in time, I think that people would begin to realize that there is no such thing as a truly "valid expense and duty of government." [22] [ART23] When Bush gets the class wars really rolling all you elitist little fucks are gonna really find out what "survival the fittest means" in the real world. [23] [ART21] ...No rational person could discuss anything meaningful with a mind frozen in such dogmatic nonsense. Clearly you are a slave to a rigid ideology and a bigot to any notion of uniquely individual circumstances. If a theory of solution does not have the entrepreneurial features you demand it's only worthy of a good and proper lynching. Clearly you have attempted to Lynch, based on a litany of unsubstantiated accusations of incredibility, the simple, logically credible, enhancement to Internet infrastructure I have advanced as an efficient theoretical solution. I will concede your effort has wasted some of my time, but sometimes you have to invest a little time and step in the water before you can tell the difference between a mud bottom swamp, and a deep swimmable lake. [21] [NetE22] Funny, I don't remember making any "unsubstantiated accusations of incredibility" against you or your ideas, much less a litany of such accusations. Rather, I have pointed out that you have a tendency to grossly oversimplify issues, grossly overstate otherwise legitimate grievances, and grossly underestimate the efforts that would be required to carry out your vague and ambiguous proposals. [22] [ART23] Right, and you're no doubt a little short weasel... I will stand on the facts I've provided... libraries are not in concept or in practical management "grossly" complex... I know it, and most 10 year-olds know it. [23] [ART19] These examples of millions of other unnetworked websites are called "evidence" ... for my money irrefutable evidence of a week and feeble search industry that is failing to meaningfully make accessible most of the Internet. [a] [ART17] The "challenge" really wasn't subject to reasonably diverse perception. Your incessant need to distract away from the message, by throwing mud at the messenger, demonstrates a desperation that no "Rorschach" obscurity can hide. [17] [NetE18] It's like you're looking in a mirror, once again. [n] [ART19] More like I have fallen through the looking glass, into a world built on crooked lines, by crooked minds. [a] [ART17] The "on its own" phrase does get to the beef of our disagreement. So what are you implying? ...that the content of the website inmendham.com isn't adequate to deserve a listing significantly better than 60th on the keyword "Mendham"? or is your argument that "content" isn't enough and that a website, unlike a library book, must "market" itself to be logically and efficiently accessible through the basic infrastructure of available search devices? [17] [NetE18] Just for a moment, let's pretend that you are not the center of the universe, and that there are billions of other webmasters out there who have succeeded in getting their Web sites noticed by their intended audiences. [n] [ART19] Statistics would indicate that the same pool of "popular" [a status often achieved through deception] Web sites receive the bulk of references within the first page of results...[19] [NetE20] There are three types of lies: Lies, damn lies, and statistics. Moreover, 99 percent of the statistics that people pretend to quote have been made up on the spot. Nonetheless, there are, in fact, certain Web sites that (because of their overall popularity) wield enormous influence over search results on topics on which they have no real authority. Said Web site typically sell their PageRank to the highest bidder, quality be damned. [20] [ART21] Waste a whole paragraph saying yes-you're-right to create the illusion that the facts support your apathy. [21] [NetE20] The best solution that I have seen proposed to remedy this sad state of affairs is the Open Grid Project. (< http://www.cs.sunysb.edu/~maxim/OpenGRiD/ >.) Boiled down to its essentials, the Open Grid allows end users to choose their own experts when indexing and searching Web sites and filter out the influence of unreliable would-be authorities. [20] [ART21] Another 1 percent solution that only contains elements of the required recipe for a successful repair of broken infrastructure. [21] [NetE22] Humbug. [22] [ART23] Go fuck a bug... you bug fucking shyster shyster. [23] [ART19] Even as individual web pages these popular sources unlikely account for a "billion" references. [19] [NetE20] First of all, the reference that I made to billions was qualified with "let's pretend. . . ." For purposes of clarity, however, let us pretend that there are millions of webmasters. In point of fact, there are millions of webmasters, if not tens of millions or hundreds of millions. And my point, which you have unsuccessfully attempted to cloud, is that there are a lot of people who have web sites and who have no appreciable amount of trouble connecting with their potential audience. [20] [ART21] And there is "a lot" of quality content languishing in practical invisibility in the database cellar of a search industry only interested in providing/promoting Top 40 access. [21] [NetE22] Exactly how do you determine what is and is not quality content? [22] [ART23] First by accepting the obvious that you can't do it with a ignorant piece of software that only considers links-- that in today's context "determines" almost nothing relevant to "quality". Having accomplished that monumental feat, you engineer a system deliberately designed to ascertain "qualities" and one that includes levels of process that include human review and accountable opinion. [23] [ART19] For this and other reasons I would claim that there are far fewer than a billion web masters, let alone billions. Ignoring your simplistic and exaggerated rhetoric there is an important truth in dispute, which is, how big is the invisible or under-represented Internet? As it is pretty hard to find the invisible, and as there is no way of knowing when you have found it all even if you could, the only way to practically know the answer to the question is to deduce one theoretically based on what we "can" know. I've provided factual examples of good websites that are practically invisible on relevant search quarries proving the ability of the search industry to, lets say, under appreciate relevance. ..[19] [NetE20] I notice that you qualified your facts. To wit, good websites that are "practically invisible" on "relevant search quarries[sic]." Truth be told, there are very few Web sites that are wholly invisible, but there are quite a few high quality Web sites that are lost in the noise of most search results. This was what first prompted me to start compiling the XODP Web Guides a couple of years ago. (< http://www.xodp.org/about.html >.) I have since come to realize that the idea of creating human edited guides to search results is a sound one that end users truly appreciate. The only thing that prevents me from devoting more time to this worthwhile project is the fact that my paying clients come first. [20] [ART21] Another whole paragraph saying yes-you're-right to create the illusion that the facts support your apathy.... And another 1 percent solution that only contains elements of the required recipe for a successful repair of broken infrastructure. [21] [NetE22] Hardly. Meta data such as that provided by the XODP Web Guides is a key ingredient in improving the overall quality of Internet indexing and search results. [22] [ART23] An average pile of Bullshit, has more interesting ingredients than your Spam recipe. [23] [ART19]...From personal experience I can testify this happens by system design to almost every site that has not been "networked" or linked for popularity ( with the exception of those few sites that can define their relevance based on a commonly associated keyword, of uncommonly infrequent use in common language). Admittedly evidence besides that of Daniel corroborating my testimony would provide important substantiation. Unfortunately, distinct circumstances denies my contention the practical access to the authority of mob support. Suppose you were a small business person of common Internet knowledge (virtually none) --where would you take complaints regarding your dissatisfaction with your websites performance?[19] [NetE20] You have just described the process by which I obtain virtually all of my new clients. To wit, one of the attorneys with whom I work refers a frustrated colleague to me. In most instances, I am able to school said attorneys in the basics of Web site promotion in a matter of hours, and they will almost always return to me about once a month for ongoing followups. In fact, I have gotten so busy that I have started hiring and training people to do exactly what I do. In time, I hope to put myself out of a job. And then there's XODP. Contrary to what you might think, many frustrated site owners find me through the XODP Yahoo! eGroup and contact me with their concerns by e-mail. While I would prefer that these inquiries be posted to the eGroup, I am more than willing to give these people some confidential advice and point them in the right direction. What I am *NOT* willing to do is entertain the notion that anyone is entitled to a free lunch. [20] [ART21] Right, so we should obligate books to hire promoters, or directly pay, to be included in the national data-base of books libraries index and make available. If the library model isn't good enough for the Internet-- why isn't the Internet model good enough for libraries? [21] [NetE22] In reality, the vast majority of authors are unable to get their books published. Those authors who do get published need literary agents if they hope to see those books get properly distributed and promoted. [22] [ART23] The suject is not about the creation of websites, were talking about their indexing... likewise the discussion is about inclusion in the library index, not publication, or the promotion involved in maximizing retail sales. [23] [ART19]...your Web Master? In all likelihood this person or company is not involved directly in marketing (and will just suggest you seek promotion services) or is part of the SEO industry...and As has been made quite obvious on SEO message boards there is a very low tolerance for search industry criticism that points a finger at marketing as a culprit... They might try to use a search engine to try to find others similarly dissatisfied ...but what are they likely to find seeking a "watchdog" organization-- Search Engine watch? where the editors occasionally write for Search Engine Blogs... not exactly the Ralph Naders of the search industry. They might find Daniel's site, but what good would that do them as the site provides no guidance regarding getting unscrewed, just details regarding how you got screwed. Unless they have expert knowledge in the use of a search engine it's darn sure they're not going to find my site... and even if they did find it they might perceive the websites isolation as just evidence of hopelessness... So they just say the hell with it and let their site die or let it languish and become just another Internet artifact... just another piece of internet driftwood to be tripped over now and then. Using another example gleaned from personal experience, there are tens of millions of cigarette smokers paying more than $5 for a pack of cigarettes and all that anger and animosity can only muster a week peep, as an Internet presence, amongst a deafening volume of cigarettes selling shysters-- another forum where cigarette smokers have been thoroughly underrepresented is in politics and the media. The most extreme excise tax in the history of America --on an addictive substance no less-- affecting millions of people... yet how many seconds of actual airtime, have actual smokers received. --- instead they're obligated to finance commercials maligning themselves. The point being, if you're waiting to hear the roar of the crowd, before you will join in, than frankly you are too useless to be worth wasting words on. As you keep skirtings facts, and sighting "most people" ( or don't know up from down on the Internet) as an authority ... and as this site apparently isn't read by anyone-- playing circular word Twister with you probably isn't a constructive use of my time. [a] [NetE20] Contrary to what you might think, quite a few people read this eGroup. Moreover, many of your XODP posts have been indexed by Google, which (in turn) has increased the prominence of your Web site. [20] [ART21] As I receive no relevant traffic from search engines this is a case of times zero multiplication. [21] [NetE20] Oh, yeah . . . you're welcome. [20] [ART21] well you can stick that up the "unrecommended" orifice of your choice. [21] [NetE18] Of course, this exercise requires you to momentarily ignore the great personal tragedy that you have had to endure by producing a magnum opus that is not appreciated by its intended audience, but trust me . . . there is a light at the end of the tunnel. [n] [ART19] This "intended audience" who do you think they are, and when did they visit my site. Yes the site has been judged Unrecommendable by the shysters of the SEO industry... Who else besides brain dead algorithms' have done an evaluation? [a] [NetE18] Now, ask yourself: "What am *I* doing wrong? Why aren't people coming to my site?" Please note that any answer which pretends to project responsibility upon another person, institution, or conspiracy will be dismissed as self-indulgent narcissism. [n] [ART19] Obviously, what I am doing wrong? Is that I am being a civilized principled "idealist" on a planet of stupid, dishonest, creepy shysters who probably haven't on average spent five minutes in their entire lives contemplating the meaning of the word "efficiency". My "mistake" has been to refuse to be duplicitous, and to make false friends, under false pretense regardless of my "personal interest". As to the question of why people are not coming to my site? My obvious answer is because search engines don't work... and there are no "idealists" who matter (or who are well enough informed) to blow the whistle on that obvious fact. This simple truth is I would much rather be a low responsibility flag-waving follower than to be burdened with the responsibility of being a failed leader. I will concede that so far I haven't played whatever cards I have very well or well enough... wasting time in this little Wonderland monument to failure, arguing with the matterless King Mud Pie is probably one of those misplayed cards... [a] [ART17] Assuming the second stupid argument was your intended implication it brings us right back to the beginning and my claim that the "science of search" has been replaced on the Internet by corporations erecting a location promotion filter designed to do nothing more than siphoned billions of dollars out of Internet productivity. [17] [NetE18] Sorry, but your being *VERY* verbose, and your "complaint," such as it is, has been lost in a plethora of neoverbalistic tripe. Boiling said tripe down to its particulars, it's pretty easy to figure out that there's no pony at the bottom. In other words, you're very good at pretending to point fingers of blame at "greedy corporations," but the charge is a weak one at best. Said "greedy corporations" took the Internet from being an obscure communication medium used by academia and the military to the most revolutionary and influential communication medium the world has ever known. [n] [ART19] Are you really silly enough to believe that a public Internet was something other than inevitable... [19] [NetE20] Are you really silly enough to believe that the Internet would have become a household word without a big push from "greedy corporations"? [20] [ART21] The original search engines that made the internet work were in fact not greedy corporations-- they were largely experiments attempting to efficiently provide a basic element of logically necessary infrastructure. [21] [NetE22] You're changing the subject here. The question was whether you believed that the *INTERNET* would have become a household word without a big push from "greedy corporations." Your answer is not unlike telling me that the number of stars on the American flag is "red, white, and blue." [22] [ART23] Of course I think the Internet would of been a household word without "billion dollar greedy corporations". Many early ISP provided service on very low-margins, and high-quality content was provided with low expectations regarding financial compensation. The fact is the "value" was obvious to anyone capable of mastering the technical obstacles and exponential growth inevitable. I would further contend that greedy corporations and like-minded spammers are diminishing value and may in time make the Internet is a household CURSE word. [23] [NetE22] In any event, the "original search engines that [purportedly] made the Internet work" were most certainly designed by would-be entrepreneurs, and (without exception) getting rich was the primary motivation for said would-be entrepreneurs. [22] [ART23] "getting rich was the primary motivation" ...I don't think you can prove that. It seems obvious from statements made by the google creators early in its development that they envision no billion dollar payoff. ...and as I understand yahoo's history it was started with the rather pure motive to simply provide the organization that did not exist. [23] [ART19] ...Your argument is like saying NBC turned television into the greatest video content production and distribution system the world as ever known. ...talk about a aplethora of neoverbalistic tripe-- the networks have had a corner on that market for over 50 years. Contrary to what's on the wasteland, my tripe contained real substance that you again ran away from. First the issue of a "promotion filter", its existence is real, and it effects are as onerous, unnecessary and unjustified as any other form of censorship. The other related point, you have ignored many times before, references the pointlessly wasted energy consumed forcing content providers to play a no win (for the consumer) , pyramid style (the price of victory inevitably gets priced higher than winning is worth) king of Mt. Internet game. [a] [NetE18] Assuming, _arguendo_, that "greedy corporations" are standing in the way of progress in the science of search, you're not particularly good at proposing a workable solutions to the "problem" that you have defined. [n] [ART19] I have outlined the elements of a workable solution-- the idea of augmenting the basic infrastructure of the Internet by providing a centralized source of reliable meta-data ( descriptive information) is not hard to comprehend. [a] [NetE20] And on this much we are in total agreement, at least in theory. [20] [ART21] The difference being your suggested solutions, have been tried and failed, and mine has not. [21] [NetE18] Or is it your position that if we all nod our heads in unison while chanting about the evil and prurient nature of "greedy corporations" that said entities will be magically vanquished? [n] [ART19] It's not about vanquishing greedy corporations, it's about providing a certain standard of basic functionality that creates a competitive incentive for them to stay on roads relevant to the public interest. [a] [ART17]As you are one of the bottom feeders, thriving on this socially negative-sum marketing game, I really shouldn't be surprised by your refusal to stay on subject...[17] [NetE18] Dude, I am hardly a "bottom feeder." I am *VERY* particular about who I work for and what I work on, and I would welcome the creation of a more level playing field. Indeed, if making money were my only goal, I would probably still be in sales and distribution, which is where the real money is. In any event, my character is not at issue here, and it is *YOU*, once again, who has taken us off the topic by attempting to poison the well. [n] [ART19] What is good for the goose bla..bla..bla. [a] [ART17]... and the subject is the fact that marketing is a "contrivance"... it has no vital role ( now especially in the digital age) and by allowing it to infiltrate, if not exclusively own, basic Internet infrastructure we have substantially retarded productivity and progress. [17] [NetE18] Hardly a convincing argument. More like an opinion that assumes what it hopes to prove. And the song has been sung before, by singers with better voices. [n] [ART19] Where has it been sung before? I'd much rather do my bit to amplify the better voices... where are they... can I get there from here? ...will a search engine show me where they are? [a] [NetE18] Marketing is a legitimate business function. At its absolute worst, marketing is a necessary evil. And more often than not marketing is totally ineffective because the people who are employed in marketing are not particularly good at what they are supposed to do, but they are very good at putting on a good image and making it look like everything is going according to plan. [n] [ART19] How is marketing "necessary" in a virtually instantaneously connected world? [19] [NetE20] The most common metaphor is the "marketplace of ideas," but I think that the metaphor "battleground of ideas" is just as apt. Even the most pious of charities appreciates the need to employ fund raisers and seek celebrity endorsements. Even more important is the ability to connect with people who really need the goods and services that you have to offer. Effective marketing research helps purveyors of information, goods, and service find out how to do just that. [20] [ART21] It's not a "battleground of ideas" it's a the battleground of money and creative deception. No one not sucking a living as part of the problem could see it any other way. [21] [NetE22] Once again, marketing is a legitimate function of business; at worst, a necessary evil. And for the most part, people who make their living in marketing are no better or worse than people who make their living in any other way. [22] [ART23] To imply that all professions have equal social value is again idiotic. You obviously haven't had extensive or complete exposure to economic theory. The concept of "productivity" is used to make relative comparisons regarding the value produced in proportion to the cost of that production. On a scale from serial killers to Nobel prize-winning inventors, I wouldn't place marketing shysters much above shoplifters in terms of their "productive" contribution. [23] [ART19] the truth is, like all Spam, marketing can only "work" if systems are broken enough to permit the required chaos. ignorance, noise, confusion, disarray etc. There is an undeniably inverse relationship between the value of marketing, and the relevancy of generic search results. In theory "marketing" has no future on the Internet (or anywhere else), but it is a "theory" that can't be applied if we allow marketing companies to exclusively own all the competitively substantial players in the search industry. [a] [ART13] if there are any sadistic billionaires in the audience I am willing to be voluntarily crucified in the public square if given the opportunity to achieve my goals for the Internet. The slime ball that you are, you keep atempting to convert the argument into a referendum on my integrity. How about we both chip in and buy the services of a qualified lie detector examiner and see who's full of BS in this argument.[13] [NetE10] Yeah, whatever. The Internet is primarily a medium for communication, and having access to something over the Internet presumes that one is able to access information about that something. [10] [ART11] sometimes you feel like and nut, sometimes you don't. sometimes I just want to know who's got it cheaper, and 4000 middlemen talking about it, just make the haystack bigger and the needle harder to find.[11] [NetE8] and Wikipedia is an unqualified success at large scale online collaborative content generation, [ART9] who said otherwise. [9] [NetE8] a place of first resort when researching an unfamiliar topic. [ART9] maybe, but I tend to more appreciate information that hasn't been filtered by a "collaborative". [9] [NetE10] Which is what blogging is all about. RSS feeds allow people everywhere to aggregate unfiltered content to their hearts' content. Problem solved.[10] [ART11] how does the existence of blogs or rss solve the problem of "finding" on the Internet. [NetE12] A growing segment of people looking for information on the Internet are turning to blogs as their primary information portals. [ART13] Obviously, this "Blog like message board" isn't on anyone's portal list.[13] [NetE12] Similarly, a growing segment of people looking for information on the Internet are using content aggregators to filter RSS feeds and find the freshest content on the particular blogs that they consider worthy of note.[12] [ART13] and I suppose it's not a flaw in this system that only a small percentage of blogs are "considered" for consideration.[13] [NetE14] The blogosphere is a highly decentralized information resource with virtually no barriers to entry. As a general rule, A-list bloggers start off by publishing to an audience of one and are then discovered by other like-minded bloggers. Some people have a hard time understanding this.[14] [ART15] The fact that popularity breeds power, and that power breeds popularity creates a scenario where "the rich are likely to stay rich". Another applicable analogy might be the "power of incumbency". Like-minding yourself to the popular should not be a defacto requirement for establishing a viable reality on the Internet. Content not "contacts" is supposed to be king.... it's not supposed to be who you know, it is supposed to be what you know...etc....Some people have too easily a time ignoring this.[15] [NetE16]Paradoxically, the comments to which you are responding also serve as a rebuttal to your comments. Rather than recapitulate my comments, I will simply aver to them, as I am under no obligation to save anyone from his or her ignorance, and I have no desire to do so. [16] [ART17] So the existence of brokenness is its own justification. Slavery should have been, because it was. that's just stupid.[17] [NetE18] I agree. It is stupid. So why did you try to put words into my mouth that I didn't say? [n] [ART19] What did come out of your mouth was the implication that one must do as the system demands without rebellion or complaint. I just provided an extreme example of the implications of your implication. [a] [ART17] The fact is there doesn't have to be any "like-minded test" and the Internet can be more rationally, logically, fairly, accurately and efficiently indexed. [17] [NetE18] In other words, you are proposing that the "like-minded test" be replaced with the "right-thinking test." Okay, as long as I get to decide who's right and who's wrong. To wit, I'm right, and you're wrong. [n] [ART19] I don't think a fair rational person reading any of this could possibly conclude I'm suggesting some "right-thinking test" -- What I'm suggesting is that content providers be given the practical right to earn or buy a outlet (store frunt) on an "honest" Internet highway. I am suggesting something that would exist parallel to the current Internet in all its Spammish splendor. If a content provider knew they had an honest story to tell they could voluntarily take the "test", and receive the reward of enhanced credibility and appropriate indexing . Those who see no need to take any stinking test would remain perfectly free to spam their way to as much highway real-estate as they want on the current superspamway. [a] [ART17] books arn't allowed to lie to the librarian, nor are they indexed by irrelevancies like a cover art or color... books are index based on what they are as content-- the same should hold true for websites.[17] [NetE18] And there should be two chickens in every pot, which begs the question of how this goal can actually be attained. Perhaps we should "tax the rich, . . . feed the poor, 'til there are no rich no more." [n] [ART19] If there was a whole brain in every head we could probably have 40 chickens in every pot. You keep making the empty implication that it is beyond our technical capacity to compile a substantially complete data base of reliable meta-data describing the content available on the Internet. [19] [NetE20] Sorry, but that has never been my position. I think the idea of creating a comprehensive data base of reliable meta data is a laudable goal and one that can be achieved. However, I do *NOT* think that it is a goal that can be easily achieved. To quote our own feckless President's failed attempt to export democracy to Iraq, "It's hard work!" [20] [ART21] Comparing the theoretically possible to the theoretically ludicrous doesn't serve much of a purpose. [21] [ART19] ...I've made the point in previous discussions that it isn't any more complex than collecting and compiling the personal information solicited every time a domain name is registered. [19] [NetE20] In essence, this is the same thing that people encounter when they submit a URL to Yahoo!, Looksmart, or ODP, and my experience has been that even the most scrupulous and honest of site owners are not particularly good at self-description. Given the opportunity to provide a title and description for their Web sites, the whatis database would probably contain quite a few Web sites entitled "Insert your Web site title here" and quite a few descriptions that read "Insert your Web site description here." [20] [ART21] You have minimize the need for a solution, and persistently argued against the approach I recommend-- yet you're willing to provoke discussion over "superficial details". [21] [NetE22] I have not "minimize[d] the need for a solution." Rather, I have attempted to put the problem into proper perspective. To wit, the problem with search engine technology today is its mediocrity. I know we can do better, but I also know that a mediocre solution is commonly perceived to be an adequate solution, and it is "hard work" to sell people on the need to fix something that they don't perceive as being broken. This problem is not unique to search engine technology; the popularity of mediocre alternatives is the bane of all true innovation and progress. [22] [ART23] No... morons who convolute, distort, and nit-pick-to-pieces progressive ideas with the intent to "disruptively" diminish there acceptability are "the bane of all true innovation and progress." [23] [NetE22] As for the approach that you recommend, I have not "persistently argued against" it. In fact, I believe that a WHATIS database would be a Good Thing(TM), and the reason that I "provoke discussion over 'superficial details'" is because it is in the details that we are in disagreement. [22] [ART23] As inventor of the terminology "whatis database" I think I should have some say in what the terminology is implied to mean-- as it is a variation on the "whois database" I can say, emphatically, it does not mean a decentralized amateur database. When there is disagreement on EVERY detail, and substantial disagreement on the most important details-- there is in fact practical disagreement regarding the whole. ...and what is the difference anyway? you've already basically stated that the best I can hope to achieve in discussion with you is a willingness not to hate the idea enough to oppose it... the idea doesn't need more useless non-opposers it needs enthusiastic supporters... so clearly I'm wasting my time here. [23] [ART21] ...As pointed out previously-- best construction of the database would narrow "most" of the descriptive information to multiple choice (limited language) answers to standard questions. [21] [NetE22] This could work, provided there was a space for "other (insert description)." [22] [ART23] The better the questions are designed the less need there will be for "other" description. As for your "could work" acknowledgement it has no value because you will never support the elements vital to success. [23] [ART19] The whois databases isn't showing any signs of imminent collapse. and your false argument of crack "pot" impracticality is just blowing smoke. [a] [ART17] ...not exactly small particle physics or brain surgery but I guess you're still too ignorant to get it.... or too corrupt to want it. [17] [ART11] If you evaluated google performance based on how it indexes Blogs you could characterize it as top 10 radio rather then Top 40 radio. I don't have exact statistics but I would bet 1% of blogs get 99% of the available search engine exposure on relevant keywords-- not exactly unfiltered access.[11] [NetE8] However, when researching any topic properly, nothing takes the place of peer reviewed literature, [ART9] peer review might have relevance in certain disciplines ( medicine for example) but the others like history or social sciences peer review can mean imposed dogma and propaganda. [9] [NetE10] Which brings us back, once again, to the blogosphere, where bloggers can freely associate with like-minded individuals and carry on dialogues with people who hold sharply contrasting viewpoints. [10] [ART11] Again, what does this have to do with "indexing the Internet"[11] [NetE8]which (as a general rule) is not available online.[8] [ART9] the "party line" so to speak, is certainly more accessible than the minorities challenge.[9] [NetE6] On this note, I do not share your characterization of the search industry as being "completely controlled by capitalist industry," [ART7] than your missing the obvious. [7] [NetE6] nor do I think that the problems currently facing the search industry, whatever they might be, can be fairly attributed in any measurable degree to capitalist industry. [ART7] the problem is the obvious incentive to placate pop culture [more money] and the obvious conflict of interest presented by "paid advertising" [location promotion] [7] [NetE8] Obvious to whom? I'm not even sure what you mean by "placating pop culture," [ART9] You mean you haven't seen any television, or listen to broadcast radio in the last 50 years. Placating pop culture means "sacred cows" and no Ralph Nader's at the debate.[9] [NetE10] Wow. How could I have missed the relevance of such a clear and concise line of reasoning? Perhaps because this line of "reasoning" is not particularly clear and concise and because it has very little relevance to anything we have been discussing.[10] [ART11] I am discussing the fact, that google, like Top 40 radio, patronizes the broadest possible, lowest common denominator, "pop culture" demographic -- which is not un like the marketing strategy of the average book store. By contrast, a library attempts to make all content equally accessible.[11] [NetE12] Your faith in the inherent superiority of libraries over bookstores is very quaint, [ART13] To imply that it is an "article of faith" to see productive purpose in the existence of libraries is just cheap rhetoric.[13] [NetE12] but it has very little to do with what ails the search engine industry. [ART13] The nonexistence of anything comparable to the library card catalog, organizing the Internet, has everything to do with the cheap tacky junkyard the Internet is becoming. [13] [NetE14] That is what you believe, but it is a very nebulous proposition that is far from self-evident. Using your analogy of the public library, the primary issue is one of selective acquisition. To wit, public libraries do not make any effort to acquire and/or index any and all books that have ever been printed. Rather, they acquire particular books, totally disregard most books, and even dispose of books that they consider unworthy of shelf space.[14] [ART15]You built this argument on a flatly wrong promise, of course libraries make the effort to index all books, and regardless of what an individual library possesses they make every effort to make all books available..[15] [NetE16] No, libraries do not make an "effort to index all books." Rather, individual libraries make an effort to index all the books that are currently in their possession, and libraries (as a general rule) have an indexing scheme in place that (in theory) allows them to index any books that might come into their possession. Even in this very limited context, there are good faith disagreements about how particular items should be indexed in a particular library's card catalog, and there are serious limitations to the indexing schemes that libraries use. Consequently, more and more libraries are turning to search engine technology as a way of making their collections more accessible to their patrons. [16] [ART17] There really is no way to have a rational discussion of the "issue" if you are going to keep ignoring it, to obsess about irrelevant sideline details. [17] [NetE18] Irrelevant sideline details? My criticism of your ideas is far from detail oriented. Rather, my criticism of your ideas speaks to the crux of the matter -- i.e., you are grossly oversimplifying the task at hand. To wit, the "library model" of Internet indexing and search is not the magic pixie dust that you seem to think it is. [n] [ART19] You wouldn't know a crux even if she drew you a pitcher. To wit you've got pixie dust for brains. Obviously the original designers of the HTML standard didn't think descriptive meta-data was too complex a theory, unfortunately they were apparently unable to anticipate the wholesale lying that would take place if content providers were allowed to self-described themselfs. My system simply places the meta-data in a central location where it can't be edited without evaluation, and where fair claims of fraud can be made by those willing to back-up their claims by putting their own integrity on the line. I've said it before, and it's a truth you've done nothing to refute, injecting accountability is more a matter of will then way. [a] [ART17] I made the point that libraries are interconnected, that there is a national/international data-base, libraries aren't just what they have on the shelf, they are access to almost anything on any shelf. books are now coded and indexed as they are published so lets please get past this discussion of libraries as individual islands, and get back to the relevance of the "library model" as an example of a access model. [17] [NetE16] As for libraries making "every effort to make all books available," that's all well and good, but it has very little to do with the discussion that we are having about *INDEXING* content. [16] [ART17] I have used the words meta-data numerous times. Indexing is about categorizing and you categorized by describing content, not by itemizing it word for word. [NetE18]I'm with you so far.[18] Keyword and phrase searching is a great utility but as most referral logs will show it can butcher meaning, intent, and relevance if there is no way to filter and refine what haystack is being searched. [NetE18]Once again, you'll get no argument from me..[18] [ART17] That's why libraries invented words like fiction and nonfiction and that's why libraries work and search engines don't. [17] [NetE18] Sorry, but you lost me. During college and law school, I did a great deal of library research, and I got pretty skilled at it. I also had the opportunity to compare online databases like Westlaw and Lexis with traditional printed indexes, and I can honestly say that both have their strengths and weaknesses. However, other things being equal, it has always been *MUCH* easier for me to find what I am looking for using a Boolean search on a full-text database than to rely upon the "meta data" of summaries, digests, and keynotes. Occasionally I would follow a blind alley while reviewing a text retrieved by a Boolean search, but figuring out where the blind alleys were was part of the research process. [n] [ART19] "summaries" are not, in my opinion, in any meaningful way synonymous with the "extra descriptive information" that satisfies the common definition of meta-data. As summaries are basically a condensed out-line ( less content) and are not designed to provide relevant descriptive keywords for the purpose of categorization and indexing your personal anecdote is of little relevance. [a] [NetE18] If there is one clear, palpable, and easily remedied problem with the current state of search engines, it is that very few people publish annotated meta data after researching a particular topic. This is a very efficient way of reducing the amount of noise that future searchers encounter. Personally, I always make a point of publishing my research and soliciting feedback. [n] [ART19] how exactly do people find your research? ...[19] [NetE20] They usually use Google. Just type "King Hall Law School" into Google, and the FAQ that I first published about ten years ago will come up in the top ten results, immediately behind the law school's own Web site. Of course, as a ghost writer for other attorneys, the vast majority of my research has not been published under my personal byline. [20] [ART21] That's about as intuitive, as finding a person by typing in the name of a nonexistent brother. [21] [NetE22] Your original query was "how exactly do people find your research?" My answer: They usually use Google. To wit, they type in a keyword, and research that I have done pops up as one of the highest ranking search terms. They don't need to know that I did the research to recognize its quality. [22] [ART23] what keywords? intuitive to a confused user? or intuitive to some who knows exactly what they're looking for? [23] [ART19] ....randomly dialed phone numbers until they reach you, and then ask you for the Web address. What's the shelf life of your research? and if everyone has their research (of various quality) spread over the Internet isn't all that disorganization just going to create more unreliable noise. You wouldn't put amateur made gasoline in your car, why do you want to run the "most revolutionary and influential communication medium the world has ever known" on this amateur recipe. [a] [NetE16] In a more relevant context, it is fair to say that libraries do share their indexes with each other, but these indexing efforts pale in comparison to the mutuality of indexing that occurs with search engines and Web directories. [16] [ART17] E-bays meta-data feedback system scales, Amazons meta-data book description system scales... [NetE18] Humbug. Like IBM/Intel PCs, E-bay and Amazon are practical examples of how easy it is to make silk purses from bats wings. For now, the meta data systems used by these industry leaders is "adequate," at best. In time, an innovator will come up with a disruptive technology that will put both of these companies out of business, as history repeats itself, once again. [n] [ART19] Who was previously put out of business by "disruptive technology" -- As this is just more of the same old unsubstantiated technically impossible mush I will just move on to the next pile of slop. [a] [NetE20] Digital Equipment Corporation. For more information about disruptive technologies, see < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disruptive_technology >. [20] [ART21] I didn't realize there was a new synonym for obsolescence... or the unwillingness to challenge the status quo, and boldly adapt to what the writing on the wall suggests the future will demand. ....takes one to know one, I guess. [21] [NetE22] That's not really what disruptive technology is all about. A good example of a disruptive technology that is currently taking the world by storm is blogging software. In essence, a disruptive technology provides a cheap, low-end alternative to a high priced, higher quality product. Microsoft is the champion of disruptive technology, consistently producing cheap knock offs of higher quality products and putting the competition out of business. [22] [ART23] From my perspective Microsoft products look like the overpriced crap getting disrupted. This concept of "disruption" really isn't a useful addition to our vocabulary. I would concede that sometimes good technology (the 8track and batamax) is "disrupted" out of the opportunity to realize its potential ...but I would speculate that just as often clinging to dead-end obsolete technology retards progress. It's my claim that search engine technology is in fact obsolete and retarding and in need of disruption. [23] [ART21] ...As implied I've had my fill of your Disruptive_rhetoric and will go back to shouting off my own rooftop rather than wasting my time gagging in this suffocating out house. Hopefully I won't be fooled back again by any mirages of purpose. [21] [ART17] ... the obstacle isn't technical... the obstacle is the built-in conflict of interest in having a map making industry that is dependent on location promoters to finance their enterprise. ...as one of the google jerks said years ago "that's why there has to be a competitive noncommercial alternative" [17] [NetE18] While there is a *PLACE* for a noncommercial alternative to companies like Yahoo!, Google, and MSN, it does not necessarily follow that "there has to be a competitive noncommercial alternative." If the quality of commercial services becomes bad enough, people will stop using said services, and a noncommercial alternative is one of many ways of turning up the heat on commercial services. [n] [ART19] I don't really think they can stop using said services until the alternative actually exists. A second point would be, people can't really know how dissatisfied they are, until they actually have something to compare what they have to. [a] [ART15]There is nothing "nebulous" about the connection between indexing chaos and the proliferation of spam that can only thrive in an atmosphere of confusion.[15] [NetE16] And there is no clear message in this assertion, which is best characterized as bombastic hyperbole. While there is clearly room for improvement in the strategies currently employed for indexing and searching the Internet, most people find said strategies to be more than adequate. [16] [ART17] Most people (most of the time) are searching for popular tripe, and have what can turmed low expectations. The point is, that when they're searching for something more important does the search engine provide the straightest line possible between their desire and its fulfillment. I believe the answer is a resounding NO, and that we can do more than just better... technology permits us to do a lot better.... but it can't happen with a search model doesn't just permit deception, and confusion but does in fact reward it. [17] [NetE18] You're conflating a number of issues here. But, in the final analysis, if someone is searching for something "important," then they are well advised to consider the maxim that "there ain't no such thing as a free lunch." [n] [ART19] So I guess they should call them the "not-free public libraries" [a] [NetE18] In other words, if you want to eat a healthy diet, don't let your vendors take you to lunch and dinner every day and every night; dig into your own pocket, buy your own groceries, and cook your own meals. [n] [ART19] right, build my own nuclear power plant, built my own railroad infrastructure, build my own satellite launching capacity etc. [a] [NetE12] What most distinguishes a bookstore from a library is the fact that a library allows people to borrow books without paying for them. You might as well discuss the inherent superiority of museums over art stores, [ART13] that analogy also works for me, consider the discussion amended to include that point.[13] [NetE12] which is the essence of what the Internet typically provides: Content, free of charge.[12] [ART13] with average click prices exceeding 50¢ nothing on the Internet is free anymore, especially exposure to a relevant audience. There is a 5 to $15 billion marketing tax on the Internet, and the money's not going to shiftless government, it's going to the even more shiftless Internet search/marketing industry.[13] [NetE14] Average click prices? I suppose that depends upon what company you are using. Google's Adwords campaign is by far the most expensive, which is why I try to convince my clients to avoid it. However, it is entirely possible to spend no more than the minimum of $20 per month on Overture and to spend no more than the minimum of 10 cents per click there. Going to the second tier pay per click services, it is relatively easy to find one cent click throughs. And then there's organic search results, which are where the real bargains come in to play. [ART15] The "average" price I quoted, was a figure I read for the industry as a whole, "averaging" the total amount spent on paid clicks, to a per click "average". The only fact that needs to be understood is that this "marketing tax", that is paid for just basic exposure and accessibility, represents a barrier access that was not included in any early blueprints of Internet development.[15] [NetE16] The commercialization of the Internet was inevitable, and with the commercialization of the Internet has come more and better content and a larger audience -- i.e. Good Things(TM). [16] [ART17] Like more and better e-mail I suppose [17] [NetE16] For those who do not wish to pay to play before this larger audience, there are alternatives that involve patience and persistence, but there ain't no such thing as a free lunch. [16] [ART17] I obviously reject this notion that I must become a "player". The real alternative is to publicly finance a clean alternative that does not require billions in extortion to be paid to marketing shysters... like yourself. Straight lines between production and consumption, between information and those who seek it... the real treasure of the Internet and I will not find (or make real) that treasure using the google marketing model. [17] [ART15] I further contend that these billions of dollars produce no Internet or social value, and only represent a parasitic drain on its productivity, and on progress.[15] [NetE14] As a general rule, a high quality Web site need only pursue a strategy of link exchange to get a high volume of click-through traffic. If one has lots of time and not much cash, this is the way to go. But there ain't no such thing as a free lunch.[14] [ART15] With each passing day the integrity and value of "links" is diminishing, diluted by foolish rules that encourage the creation of insincere and arbitrary links (that like google ads deliberately look textually sincere). What percentage of newly created links are "designed" to serve the Internet consumers best interest, and what percentage are designed to serve a monetary interest? I believe there's a point where this declining ratio will make this "breadcrumb" lunch basically inedible.[15] [NetE16] You are definitely on to something here, but it has nothing to do with your assertions regarding the "unfairness" of the pay for play Internet marketing model. In a nutshell, the problem that you have outlined here is that Google must acknowledge the shortcomings of its algorithm and adapt, or it will perish. I've been saying this for years, but it is a long term forecast. [16] [ART17] Google thrives on spam, it is the Internet that will perish (as more than Top 40 radio) on this "link meatless" diet. The Internet can only survive what ruined television, only if we insure that the new, obscure and less popular channels remain "reasonably" accessible. [17] [NetE8] and if we asked 100 people at random what that meant, I doubt that one of them would have a definition that was anything even remotely similar to yours. [ART9] well I didn't invent the phrase "Top 40 radio" so someone else must know what I'm talking about. [9] [NetE8] As far as the "obvious conflict of interest presented by 'paid advertising,'" that's a little bit easier to understand, [ART9] well "popular content only" is pretty easy to understand... easier would be something like ABCD...[9] [NetE8] but I think that it's more properly characterized as a *potential* conflict of interest. [ART9] I think the potential hasn't been fully realized-- partly because search results are so bad advertising still looks good by comparison. The inverse relationship between good generic search results, and the value of an advertisement means the "business model" fails if generic search results get too relevant.[9] [NetE10] I think you're on to something here. [ART11] I'm not going to fall for that again...[11] [NetE10] Generally speaking, there are two types of search results, and you seem to be talking about the tension between "organic" search results, which purport to be objective, and the sponsored search results that are more or less synonymous with advertising. Truth be told, Overture's business model is based on the premise that sponsored search results are often much more relevant than organic search results, but this premise does not hold true in situations where the purveyor of information has no profit motive. In such instances, there is an inherent need to complement sponsored search results with organic search results. [ART11] No one needs to know the exact mechanics that make bookstores different than libraries.... this simple question is-- does the Internet [arguably the greatest technical advance in human history] deserve a public library style investment in its basic infrastructure? yes or fn no! [11] [NetE12] Sorry, but it's not at all clear what you mean by "a public library style investment in [the Internet's] basic infrastructure." I'm not even sure that you know what you mean.[12] [ART13] Come now we have debated the details of my "whatis the whois" proposal numerous times, the pretense of confusion has every appearance of being a contrived redfish. The proposal in essence simply suggests a better mechanism be created to ensure or "guarantee" the integrity of meta-data used to describe web content. [NetE14] I am sorry, but there is nothing simple about your purportedly "better mechanism" for quality control.[14] [ART15] Regardless of specifics the point is that accountability/quality control is a manageable feature of most human enterprise and does not require rocket science complexity. Wise, careful development of an "efficient mechanism for quality control" is part of "rational" system design.... except on the Internet. [15] [NetE16] Clearly, we are not living in the same world. In my world, there is a worldwide conspiracy of ignorance and incompetence, reaching from the highest levels of government and industry to the lowest levels of petty bureaucracy. Not a day goes by that I do not find myself saying, "I see dumb people. They're everywhere. They don't know they're dumb." The only thing that keeps me sane is limiting the amount of influence that other people have over my destiny, and every once in a while I come upon someone who shares my angst. To wit, on a recent train trip I happened to be sitting across the table from a California Superior Court Judge who nodded his head in agreement when I opined about the lack of professionalism I had seen on the bench, and he told me a joke that drive the point home: Q. What do you call a lawyer with an IQ of 75? A. "Your Honor." [16] [ART17] If all I cared about was "my destiny" I would just go back to being an artist and paint lesbians all day. Unfortunately for me, "my sanity" is directly tied to a sense of purpose, or obligation if you will, that makes it nearly impossible for me to ignore broken-ness that can be easily fixed. Conforming is also something adverse to my nature. I guess I will either live free of inefficient and downright destructive contrived BS or I will die trying.... for myself and for those future persons who may have the misfortune of being "like-minded" Clearly you don't see the brokenness I see, or any problem of any significant magnitude... a worse truth that is becoming apparent is that even if you could be persuaded that the Internet is performing far below its potential you, likely as not, wouldn't let it bother you much as long as your destiny isn't compromised. [17] [ART13] This data would be incorporated into a "card like catalog" that would be searchable based upon some standard reference keywords relevant to website attributes, making it possible to rationally and logically find the specific type of content one seeks. [13] [NetE14] Standard reference keywords? No such thing. In fact, the vast majority of search engine queries are unique.[14] [ART15] "Clustering" search engines demonstrate the reality you say doesn't exist. Unfortunately, they are clustering useless and chaotic meta-data, so the clustering is largely wasted energy. Websites have characteristics ( location relevance, date produced, content format, originality, member fees, sponsorship etc... ) In 99.99% of practical living experience we are obligated to provide descriptive information ( name, rank, serial number) in a specified - limited language- format. There is nothing evil or draconian in simply conceding that "automated data processing devices" don't like ambiguous and inconsistent verbage and likewise accepting that descriptive meta-data should to be sensibly reduced to a "basic consistent language" computer's can understand. duh.[15] [NetE16] How so? Because a small number of search queries -- i.e, less than *ONE* percent of all search queries -- recur frequently enough to merit the attention of some search engines? To a large degreee, this is the tail wagging the dog, as most people who are promoting a Web site have a list of "important" keywords that they regularly enter into search engines like Google to see where they rank. [16] [ART17] Clustering engines don't cluster search queries, they cluster on common site characteristics and variations in word meaning. They attempt to "categorize" listings based on potentially relevant attributes (local, government, Commerce etc). As stated, the big limitation is the requirement to glean "descriptive information" from the verbiage on the page which is neither reliable or practical. The practical improvement, that would make a substantial contribution to relevancy would be a reliable source of meta-data. [NetE18] Not one of the clustering search engines that I have encountered relies upon meta deta. Rather, they use traditional techniques of keyword and keyphrase frequency and density. It's a gimmick, plain and simple. [n] [ART19] Exactly as I stated, the technology has no practical functionality, without a source of reliable meta-data. [a] [ART17] What I am advocating for, is a public investment sufficient enough to make the creation of this reliable meta-data, a basic function of basic Internet infrastructure. [17] [NetE18] Despite my libertarian nature, the problems that I have with your amorphous and nebulous proposal have very little to do with how it would be financed. There's actually plenty of grant money available to people who are doing meaningful research in the area of search engine technology; if said research bears fruit, there's more money available. If you really believe in your ideas, perhaps you should consider writing up a grant proposal and/or forming a non-profit organization to make your dreams a reality. [n] [ART19] This is one of those no point in doing it, if you're not gonna do it right, kind of things. Government financing would produce the extensive media coverage and popular exposure such an enterprise would require to successfully accomplish its mission (without the interference of regulation). ...remember the exposure the do-not-call list got. Obviously, if the vast majority of honest content producers have no knowledge that there exists an opportunity to "register" their content and have it precisely categorized for inclusion in a honest map (database) of the Internet, the data base will not be complete enough to be of practical use. In other words, you realistically can't grow this from a seed, you got to spend the bucks and buy (or pre germinate) a ready to grow plant. [a] [ART13]it's not as simple at observing the wrinkles on peas but it ain't coronary bypass surgery either and it's kind of silly to pretend after all this time that you "don't understand". The truth is you like Chios because it provides YOU opportunities to exploit-- and you have little appreciation for libraries and museums because shysters can make NO living there.[13] [NetE10] As it stands right now, organic search results are the province of Google, Yahoo!, and a whole bunch of other companies funded by venture capitalists, and their primary objective is making profits for their stockholders. Sure, there are people on the inside who care about the quality of their product, but the bottom line is a financial one. Consequently, as I see it, the problem with the search engine industry is that there is a potential conflict of interest between the profit motive and the desire to provide high quality organic search results. [ART11] Yes, and water is wet and ice is cold, and your skull is thick.... etc.[11] [NetE10] There was a time when ODP held the promise of being able to provide a comprehensive database of trusted URLs that could be used to power search engine algorithms, and thus provide high quality organic search results, [ART11] I know we first met there.[11] [NetE10] but that time has long since passed. [ART11] nothing wrong with the theory you just can't let unimaginative spammers run the show.[11] [NetE12] There was quite a bit wrong with the odp, both in theory and in practice, and a change in upper management would do little to effect any sort of meaningful change. [ART13] that is preposterous nonsense... and I only wish I could have the reins for awhile to prove how wrong you are. In a matter of hours the policy that allows unreviewed sites to remain isolated from public inspection could be abolished. Change the editors function from exclusively "including" sites, to one of exclusively "excluding" sites (and put the exclusions on a linked page) and you accomplish substantial reform almost effortlessly. Dad management is the problem, honest "idealist" imaginative management is the solution.[13] [NetE12] The primary problem was one of scalability, which created all sorts of problems with quality control. The infighting and headbusting among the powers that be were just symptoms of those underlying problems.[12] [ART13] Secrecy, and the control freak fascism it provides opportunity for, was and is the problem. takeaway the opportunity to commit, secret dirty tricks, and secret dirty tricksters won't be applying for the job.[13] [NetE10] Instead, organic search results have become a commodity market that is easily manipulated by search engine optimization experts. [ART11] the simple solution is to stop letting content producers control "meta data" ...ebay sellers are allowed to edit their own "feedback" why should Internet content providers be allowed to exclusively self-describe themselves. [NetE12] Do you really believe that this incoherent rambling describes a "simple solution"?[12] [ART13] Make the correction that "ebay sellers are NOT allowed to edit their own "feedback"" and I will stand by the concept of "accountability" as a deterrent to wrong behavior.[13] [NetE14] My experience with eBay has been largely positive, but fraud is quite rampant there.[14] [ART15] I'm no fan of ebay, as I see them exploiting monopoly status in an industry that has a natural tendency to encourage monopolization-- although I would say that I think "rampant" might be an exaggeration. My point was, and is, that they have a simple system of accountability that provides a good measure of protection at a very minor cost in inconvenience. An added point I would make is the mechanisms for establishing "integrity/reliability" can be added in modular stages and sellers of "content" (on the Internet for example) could choose to pay for, or commit to, only the level of "integrity" they're comfortable guaranteeing. Put simply the evil of deception can be punished and discouraged-- it's not a matter of how, it's a matter of will.[15] [NetE16] And my point is that the "simple system of accountability" that eBay has in place can be easily outsmarted by people who know how to play a fiddle. [16] [ART17] And you people are fiddle playing while the Internet burns. When you consider how much money and merchandise changes hands through e-bay the amount of successful fraud is well within acceptable limits. The system does by practical standards work and to discredit it based on inevitable imperfection is fraudulent rhetoric. [17] [ART11] Unlike even Dumboz, google's preposterous recipe, doesn't even have a theoretical chance of success.[11] [NetE12] For all intents and purposes, most people would consider Google to be an unqualified success. [ART13] I've already told you what I think of "most people" and regardless basic logic disqualifys such meaningless irrelevant rhetoric.[13] [NetE12] The glaring exceptions to this general rule are the people who are frustrated by their lack of prominence on Google, which most objective observers would dismiss as a case of sour grapes. [ART13] I love to see you accuse Ron Goldman's father of "sour grapes". You can't deal with the facts, so instead your start taking rifle shots at my character-- that is your prerogative, but it looks desperate, and the fair minded won't be fooled. Does this "means" of argument justify the muddy "end"[13] [NetE12] Are Google's search results easily manipulated by unscrupulous marketers? Yes. [ART13] Do you think anything should be done about it, NO[13] [NetE12] Is there room for improvement in Google's algorithm? Yes. [ART13] Too bad you can't seem to realize that the only possible solution is the inclusion of reliable meta-data.[13] [NetE14] I wholeheartedly disagree. Reliable meta-data is a goal, not a solution.[14] [ART15] Another emphatic pronouncement backed up with no rational defense. Your statement basically claims that "unreliable self-description" doesn't play a major role in rampant problem of search engine spam.[15] [NetE16] I wholeheartedly disagree. My statement claims that "reliable meta-data is a goal, not a solution." On this note, "unreliable self-description" is clearly part of the problem, as it has always been. [16] [ART17] and I wholeheartedly disagree. Unreliable (deceptive) self-description the whole problem... every inch of it. And eliminating the chaos injected by permitted deception is the whole solution ...and the best way to eliminate it is to permit the creation of reliable meta-data. [17] [ART15] That is ludicrous on its face, and on its naked emperor shiny butt as well. The only reason why reliable meta-data would be a goal is because it offers a measure of solution. That is what rational goals are "solutions".[15] [NetE16] I wholeheartedly disagree. Goals are goals; solutions are practical means for attaining goals. [16] [ART17] Goals are objectives, and solution can be the objectives, but the correct answer is always a solution that solves the problem. or whenever. [17] [NetE12] Would a government sponsored Internet index be a solution, simple or otherwise, to any of the problems with the current state of the search engine industry? No.[12] [ART13] Compared to $800 million to sniff Martian rocks (we already took a tun of pitchers more then 20 years ago, and tasted the rocks to.) An investment of a few million dollars in the infrastructure of a technology that has the potential to reep huge productivity gains seems a no-brainer [NetE14] If it's a no-brainer, then why has your proposal yet to catch on?[14] [ART15] Rephrasing A "matters" theory of yours... because no one who matters cares, and no one who cares matters. [15] [ART13] ... more precisely, only the brainless could see any harm in trying.[13] [NetE10] I profit from this sad state of affairs through my work as an Internet consultant, but I make a point of carefully selecting my clients, and I yearn for a truly level playing field.[10] [ART11] In the first place there really is no game to be played-- you don't see library books competing with each other, trying to steal whatever advantage they can. Done right there is no need for consultants, coaches, or trainers for internet content to be accessible --all you need is a pure objective some simple fair rules.... libraries have that, bookstores don't.[11] [NetE12] Both libraries and bookstores are very selective about the books that they acquire. [ART13] Libraries routinely make all the books in all libraries across the United States of America "accessible".[13] [NetE14] Look, dude . . . nobody is questioning the fact that public libraries are a good thing. In fact, nobody is questioning the fact that public libraries are, on the whole, a wise expenditure of public funds, other things being equal. What I am questioning is whether the merits of public libraries have any relevance to the problem of quality control in search engine indexing.[14] [ART15] I think the relevance is obvious. I've provided the analogy of of bookstores verses libraries, and you provided the analogy of commercial art galleries verses museums. Obviously a public investment has made a tremendous difference in the depth and diversity of the cultural treasures we the people are provided practical access to.... and there is no reason to believe that a similarly tremendous difference could not be made on the Internet as well. The savings in zero sum marketing taxes alone would have the investment pay for itself in a matter of days, and is worth it for that reason alone.[15] [NetE16] Thank you for providing a clear and lucid statement of your position. I wholeheartedly agree that the responsible expenditure of public funds is a Good Thing(TM), but I still don't believe that an expenditure of public funds for indexing the Internet would result in the same clear and palpable benefits that are currently realized from the public funding of libraries, museums, and (new additions) colleges and universities. Indeed, if there are benefits to be obtained from public financing of the Internet, they are more than likely already being obtained through the public financing of libraries. [16] [ART17] The first difference would be the obvious benefits of eliminating the onerous neg-sum "accessibility tax"... small enterprise would again see reason to invest in having a Internet presence. The second abundance of "clear and palpable benefits" would be realized based on the "line straitening" effect of creating honest, logical connections between production and consumption. For example: Every web site of local relevance would be, with reliable and complete meta-data, easily accessed by ZIP code, or GPS coordinates ... this advance is already a decade late.... and the continued delay is discouraging the creation of very useful local content. [17] [NetE12] The primary difference between the two is that bookstores typically acquire books that they hope to sell, whereas libraries typically acquire books that will be useful as reference sources. Even so, most libraries will acquire popular books that have no real reference value because patrons want these books. In any event, neither libraries nor bookstores provide comprehensive access to content, and neither one provides a comprehensive index to content.[12] [ART13] I think the access is pretty comprehensive, if not always immediate. Ironically the card catalog has been improved through digital technology. Amazon Dot com provides an interesting example of what's possible-- Amazon indexes each book it makes available "through" an entire Web page of meta-data that includes all manner of practical description and even editorial reviews. Sites attempting to index the Internet should permit development of the same kind of content "profile information".[13] [NetE14] Congratulations. You've just sung the merits of what private industry can do without the need for public funding, and re-invented Alexa in the process.[14] [ART15] No what I've done is pointed to an example of what digital technology permits, or enables us to do. Sadly, libraries would likely be able to provide a similarly enhanced infrastructure but they haven't been provided much of a "develope the Internet" budget. Alexa is just another 1% solution. [15] [NetE16] If your argument is that the indexing of the Internet can be significantly enhanced by giving public libraries a larger role in that process, and a significantly larger budget, you will get no rebuttal from me. But that argument is categorically different from the one that you have been making. [16] [ART17] It's about creating a accurate meta-data map of the Internet-- obviously as library personnel has an expertise in language and the semantics of description-- library involvement might be sensible... but I think the mission is better served by an institution dedicated to the singular purpose of creating a accurate reference database of standard web page/site characteristics (meta-data). [17] [NetE8] Advertisers can and often do excercise a tremendous amount of control over online content, [ART9] I would have just stoped at the word "control". [9] [NetE8] but expectations of consumer preference typically have a much stronger impact on what type of content can be found online. [ART9] by "consumer" you mean the popular demographic...Right![9] [NetE8] The most obvious example is online pornography, which is produced without any concern for commercial sponsorship.[8] [ART9] --> it's kind of a tasteless example and I don't even know if it is true. Some advertisers might be more afraid of association with a site that uses pop-up ads, than a site that displays other "pop-up" content. isn't pornography too loosely defined a word to have any meeting anyway?[9] [NetE10] You're missing my point: [ART11] you have been avoiding my point for 4+ years.[11] [NetE10] Pornography is the product, so pornographers do not need advertisers. All they need to do is create a product that appeals to their customers.[10] [ART11] this sounds like crazy talk to me... 99. [ART9] [ART9] % of porn sites are nothing but advertisement. I mean what percentage of the recreational "users" of online porn own a paid membership.[11] [NetE6] Moreover, I think that such simplistic villanization of capitalist industry is both pointless and counterproductive. [6] [ART7] and I think fanatic unregulated capitalism is the most logically vacant and socially destructive of all the earth's religions. [NetE8] Please give me one example of the "fanatic unregulated capitalism" to which you allude. [ART9] Boy you walked right into this one. There's this thing called the Internet that is virtually unregulated, and most every access point is controlled by a billion dollar corporation. [NetE10] This is categorically untrue. From early on, the Internet has been the province of academia and the military, and virtually every school and library in the United States now provides Internet access. [ART11] you are being obtuse... in the context of this discussion "access" to the Internet is substantially dependent upon "navigation"... if you can't find content, you can't access it. Google, yahoo, msn, aol are all billion dollar companies that almost exclusively (95%) control how people "access the Internet" that exists outside their local neighborhood or network.[11] [NetE12] By choice. To wit, when I visit a public library and use the Internet, I am usually greeted by that library's Home Page, which typically includes a list of starting points for researching content found on the Internet. (I.e., e.g., the Librarians' Index to the Internet < >.) This was the case long before Google, Yahoo!, and MSN came into existence, back when AOL was a small time proprietary dial up network, and it is still the case today.[12] [ART13] Another 1% solution that indicates I'm really wasting my time here. This discussion isn't going to be indexed by google, from all evidence there are practically "no readers" listening in, and you continually demonstrate no willingness to take the subject seriously. Lets just quit wasting each-others time and concede pointlessness.[13] [NetE10] Billion dollar corporations also provide Internet access, but they are hardly in control of "most every access point." [ART11] I believe that "click" statistics demonstrate that the four evils above direct "most" Internet navigation, [11] [NetE10] Moreover, both academia and business are subject to regulation at every turn, [ART11] a preposterous exaggeration suitable for classification as propaganda.[11] [NetE10] and the control begins and ends with government funding and government contracts. [ART11] Evil libraries, the absolute horror-- please protect your poor defenseless children from all the disgusting graft in the interest of human edification.... it all makes you want to throw up.... or laugh hysterically.[11] [NetE10] Even private universities are forced to comply with the edicts of government if their students receive federal student loans.[10] [ART11] too bad one of the edicts didn't stop little nerdy duplicitous punks from stealing a government subsidized research project and turning it into a billion dollar, private enterprise, Marketing Pyramid Scheme.[11] [ART9] This Internet thing originally included a thing called e- mail that made communication with others all over the world easy, unfortunately because we wouldn't install the minor regulation [ consistent with laws against noise pollution, and trespassing] needed to prevent wholesale lying and cheating --just about all potential for increased productivity was lost. ... also they built the infrastructure of this Internet thing like a highway system and then decided that they were not going to have any real maps made... Why? ...because honest maps would threaten the advantage of the huge corporations, the political powers that be, and all other entrenched power... including media and affiliated marketing businesses.[9] [NetE8] Without exception, "capitalists" are motivated (and thus controlled) by the needs and wants of the people to whom they hope to sell their goods and services. [ART9] No they are motivated by money, and they will compromise the best interests of any individual, and all society if they can collect a ROI profit. Their vision is inherently short-term, and notoriously callous to long-term damage. [9] [NetE8] Moreover, without exception, "capitalists" are subject to government regulation at every possible turn. [ART9] --> every possible turn? there's a lot of turns I still think need regulating. Like insane perpetual copyright that has assholes like Bill Gates' still reaping profits on a business deal he made with IBM 25 years ago. Outside of tax legislation ( which is too much of a subject for this board) what government regulation, in your opinion, is the most egregious to the social interest. ... and what "turns" on the Internet are over regulated. [9] [NetE10] By far the most oppressive form of government regulation is the criminal sanction that is imposed against recreational drug users. [ART11] the fascism of the rich, conservative, "staunchly capitalist" morality right responsible for drug legislation probably isn't an example that works to your advantage in this debate.[11] [NetE10] As for regulation of the Internet, it begins and ends with government funding, with large doses of the Digitial Millenium Copyright Act, Communications Decency Act, and similar legislation interspersed. Simply more examples of your tax dollars, hard at work.[10] [ART11] I think it's more examples of "Conservative" hypocrisy. The "idealists" are not imposing this legislation, it is the social regressives primarily made up of the rich and powerful, who maintain their control by feeding "the ignorant bible belt" just enough of this "social control legislation" to keep them happy, and to in turn keep the liberal -- corporate/wealth regulating-- idealists out of government.[11] [NetE8] Indeed, big time "capitalists" typically use their government cronies to attack other big time "capitalists" [ART9] typically? no what they typically used their government cronies to do is to screw the consumer.[9] [NetE8]-- i.e., e.g., Netscape attacking Microsoft [ART9] I think a more fair description of the litigation would be Netscape protecting itself against Microsoft [9] [NetE8]-- and use government regulation to create barriers to entry for small time entrepreneurs. [ART9] agreed, the big guys are trying to kill and/or eat the little guys.[9] [NetE8] If there is a "logically vacant and socially destructive" force at work in society that is worse than any other, it is not capitalism, but government. [ART9] What is the worst government sin, hundreds of billions to defense contractors, Social Security, progressive taxation or would it be defending some sort of minimum-wage.[9] [NetE8] Indeed, I have never seen any situation that is so bad that government intervention cannot make it much worse. [ART9] That Hoover Dam sure was a fiasco, and the Panama Canal... what a waste... then there was that preposterously stupid land a man on the moon thing.... and look at all those people who became billionaires working at the Post Office... Halliburton runs the post office right? [9] [NetE8] Accordingly, if there is something truly wrong with the Internet, I can think of no worse solution to that problem than government regulation.[8] [ART9] the oldest red herring in search engine discussion. Where in this conversation did I suggest regulation, I have suggested investment in a "public library style" index of the Internet. If that satisfies your definition of government regulation I shall declare you crazy and go about my business.[9] [NetE10] In the very post to which I am now replying, you stated, and I quote: "This Internet thing originally included a thing called e-mail that made communication with others all over the world easy, unfortunately because we wouldn't install the minor regulation [consistent with laws against noise pollution, and trespassing] needed to prevent wholesale lying and cheating --just about all potential for increased productivity was lost." If that is not an endorsement of the need for government regulation, I don't know what is.[10] [ART11] So Wikipedia is a search engine, Blogs are a search engine, RSS is a search engine, and now e-mail is the search engine? I've emphatically stated that I support the creation of parallel infrastructure (Public Library) not the regulation of the current, exclusively private enterprise, search industry. [NetE12] In other words, you are advocating the creation of something that already exists[12] [ART13] Silly word games is apparently the only ammunition you have left.[13] [ART11] the fact that I would regulate other aspects of Internet infrastructure not related to navigation should not be a surprise. Many people (maybe even a voteing majority if I could get it on the ballot) choking on Spam see the need for such regulation.[11] [ART7] the golden rule of incentive economic structure, has nothing to do with the billionaire dogma we are being forced to live under. [7] [NetE8] What a truly incoherent statement. What, exactly, is "the golden rule of incentive economic structure"? [ART9] Just as the golden rule is the real beef of Christianity ( don't need anything else including the 10 Commandments) ...The self improvement/interest incentives is the beef of capitalism-- stuff like "tax-free inheritance for the spawn of billionaires" is socially unproductive, anti-capitalist dogma of the corrupt religious hierarchy.[9] [NetE8] And what is "the billionare dogma" to which you refer? [ART9] all the double standards... with Bill Gates's salary I could hire 100's of eager energetic and vary talented minds.... without a doubt that collective could produce far more productive work and in turn social benefit in one year, than the egomaniac Bill Gates could produce in centuries. The rest of us must compete with desperation in India and elsewhere... the rich and their spawn are obligated to pass no productivity test. [9] [NetE8] Beyond the self-imposed dogma that people of a particular religious faith might choose to live under [ART9] they also do a lot of imposing on others.[9] [NetE8] , the only dogma that anyone in the United States is forced to live under is the dogma of democracy [ART9] as organized it certainly is a tyrannical farce.[9] [NetE8], which does not deserve the semi-sacred status it has achieved. (See < >, "Why Democracy is wrong.")[8] [ART9] I would be more comfortable with the statement why our version of democracy is wrong.[9] [ART5] No... I don't think so. As usual you are playing your typical bait and switch game. [NetE6] I'm not playing any sort of game, at least not in the sense that you seem to be implying. [ART7] if you believe that raise your hand. [7] [NetE6] What I am doing is engaging you in dialogue [ART7] no, what you're doing is creating Wikipedia strawmen, or vanity trips to knock down. [7] [NetE6] , something which very few people are willing to do [ART7] because I will make them look as foolish as you look. [7] [NetE6] , and I occasionally follow your numerous red herrings, [ART7] Israel ought to declare this message board a "sacred national resource" as you seem to be an inexhaustible source of "herrings" of all color, shape and size. [7] [NetE6] but I do so with my eyes wide open. [6] [ART7] and with your mind thoroughly closed. [7] [ART5] A 1% solution really isn't evidence that the problem is solved, just as a few metal pipes do not a nuclear plant, or WMD make. [5] [NetE6] Here's yet another example of why a dialogue with you, while entertaining, usually ends up having very little to do with the original subject: [ART7] Wikipedia.... search engine...Wikipedia.... search engine.... nope still no connection. [7] [NetE6] You have mischaracterized my statements regarding Wikipedia [ART7] double likewise * affinity. [7] [NetE6] , pretending to define Wikipedia as a solution to a "problem" that only you truly understand. [ART7] I said search engines suck... you said Wikipedia is the answer... I said it's a bucket drop. [7] [NetE8] Never did I say that "Wikipedia is the answer." [ART9] yes you did.[9] [NetE8] What I said, and continue to say, is that "Wikipedia is an unqualified success." [ART9] as the context of the discussion was Internet Search...Wikipedia is an unqualified irrelevancy.[9] [NetE10] Actually, I brought up Wikipedia in response to your query, "Realistically, how many 'Internet idealists' actually still exist on planet earth?" Wikipedia is a sterling example of just how many Internet idealists are alive and well on the planet Earth.[10] [ART11] I think you might be confusing idealists, with boring nerds talking about nothing on my radar screen... but whatever.[11] [NetE8] To wit, Wikipedia is an excellent resource for people who are looking online for useful and interesting information. [ART9] where did I say I didn't think encyclopedias were a good thing..to wit.[9] [NetE8] And while Wikipedia is not a search engine or Web directory, it does index a substantial number of URLs on a wide variety of topics. [ART9] yes under very strict guidelines defined by properly accepted norms and values. I haven't looked it up... but does Wikipedia acknowledge somewhere that the French we are now so routinely maligning basically won the Revolutionary War for us, and basically gave Thomas Jefferson the Cliff notes he wrote the Constitution from. ...does Wikipedia acknowledge that powercons is the greatest bookmarklet innovation ever. [9] [NetE10] Actually, I think that issue is addressed under the "Narcissism" article. (< [10] [ART11] lets reduce it to a theoretical question. If there is such a thing as "the greatest bookmarklet innovation in the history of the Internet"-- Should a properly functioning Internet navigational guide rank the location of such an innovation in, at least, the top-10 on the keyword "bookmarklet"?[11] [NetE12] Back in 1866, Gregor Mendel published research on genetics that answered many of the questions that Charles Darwin posed in his seminal work _On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection_. Ironically enough, Darwin had a copy of Mendel's work on the bookshelf in study, but Darwin never actually read Mendel's paper. It was not until Hugo Marie de Vries rediscovered Mendel's work in 1900 that it became widely known. [ART13] Darwin's first book was a chronology of detailed observations, it was in essence a presentation of evidence and I don't think he intended to do more than to just imply a conclusion... [NetE14] One of the key questions that Darwin raised was how traits were passed on from generation to generation, a question that Mendel answered quite thoroughly.[14] [ART15] Both Mendel and Darwin, could both be fairly described as meticulous servants to detail. Unfortunately they are both long dead and now must endure characterization's they are not afforded the opportunity to answer. I surmise that is unlikely that Charles Darwin would have a book on a shelf that he didn't read... in his day a book was radio, TV, the movies and of course books all combined. Reading was really fundamental. Both Mendel and Darwin performed some great semi-parallel science and I see no point served by distracting mush about who should have read what book when. [15] [NetE16] Unfortunately, Gregor Mendel used the language of symbolic mathematics, a language that was foreign to Charles Darwin, the latter man favoring English prose. And Darwin was not alone in this regard, which is one of the reasons why Mendel's work remained so obscure for so long, even though it was close at hand. To wit, an emphasis on mathematics, particularly symbolic mathematics, is a relatively recent phenomenon, a phenomenon that (IMHO) has compromised the ability of many scientists to express themselves eloquently in prose. [16] [ART17] Eloquence ain't easy... sometimes something as simple as 2+2=4 can be very hard to express as a transferable concept. The Internet has substantial structural problems (2)... that can be fixed with the application a little deliberate sensible design (2). The improvements realized would be substantial, harmless, and very inexpensive (=4). Yet people reject the obvious truth because they need to be seduced by an "eloquence" I don't have or they will only accept the eloquence from a more prestigious source. Although I'm a Darwin fan I guess I have more in common with Mendel. (only if it turns out that I was right of course--otherwise I might have more in common with Manson.) [17] [ART13] details regarding the mechanisms of genetics might have forced him to commit the actual heresy he was hoping to just spark in people's minds. In short, Darwin and Mandel combined create an unavoidable conclusion that might have got them burned at the stake... or at least rendered them unpublishable. [NetE12] As an anthropologist by training, I would say that the work of Gregor Mendel is much more important than the "greatest bookmarklet innovation in the history of the Internet," and yet Mendel's paper, which was read at two meetings of the Natural History Society of Brunn, remained largely unnoticed for decades. [ART13] google's stupid page rank notion that an authority in one subject, is an authority on all... might see purpose in ranking Mandel and Darwin above me on the subject of "JavaScript" and "bookmarklets" but I won't feel unhumble in suggesting I am a better authority on this subject.[13] [NetE12] And in the final analysis, I think that a "properly functioning Internet navigation guide" would never have made a bit of difference in helping Mendel's work get noticed by the right people. [ART13] So you're saying that you know it to be an absolute fact that no great science or "scientist" have been left out of the attribution we call recorded history. You are a bigger idiot then I thought.[13] [NetE12] To this day, I am astonished at how much readily available information is utterly ignored by the people who should take notice of it. To wit, I recently read a jeremiad by a board certified specialist who lamented the futility of coronary bypass surgery, a sentiment that is apparently somewhat widespread among coronary specialists, and yet coronary bypass surgery remains one of the most commonly implemented solutions to atherosclerosis. So, I guess the fact that the "greatest bookmarklet innovation in the history of the Internet," is not particularly prominent in the Google index will simply have to go down in history as one of the great tragedies of the 21st Century.[12] [ART13] The fact that we relied on technology that could not reliably, consistently, logically or appropriately index content on the Internet is in fact a tragedy, for us, and the "retarded" future. inMendham.com has a sub page ranked in the 60s on the keyword "mendham" as its first refrence. It seems improbable coincidence for such obvious evidence of dysfunction to fall right in the pocket of one of the very few people claiming profound dysfunction. What are the odds?..... judging by the internet content I have touched 100% chance of SE dysfunction.[13] [NetE8] To be clear, I do not believe that "search engines suck." [ART9] somewhere in between the 4000 Wikipedia references I was able to discern that impression.[9] [NetE8] What I believe is that there is plenty of room for improvement in the search engine industry [ART9] I'm with you so far[9] [NetE8], but [ART9] damn [9] [NetE8] there is no real incentive for improvement because most people are quite happy with the current quality of the search engines that they use. [ART9] --> most people don't use libraries ergo we should not have any. ... most people are too stupid to know better ergo Gary should just shut up and let them remain ignorant, and let them wallow in their own Spam excrement.... for ever and ever.... because it's stupid to try to fix anything especially things the moron masses are happy to leave broken. That song doesn't work for me.[9] [NetE8] The glaring exception to this is the self-interested webmaster -- like yourself or Daniel Brandt [ART9] Ronald Goldman is a dissatisfied customer of the justice system is it your contention that his personal experience disqualifies his commentary, opinion, or suggestions. What an ugly red herring this accusation of self-interest is... a grotesque slander when you consider the evidence [9] [NetE8] -- who is unhappy with the fact that Google does not index his or her content as prominently as he or she wants it to be indexed.[8] [ART9] you imply I'm seeking more than fairness... more than what the common social interest demands. That's another cheap slander backed up with no evidence.[9] [NetE6] Unfortunately, very few people agree with you that there is a "problem," [ART7] very few people agree with me that there's no God ether ... which only proves having a "popular opinion" is sometimes a foolish thing to do [7] [NetE6] much less with your definition of what that problem actually is. [ART7] which is the internet has no public library style access. [7] [NetE8] Actually, access to content on the Internet is very similar to the access that public libraries provide to their collections. [ART9] I can't wait to hear this[9] [NetE8] To wit, I recently visited a major metropolitan library to do some research, and I was astonished to find that there were quite a few really important books that I wanted to see that they did not have in their collection.[8] [ART9] Rare books?, or expensive books? (still paying copyright attribution to some great great great granddaughter right)[9] [NetE6] And then there's the obligatory slam against "The Man." Yeah, I think that Dubya et al. set a very dangerous precedent in taking America to war against a nation that had not attacked America and did not in any way pose a clear and present danger to America, but there's millions of Americans who think that "the world is a better place without Saddam Hussein in power," so they are willing to overlook the fact that there was and is no connection whatsoever between Iraq and the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. In any event, bringing up the issue of whether or not Saddam Hussein had WMDs [ART7] It's not a "issue"...he didn't have anything more than Timothy McVeigh could buy in America. [7] [NetE6] , wanted WMDs, and/or harbored secret ambitions to acquire WMDs once sanctions against Iraq were lifted is a distraction from the issue of what, if anything, ails the search industry. [6] [ART7] As is your incessant promotion of a 1 percent solution -- didn't this subject start with you slamming idealists on a XODP message board? kind of a distracting side bar I think. [7] [NetE8] The post that originally got your attention stated (in pertinent part) that "in their attempts to protect the Internet from greedy corporate interests, many Internet purists have gone over to the enemy, invoking an ineffective and reactionary extremism that all too often gives rise to an Orwellian Animal Farm mentality of 'two legs good; four legs better!' where 'all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.'" (< >.) [ART9] so some animals become hypocrites in a work of literature, and I am therefore guilty of applying some self-interest double standard. unfortunately your evidence never shows up with your accusations.[9] [NetE8] This assertion was, in part, a *RESPONSE* to your criticism that you leveled against *ME*. [ART9] Over a year ago, after you called my efforts to reform the Internet "whining".[9] [NetE8] To wit, "[David's] typically libertarian -- if people are not rioting in the streets and blowing up buildings -- they must be happy with corporate control BS, is so simplistically vacant." (< >.)[8] [ART9] I just reread that page and I feel like nominating the authur for the Nobel Prize in "brilliant rhetorical commentary"...man that is some good stuff.[9] [4] [3] [NetE2] many people (including myself) use Wikipedia as a "first resort" when researching a topic. Finally, you have clearly not discovered the blogosphere. [ART3] ...and you're clearly being rude again. For Christ's sakes the link on my last post is to a Blog index. ...now I remember why I don't waste my time here. [3] [NetE2] Blogs have become such an effective method of content distribution [ART3] 9 out of 10 or maybe 99 out of 100 blogs are junk-- Go to the Dumboz technology Blog category, and see how much time you can waste finding the rare perl. Most blogs are just reselling content and are really just creating another crooked line in cyberspace. Those who actually do write something original, are more likely than not to receive google invisibility for their trouble. [NetE4] Google invisibility is irrelevant to blogs, [ART5] Of course you mean, "irrelevant to blogs" in link farm networks that have very high google visibility. [NetE6] I mean no such thing. When I first started the XODP Yahoo! eGroup, arguably a blog-like entity, it was not indexed anywhere, and people found out about it when they received an invitation from me to join a particular discussion. [ART7] Or sometimes they would just follow a link from one of the other message-blog-like-boards we were allready arguing on.[7] [NetE6] After that, people found out about XODP by word of mouth, which is how most people in the blogosphere connect with each other. [ART7] you wouldn't think anyone in your connected blogosphere had mouths looking at the amout of talking going on here.[7] [NetE8] That's because my paying clients come first. Most of them generate hundreds of thousands of dollars in revenue every month, and they tend to compensate me better than I could ever hope to compensate myself by publishing a popular blog.[8] [ART9] what was that word? o yes "narcissism" [9] [NetE6] Don't get me wrong: Many people *have* found XODP through Google [ART7] and quickly realized it was a wrong number and left in 5 seconds. [7] [NetE6] , but XODP does not need Google to remain viable as a discussion group. [ART7] sure as hell needs something.... maybe a less humble mod. [7] [NetE6] To wit, I recently posted an article about Google Watch Watch [ART7] Bush is a dick head[7] [NetE6] sent an e-mail to the owner Chris Beasley, and received a detailed e-mail in reply. Problems with the particular e-mail client that I was using at the time have prevented me from responding to Beasley's reply, but it was relatively effortless to open the initial line of communication with him, just as it was effortless to open the initial line of communication with Shaney Crawford. [6] [ART7] ZZZZZZZZZZ... oh is it over. [7] [NetE6] [ART5] The fact that "having" mitigates against wanting or needing isn't really a news flash. I think I have already conceded if you like Top 40 radio, and nothing else, you will likely love the Internet.... [5] [NetE4] which are updated much faster than Google can possibly hope to index them. In fact, Google has become a playground for bloggers, who have learned how easy it is to game Google by delivering Google bombs. (E.g., "french military victories.") And why should I visit ODP to find a good blog? If there is a particular topic that interests me, I can simply check the blogroll on the blogs that I consider worthy of my time and follow the trail of bread crumbs that other bloggers are leaving. [ART5] You think we should be indexing the most profound technological advance in human history with "bread crumbs"... I think it's important enough for us to apply a little NASA money and technology. A truly unreconcilable difference. [5] [NetE6] The term "trail of bread crumbs" is commonly used by experts in information science [ART7] -->"information science"???? Let me guess degreed professionals are called propagandist.[7] [NetE6] to indicate that certain reference materials are so commonly cited that after a certain amount of research on a particular topic you will discover who the true experts are by following such a trail. [ART7] "crumb power" sure doesn't sound like much of a indexing scheme. [7] [NetE6] This is how I researched various legal topics during my tenure on the UC Davis Law Review [ART7] Why? because search engines were not up to the task ...Right. [7] [NetE8] Not even close. As a member of law review, I had free and unlimited access to the Lexis and Westlaw databases, and they were pretty effective at giving me an inexhaustible supply of high-quality, well-indexed content, all of which was linked by hypertext, long before hypertext was a commonly-used method of linking content on the Internet. Westlaw's KeyNotes were particularly effective at referencing court decisions that dealt with similar issues. Even so, I still had to review each information resource and decide whether it was relevant to the particular topic that I was researching. [8] [ART9] one of the Draconian government regulations I would impose, is that every court decision should be a matter of public record on the publicly accessible Internet. ( including decisions on motions)[9] [NetE10] Yeah! And while were at it, we can have the federal government set up a post office that delivers mail to every business and residence in the United States. But wait! The federal government already set up a post office that delivers mail to virtually every business and residence in the United States, and court decisions are already a matter of public record, with most of them readily available on the publicly accessible Internet, [ART11] this is really way off subject, so I will keep it brief, at least in the state of New Jersey the vast majority of Superior court cases have no record accessible on-line. Many, perhaps most, end in settlement or are dismissed through summary judgment without even the production of a written decision. -- this poses a grave threat to the constitutional right of due and equal process.[11] [NetE12] This problem goes far beyond the issue of Internet access. In the State of California, virtually every decision by the Superior Courts and Courts of Appeal are made available online, but only *PUBLISHED* decisions have any precedential value. What this means in practical terms is that both trial and appellate courts can safely ignore published decisions and rule the way they want to rule, secure in the knowledge that they will not be reversed by a higher court. This was the case long before there was unlimited access to court decisions on the Internet.[12] [ART13] You say there is a paper trail, and yet they can "safely ignore"??? ...well bad on you Californians for not shoving that paper up their noses.... Here in New Jersey we don't have that opportunity.[13] [NetE10] including decisions on motions. The only difference is that people have to pay 37 cents to mail a first class letter.[10] [ART11] Try to find a trace of this case [littered with very important constitutional issues] or the motions anywhere else Online. [11] [NetE6] , and it is just as effective when researching topics on the Internet. [ART7] When did we get off the internet.[7] [NetE6] Indeed, Google's algorithm attempts to mimic this process by giving greater weight to frequently cited materials. [ART7] top 40 radio[7] [NetE6] The problem is that Google has no mechanism for filtering out the garbage. [ART7] exactly.. and no mechanism for filtering in anything not networked or affiliated.[7] [NetE6] As for using NASA money and technology, that is truly a non-starter. [ART7] than lets just use the same money thats good enought for libraries and maybe technology from the National Weather Service.[7] [NetE6] Steve Thomas of Wherewithal courted NASA for quite some time, hoping to sell them on the idea of using Wherewithal's indexing and search technology to organize their ever-expanding database of millions of URLs. They were interested, but (as far as I know) they never went beyond the evaluation stage, [ART7] good on them ZZZZZZ[7] [NetE6] which is typical of government agencies. To wit, my father was a systems analyst who worked as a civilian contractor for the Navy back in the 1960s when the Navy was trying to develop a missile defense system not unlike the one envisioned by the strategic defense initiative. While he was well compensated for his work, he finely quit in disgust when he realized that the objective of most people working on the project was to bilk the government for as much as they could possibly charge. To a large degree, my father's experiences working for the government shaped my political views and made me the libertarian that I am today. [ART7] Well I assumed it had nothing to do with a logical conclusion derived through disciplined rational thinking.[7] [NetE6] I have worked for various government agencies[7] coincidentally so have[7] [NetE6] on a temporary basis in various capacities, and I would not rule out working for them again. [ART7] likewize.[7] [NetE6] But as a general rule, most of my clients are sole practitioners and small law firms [ART7] I can't tell you how much I don't care.[7] [NetE6] , and that's the way I like it[6] . [ART7] thats nice, but I think this crum trail is not going anywhere[7] [ART7] "Humbly Yours", -- What...thats it? ...So the government CAN run and largely finance libraries ...but it cannot be trusted to establish a similar [parallel to capitalist enterprise] infrastructure for the Internet... because corrupt government employees, who you don't mind working with, destroyed your father's ambition to help develop a doomsday device.[7] [NetE8] To be clear, the public library system was first established by Andrew Carnegie, [ART9] with a small percentage of the money he price gouged out of the average working man's pocket.[9] [NetE8] one of those capitalists that you dislike so much. [ART9] right up there with Bill Gates as one of mankind's greatest villains.[9] [NetE8] In addition to funding virtually all of the public libraries in the United States, he funded public libraries in the United Kingdom as well as various countries in the former Commonwealth. [ART9] why don't you next regale me with all the wonderful things king such and such did with a small percentage of the money he stole from the life renting peasants.[9] [NetE8] He did this long before there was an income tax deduction for charitable contributions. [ART9] My $10.00 contribution last week to the Sierra Club ( the guy actually came to my door in a horrible rainstorm) probably constitutes a greater sacrifice in relative terms.[9] [NetE8] Oh, by the way: My father never worked on the creation of a doomsday device; he worked on developing a missile defense system that could use lasers to shoot down missiles before they reached their intended target. The idea was to save lives and possibly avert a nuclear holocaust. [ART9] it's doomsday, you can believe me now or when you're glowing in the dark [9] [NetE8] As for the "corrupt government employees, who [I] don't mind working with," that ain't the case. My work "for the government" consists of: (1) Tutoring SED children; (2) Providing pro bono legal services for plantiffs who were suing the government for civil rights violations where the court assigned said cases _sua sponte_; (2) Ghost writing legal briefs for counsel who had been assigned by a court to the appeals of criminal defendants; (3) Working for indigent defense panels assigned to criminal defense cases when public defenders have a conflict and cannot represent all said defendants; (4) Working for California's Office of Administrative Law when they were in the process of publishing their decisions on the World Wide Web; (5) Working for a private law firm that represented the State of California in a suit against a contractor that had charged the state $100 million on a system for tracking deadbeat dads, a system that had been delivered late and did not perform as it was supposed to perform. Humbly Yours, [8] [ART9] I have been playing lawyer also, [9] [NetE4] Said bloggers serve as infomediaries who find, filter, and rank the articles that they have read; they also provide insightful commentary. [ART3] Real blogs that haven't been built on a link farm, really have no reality on the "popularity-net". Search engines are top 40 radio stations only... nothing else has any reality, and in turn logically, nothing else will be produced. Civilization will suffer for that. ...and of course it's all YOUR fault. [3] [NetE2] That they threaten to make search engines and Web directories irrelevant. [2] [ART1] 2..3..4.. I mean you can count them on one hand can't you? Idealism is dead and the remaining idealists on the Internet, who aren't well networked by the elitist (for their entertainment value), exist at the bottom of a 4 mi. deep google cavern. A "fence" in this context can only be useful for keeping people from accidently falling over. Also the fact is there really is no "Middle Path" fence... either you believe in public libraries or you don't.... there really isn't any middle ground. True-Internet-idealists are not trying to limit choices-- using the library example again-- they are not trying to close adult bookstores or to deny the any-kind-of-crap "for dummies" publishers from having a "fair" opportunity to exploit the masses. Internet idealists are defending choice-- in the real world that means some public or government investment in creating a public "non- commercial" nonprofit alternative. [1] [NetE2] Hmmm. . . . you mean, perhaps, something like the Wikimedia Foundation? "The Wikimedia Foundation is an international non-profit organization dedicated to encouraging the growth, development and distribution of free, multilingual content, and to providing the full content of these wiki-based projects to the public free of charge. Wikimedia relies on public donations to meet its goal of providing free knowledge to every person in the world." [2] [ART 1] In one of my Blog posts, I make the point that if public libraries were not already invented, that they couldn't be invented in the current GREED (no profit, no point) culture. Do you disagree? More importantly, can you defend a culture or society that can't provide such a basic social service. Re: "rudely dismisses the validity of any viewpoint that does not echo his own sentiments" This pretty irrelevant "rudeness", is just a minor character flaw compared to the overt "censorship" and exclusion to exposure that's taking place on most of the Internet. As you pointed out my website is one of the "Web sites that have linked to the XODP" and I have for years linked to 100's of websites that are promoting ideas I absolutely hate. I do that because it's honest, and fair to the issues... and because it shows respect to the reader. Who else in the realm of "Internet indexing" is showing the same "courteous" respect. by the way, thanks for the link-- although, it won't work with that extra htm-L. pritty cool, i think.... SE Blog UpDates [1] [ART5] Too bad you won't find it using Wikipedia or some real search device... instead you had to rely on this crummy Blog crum. I have this general technology index also in the works. TechUpDate and of course don't forget powercons undoubtedly the most innovative use of bookmarklets EVER, yet virtually unindexed by the search industry on that keyword.powercons [5] [ART3] According to google your article on the future of search, doesn't exist....letalone have any PR. [NetE4] It's there. Try entering the url < > into the search box on Google's Home Page. (I'd provide the Google URL, but it would get munched by the XODP posting interface.) But you bring up a very interesting drawback of the XODP Yahoo! eGroup. While the URL at < > has a Google PageRank that vacillates between 5 and 6, most of the posts here have not been properly indexed by Google. The problem has to do with Google's cookie requirements. My solution, which has yet to be completed, is to archive XODP posts on a separate site that does not require cookies. (See < >.) However, getting XODP posts indexed on Google is not particularly high on my list of priorities, so it's been put on a back burner for the last couple of years while I take care of the needs of my paying clients. If you'd like to expedite this worthwhile project, please send me an initial retainer of $10,000.00, and I will send you a bill for the remainder. (Cashier's check or money order, please.) Alternatively, you can wait until I am bored enough to complete such a project during my free time. [4] [ART5] Your answer doesn't explain the invisibility of my link or explain why any rational person with my "search engine profile" would bother producing content. [NetE6] I can only assume that you are referring to the fact that not all XODP posts are fully indexed by Google and that very little content that you produce is indexed by Google. [ART7] It's been so long ago I don't remember.[7] [NetE6] I suppose I could explain to you the particulars of how and why that happens, [ART7] I know why it happens, because they are not searching the web they are searching a selectivly compiled data-base composed to best serve their corporate interests. [NetE6] but (as I implied in my previous post) that is one of the things that I get paid to do as an Internet consultant, [ART7] The fact that it is in your personal interest to keep the internet dysfunctional is no surprise... imagine how useless libraries would be if every book needed a "consultant" to get fair space on a shelf.[7] [NetE6] and there ain't no such thing as a free lunch[6] [ART7] but there are plenty of "lunches" provided for less than even a thank-you.[7] [ART5] Bad indexing is discouraging content production... that is a fact... [NetE6] I wholeheartedly disagree. Content production has been growing exponentially for years, [ART7] If you include spam in your definition of content ... I have no objective data, but perhaps the reader[s] share my observation that a awfully lot of good content has gone to seed because it could not be heard through all the Spam noise.[7] [NetE6] and there is no end in sight, [ART7] because you can't see the cliff behind the brick wall with the google smiley on it... If you look over the cliff you can see the huge gains in productivity and progress destroyed when we let television recklessly ride the tracks of short-term gain.[7] [NetE6] which would be the case whether or not bad or good indexing schemes were or are in place. [ART7] Right... and I would be shutting down my domain email accounts even without spam... "good indexing schemes" -- ones that don't require the payment of extortion, and ones that don't allow liars to confuse, would oviously reduce the cost of production and straighten the line between production and consumpshion to everyones benift but the parasites.[7] [NetE6] As it stands, most people can find what they are looking for on the Internet, [ART7] most people like top 40 radio, most people don't use libraries, most people are morons and I don't think there "opinion" is relevant evidence in a discussion of humanities best intrest.[7] [NetE6] and most people who want to be found can be found. [ART7] Not on the keyword mendham[7] [NetE6] Even so, I think we can do better. [6] [ART7] finally an agreeable sentance[7] [ART5] and that is a disgrace to our intelligence ....and of course it's your fault. [5] [ART3] neither does my link to it. http://inmendham.com/talk/messages/10/261.html?1092257915#POST3325 ...writing on toilet paper makes more sense than writing on invisible cyberspace. [3] [ART5] I posted this last night, apparently you're too busy to filter it so it hasn't yet made it to prime time. This "filtering" nonsense really doesn't work for me ...so my guess this will be to be my last post for another year or two. [5] [NetE6] Suit yourself. The alternative is a never ending sea of spam that I routinely delete whenever I log on to this site. With a handful of exceptions, most regulars do not need my approval to post. [6] [ART13] I think I will call this "the end". Our disagreement has gotten quite fundamental. Our values, our hopes, our dreams [our basic understanding of existence] provides no common viewpoint from which to evaluate any observed circumstance. We are as alien to one another as fire and ice and contact can only produce mutual irritation and more useless fog.[13]