Appropriate subject? at SitePoint - Sponsored by SitePoint

donotgo.com

This is a copy of a 2001 sitepointdotcom discussion thread that was censored, then closed, and as a final despicable act exterminated.

arttworks
SitePoint Enthusiast

Registered: Apr 2001
Location: nj
Online!
Where would be the appropriate subject to start a thread about "Search Industry News or Issues" (can such a main subject category be created)? And, would the following post be too "hostile" by your community standards?

I have lamented before about the lack of interest the broad subject of "web function and navigation" generates in most of these communities involved in the site building and optimizing rackets. I wonder aloud, and often alone, in these forums, what makes your (other Webmasters) perception so different from my own? What circumstance or understanding makes infrastructure rebuilding my dream, and conversely, your nightmare, or worse your carelessable issue? No doubt some percentage of you are here to optimize one thing--your income. And as the provided subjects of "how to setup your own sham, crapie, reselling, affiliate business" or "how to get the #1 ranking your site no way deserves" demonstrate, you could care less if the dollars you make are not honest or socially productive. But why the hostility or disinterest among the rest of you? Even if you are a big fan of some particular directory or index, you must realize that the over-all industry is a mess, and that web navigation is not what it could or should be.

Personally, I have a hard time imagining any changes you could make to the current design that could create more chaos or disfunction. When I try to find a real-world circumstance to use for comparison to what we have let the internet become, I can think of no infrastructure system we have allowed to be so poorly laid out. I suppose if I describe an imaginary world where we didn't force competing phone companies to cooperate and coordinate their efforts regarding some aspects of the infrastructure, and allowed, and intern obligated, each of them to tie a individual line to our houses, some image of the stupidity, ugliness, and inefficiency of web navigation might be approximated.

Pointless, unnecessary redundancy should not be defensible from any philosophical point of view. So why am I virtually alone in calling for "cooperation and coordination" regarding the site submission process. Am I the only person who has stumbled in to these dens of marketeers, who thinks it is crazy to be required to submit the same information over and over, often in absolute futility. Is no one else offended by the fact that it can require real money, or months, even years to get a site just listed by most of the major indexes. Even if you find the process less irritating and more fair than I -- do you think the using public is best served by a system that requires each index to spend most of its resources redundantly obtaining and basically processing (spam checking, describing) the same information? I contend the intelligent thing to do is consolidate and logically standardize these redundant functions and let the industry players compete in the effort to add the most value.

P.S. I saw the new boss of yahoo interviewed the other day, he said the word entertainment like ten times --but not once did he say search, or directory, or index, or navigation. The end game is clearly network control of access "you can believe it a little now, or regret it a lot later."

www.donotgo.com

netesq
SitePoint Enthusiast

Registered: Dec 2000
Location: Davis, California, USA
Offline
quote:
Originally posted by arttworks
. . . Even if you are a big fan of some particular directory or index, you must realize that the over-all industry is a mess, and that web navigation is not what it could or should be.
What, exactly, do you see as the problem?
quote:
Personally, I have a hard time imagining any changes you could make to the current design that could create more chaos or disfunction. When I try to find a real-world circumstance to use for comparison to what we have let the internet become, I can think of no infrastructure system we have allowed to be so poorly laid out. I suppose if I describe an imaginary world where we didn't force competing phone companies to cooperate and coordinate their efforts regarding some aspects of the infrastructure, and allowed, and intern obligated, each of them to tie a individual line to our houses, some image of the stupidity, ugliness, and inefficiency of web navigation might be approximated.
Anyone who is familiar with the history of telephony knows that the exact opposite is true. Government intervention and government regulation has consistently thwarted the development of an organized telecommunication infrastructure. The same is true for railroads, highways, postal services, water, and energy.
quote:
Pointless, unnecessary redundancy should not be defensible from any philosophical point of view.
And what, in your opinion, constitutes "[p]ointless, unnecessary redundancy"?
quote:
So why am I virtually alone in calling for "cooperation and coordination" regarding the site submission process.
Perhaps because you are not, in reality, calling for cooperation and coordination of the site submission process. Rather, you are calling for a system of coercive compliance.
quote:
Is no one else offended by the fact that it can require real money, or months, even years to get a site just listed by most of the major indexes.
Offended? No. Interested in progress and innovation? Yes.

So, what, exactly, is your proposed solution?
quote:
I contend the intelligent thing to do is consolidate and logically standardize these redundant functions and let the industry players compete in the effort to add the most value.
And how do you propose that these redundant functions, whatever it is that you think they are, be standardized? Government intervention?

As I see it, the vast majority of progress that was originally made in the indexing of the Internet was accomplished by individual visionary FAQ maintainers and webmasters, but now such progress is being motivated by a desire for personal pecuniary gain. So, unless you can come up with a plan for indexing the Internet that offers some kind of rewards to the people whom you hope to recruit to your banner, your calls for reform are destined to fall on deaf ears.

__________________
David F. Prenatt, Jr.
Chief Evangelist, Wherewithal Search

arttworks
SitePoint Enthusiast

Registered: Apr 2001
Location: nj
Online! Holy redundant, redundancy
For the record Netesq is profoundly retarded or he is not being entirely sincere in asking these questions. Of course I suppose he could be both-- but trying to be nice, I will just assume he is playing the "devils advocate" game he likes to play. If you follow the links from my site you will find a years worth of redundant argument between us on this subject. All the questions he asks here, have been already answered elsewhere, some a lot more than once. The fact that I can't conform, the minor policy changes I propose, to his extreme libertarian, chaos loving, philosophy is something he apparently can't accept. Until he does, or everyone on earth becomes civilized enough to no longer need logical rules, I guess I am stuck having to redundently argue the stupidity of pointless redundancy.

quote:
What, exactly, do you see as the problem?

Quoting from above "the fact that it can require real money, or months, even years to get a site just listed by most of the major indexes" and "a system that requires each index to spend most of its resources redundantly obtaining and basically processing (spam checking, describing) the same information?"

Approximating what I have posted at you on other boards:

Search engine coverage (maping) is unnecessarily incomplete.
Directory coverage is substantially incompleeter.

Public deception: No "visibility" regarding what has been excluded, removed, or edited by conflicting commercial or personal interest.

No practical (logical or efficient) way to find all sites that fit a "class" of web site (for example: search industry discussion) using spidered engines. And the limited staff, extortion policies, and narrow access to indexable URLs make directories horribly incomplete, poorly categorized, and highly spamed.

The exact Problem is vary similar to the exact problem we would have if roads and highways were exclusively provided by narrow interest for-profit businesses.

quote:
Government intervention and government regulation has consistently thwarted the development of an organized telecommunication infrastructure. The same is true for railroads, highways, postal services, water, and energy.

If Netesq ran the world we would all be glowing in the dark, eating the poor, and be living in a gated corporate communities. Welcome to AOLdom. I got to know what history book you have been reading, or are you smoking the pages.

quote:
And what, in your opinion, constitutes "[p]ointless, unnecessary redundancy"?

Well if the redundancy emphasizes a [p]oint we should keep it. Pointfully, but redundently, quoting the above: "obtaining and basically processing (spam checking, describing) the same information" is the relevant pointless redundancy, in my opinion.

quote:
Rather, you are calling for a system of coercive compliance.

Like the jerks who don't allow the home teem to carry knives on to the football field, I am a real party pooper.

quote:
"Interested in progress and innovation? Yes"

I would be willing to bet everything I own, including my life, that -- just as finally terminating Microsoft's windows copyright would revolutionize software development. Public Domaining the site submission process would create incredible progress and innovation in the search industry.

quote:
So, what, exactly, is your proposed solution?

First we pass a law that says you can't ask me this anymore. Next we require every American web-content-provider that solicits url's to provide a copy of all "add site" form submission information to a to-be-established central public database. Than we "encourage" the use of a standardized form for submissions, that would record submiter ID, and that would refine the language used to describe site content i.e.: One standard word would be used to describe: talk, discourse, conversation, dialogue, discussion, argument, debate, etc. Finally I would have a party and I would be happy until I thought about all the other stupid stuff that needs fixing-- Like the insanity of income tax cuts, when income tax payers are 5.7 trillion dollars in debt.

quote:
So, unless you can come up with a plan for indexing the Internet that offers some kind of rewards to the people whom you hope to recruit to your banner, your calls for reform are destined to fall on deaf ears.

A little media exposure and the jig would be up, and reform in place pretty fast.

netesq
SitePoint Enthusiast

Registered: Dec 2000
Location: Davis, California, USA
Offline
quote:
Originally posted by arttworks
Public Domaining the site submission process would create incredible progress and innovation in the search industry.
No it wouldn't, and it ain't gonna happen.
quote:
. . . we require every American web-content-provider that solicits url's to provide a copy of all "add site" form submission information to a to-be-established central public database.
Assuming that this highly unlikely and very silly idea became a reality, would this not just provide a more unwieldy version the ODP RDF dump?
quote:
Than we "encourage" the use of a standardized form for submissions, that would record submiter ID, and that would refine the language used to describe site content i.e.: One standard word would be used to describe: talk, discourse, conversation, dialogue, discussion, argument, debate, etc.
And how do we record submitter ID? By tatooing UPC symbols on everyone's forehead and forcing them to run a webcam whenever they are sigined on?

As for restricting keywords, this serves no purpose. None whatsoever, especially in esoteric categories such as science and technology. And who's going to decide which keywords are appropriate in the arttworks autocracy?

(Edited to fix VBB codes.)

__________________
David F. Prenatt, Jr.
Chief Evangelist, Wherewithal Search

arttworks
SitePoint Enthusiast

Registered: Apr 2001
Location: nj
Online! Netesq-iasis
quote:
No it wouldn't [create incredible progress and innovation], and it ain't gonna happen.

The wouldn�t is a theoretical question only an experiment can answer definitively. As for the ain�t-- I will concede that stupid humans being what they are, that the odds are long. But, a military aircraft hasn�t fallen on my house yet, so I am feeling kind of lucky, and am willing to bet on what hope there is.

quote:
Assuming that this highly unlikely and very silly idea became a reality, would this not just provide a more unwieldy version the ODP RDF dump?

You mean like the ODP dump wherewithal would be a completely useless �dump� without. In fact the sensibly limited variation regarding �keywords� would make it completely �wieldy�. So I suppose you could describe it as a more complete (100x), more wieldy, version of the odp dump.

quote:
And how do we record submitter ID? By tatooing UPC symbols on everyone's forehead and forcing them to run a webcam whenever they are sigined on?

No, at first I was thinking we should drive a 15 inch spike into everyone�s head and tie everyone to a giant community lightening rod. But than I decided it might be a better idea to give url submitters the right to give there submissions more or less credibility based on how much reliable ID they would be willing to provide. The IP address would be automatically logged, and submiters who are unwilling to provide more definitive ID (Isp e-mail to credit card deposit) would have to accept there submission being ranked lowest on a credibility or reliability scale. The basic index would list or rank sites based on this scale. So, spamers would be effectively out of business as �value adders� (index processors) would be able to easily delete submissions from know abusers and unreliable scorces could be held to a higher standard, and their sites could be more carefully scrutinized.

quote:
As for restricting keywords, this serves no purpose. None whatsoever, especially in esoteric categories such as science and technology.

I have explained before that the �modified language� would only be applied to most, not all of the descriptive keywords, So for example medical syndromes like hypovocalflatulencerrosis could still be included in a description of site content. Better yet, things like Popups or other spam-nastys would have standard keyword descriptions that users could easily filter out. The fact that you �technology experts� don�t understand that computers don�t like �variation� (saying the same thing different ways i.e.: notebook vs. laptop) in things that are supposed to be seen by it as the �same� thing, is almost as scary as your politics.

quote:
And who's going to decide which keywords are appropriate in the arttworks autocracy?

I think if we picked ten librarians out of a hat and let them work it out, we would do all right.

tubedogg
Victory shall be mine

Registered: Mar 2001
Location: Medina, OH
Offline Re: Netesq-iasis
quote:
Originally posted by arttworks
The IP address would be automatically logged, and submiters who are unwilling to provide more definitive ID (Isp e-mail to credit card deposit) would have to accept there submission being ranked lowest on a credibility or reliability scale.

This is absolutely insane. I don't care how much I want my site ranked at the top, I'm not going to provide my credit card info to do it. That's absolutely stupid.

Overall I think this whole scheme is also incredibly stupid. I would much rather x amount of the internet go unmapped than put everything into one giant database, especially via the methods you describe and with the ranking system you are in favor of.

I have to say, are you doing this as a troll or as a serious question? Seems to me you are looking for flames...

__________________
Kevin
The mentor who is valiantly trying to take over the world

arttworks
SitePoint Enthusiast

Registered: Apr 2001
Location: nj
Online! The Absolutely Pointless dog of war!
quote:
This is absolutely insane. I don't care how much I want my site ranked at the top, I'm not going to provide my credit card info to do it. That's absolutely stupid.

But, not near as stupid and insane as giving your money and credit card number to some fly by night submission service. Or to some directory that might go out business tomorrow, Right? In fact my system would not require you to provide �your� anything as it would allow �professional submission services� to submit the site for you. The difference is their repetition would be at stake so they are not going to accept spamers as clients.

quote:
Overall I think this whole scheme is also incredibly stupid. I would much rather x amount of the internet go unmapped than put everything into one giant database, especially via the methods you describe and with the ranking system you are in favor of.

I also have the incredibly stupid expectation that objections come with an explanation of �Why?� Maybe you could explain to me who would be harmed by the horror of a �giant [complete] database�. As my �methods� are similar to those that force phone companies to share database information that allows them to individually provide �national directory service� maybe you could explain how that simple regulation has harmed the industry or any individual.

quote:
I have to say, are you doing this as a troll or as a serious question? Seems to me you are looking for flames...

From what I can see you are the small-minded, ugly, little person with a torch.

Last edited by arttworks on 26-Apr-2001 at 10:51 AM

tubedogg
Victory shall be mine

Registered: Mar 2001
Location: Medina, OH
Offline
quote:
But, not near as stupid and insane as giving your money and credit card number to some fly by night submission service.

I have never done this nor do I plan to. And I never said I did. You are assuming quite a lot.

quote:
Or to some directory that might go out business tomorrow, Right?

You're assuming again. The only directory my site is listed in that I know of is Yahoo! and I highly doubt Yahoo!'s going away tommorrow. We did use the $199 scam to get listed quickly.

quote:
In fact my system would not require you to provide �your� anything as it would allow �professional submission services� to submit the site for you.

Interesting. So how is this different from the "fly by night submission service[s]"?

My problem with your whole credit card scheme/scam is having a credit card doesn't prove anything. I can be a spammer with a CC. Or I can be a normal site owner and *not* have a CC because I don't want one (like my co-webmaster). Or I can live somewhere where it's incredibly difficult to get a CC. Or any number of other things, none of which addresses the fact that having a CC still doesn't prove anything beyond the fact that I'm (probably) over 18 and I have a CC.

quote:
As my �methods� are similar to those that force phone companies to share database information that allows them to individually provide �national directory service�

Your "methods" are completely different from the phone company regulations. You are talking about one giant database where people submit their information. Or you are talking about professional submitters doing it...not sure which, because you changed tacks in the middle of the argument. Either way, it is not companies pooling information. It is one company or government organization (*shudder*) collecting all the information from individuals or submission services. Do you remember what happened when NetSol had a monopoly on domain names? And what has happened since they no longer do?

I guess this is a good a place as any to say this: I thought you were against professional submission services? Yet it now seems part of your scheme includes this? Would individuals not be allowed to submit their own info to the database? That seems much worse.

quote:
maybe you could explain how that simple regulation has harmed the industry or any individual.

It has not. But see my above explanation as to how it is a completely different scenario.

quote:
From what I can see you are the small-minded, ugly, little person with a torch.

You seem to resort to name-calling very easily. Mine was a serious question - are you doing this as a troll (aka one who posts to get a reaction or flames) or as a serious question?

__________________
Kevin
The mentor who is valiantly trying to take over the world

aspen
Jedi Master

Registered: Aug 1999
Location: East Lansing, MI USA
Offline
I just scanned this thread.

I just have one thing to tell you.

Personal insults are not a way to win an arguement. In fact if you must result to them you you've already lost.

__________________
Chris Beasley -Editor DMOZ.org
Interweb - Head of Website Development.
Literature Network - Read and Search Classic Literature, The Bible, and Thousands of Quotations.
Wilderness Survival - Could You Survive The Wild? Take the Quiz.

tubedogg
Victory shall be mine

Registered: Mar 2001
Location: Medina, OH
Offline
You're talking to the other guy, right aspen?

__________________
Kevin
The mentor who is valiantly trying to take over the world

netesq
SitePoint Enthusiast

Registered: Dec 2000
Location: Davis, California, USA
Offline
quote:
. . . give url submitters the right to give there submissions more or less credibility based on how much reliable ID they would be willing to provide. The IP address would be automatically logged, and submiters who are unwilling to provide more definitive ID (Isp e-mail to credit card deposit) would have to accept there submission being ranked lowest on a credibility or reliability scale. The basic index would list or rank sites based on this scale. So, spamers would be effectively out of business as �value adders� (index processors) would be able to easily delete submissions from know abusers and unreliable scorces could be held to a higher standard, and their sites could be more carefully scrutinized.
In other words, you are advocating the creation of yet another complex and totally useless bureaucracy, this one designed by you, one which no one else in his or her right mind would want to use, much less invest in developing.

quote:
netesq asked:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And who's going to decide which keywords are appropriate in the arttworks autocracy?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
arttworks replied:
I think if we picked ten librarians out of a hat and let them work it out, we would do all right.
And you would be totally and completely wrong.

Few people outside of the legal profession realize that Westlaw(R) -- which used to be the standard for computer aided legal research -- was using keywords, hypertext links, and natural language inquiries long before the advent of the Web, and the issue of what "keynotes" should be used in categorizing case law has always been a source of much contention among legal researchers. In fact, several well-reknowned law librarians ended up in a huge libel suit several years ago by virtue of their posts to the law-lib listserv, wherein they criticized each others opinions about the appropriate use of keywords in the proprietary Westlaw(R) textual database.

__________________
David F. Prenatt, Jr.
Chief Evangelist, Wherewithal Search

yajirobe
SitePoint Zealot

Registered: Mar 2001
Location: Between a rock and a hard place.
Online!
Words of wisdom:

"Instead of raising your voice, why don't you reinforce your argument?"

__________________
---------------------------------
UnobUtt: http://www.unobutt.com/

arttworks
SitePoint Enthusiast

Registered: Apr 2001
Location: nj
Online! Dog Do and Baby Talk
quote:
I have never done this nor do I plan to. And I never said I did. You are assuming quite a lot.

It was not meant as a personal accusation, I was implying that I hope, to be consistent, you call every one who does pay yahoo or submition services �absolutely insane� and �stupid.�

quote:
Interesting. So how is this different from the "fly by night submission service[s]"?

Well the big difference is they would be held responsible for what they submitted, and would no longer be a �dirty work� service.

Regarding the credit card nit-picking: I wrote (Isp e-mail to credit card deposit) I think pretty clearly implying that there would be various ways provided to establish identity or reliability. The system might work something like the Good seller, Bad seller system in place at e-bay.

quote:
It is one company or government organization (*shudder*) collecting all the information from individuals or submission services. Do you remember what happened when NetSol had a monopoly on domain names? And what has happened since they no longer do?

Unlike �NetSol� this public database would have �exclusive� control over nothing. The �government� BS, beyond some �seed� money, is not something I have proposed. In fact if done right I think 99% of this national database could be maintained by simple, logical, software.

quote:
Would individuals not be allowed to submit their own info to the database? That seems much worse.

Yes individuals could but as I said they could not expect there submission to be ranked vary high RIGHT AWAY if they are unwilling to provide the ID information that would make it possible for the system to hold them accountable for the �honesty� of their submission.

quote:
a completely different scenario.

I think I have refuted the false information this opinion was based on.

quote:
You seem to resort to name-calling very easily. Mine was a serious question - are you doing this as a troll (aka one who posts to get a reaction or flames) or as a serious question?

People who ask serious questions, should be able to follow links and discover that I have been doing this for over a year, and have had to endure some substantial unpleasantness to voice these opinions. What�s your theory, I do this for fun? Frankly I can think of a lot better thinks to do with my time and fingers than type responses to your false accusations.

arttworks
SitePoint Enthusiast

Registered: Apr 2001
Location: nj
Online! bureaucracy on the brain
quote:
In other words, you are advocating the creation of yet another complex and totally useless bureaucracy, this one designed by you, one which no one else in his or her right mind would want to use, much less invest in developing.

You mean �in other words� that have nothing to do with anything I have advocating. How exactly do you �use� a bureaucracy? Anyway lets see if we can find where this useless bureaucracy gets created:
Requiring sites that solicit url's, to provide a copy of all "add site" form submission information to a to-be-established central public database. Nope, no big bureaucracy here, looks like simple cgi software, to cgi software to me.
Next the data base software looks at the ID information provided and makes some general determinations regarding likely credibility (stuff like a someone@ISPdomain-name is probably more reliable than jerk@hotmail) and gives the site a credibility ranking. Occasionally some humans will have to tweak the software to disqualify future submissions from individuals learned to be gross offenders. But, no �complex bureaucracy� will be required.

Last the search industry �adds value� to this complete, but crude database in a completely free and fair environment. They can chose to weed out as much or little as they like and rerank sites by whatever standard they want --Of course they could also put back in any spam remove from the national database. The big difference is anyone will be able to see what they do and there will be a pure standard to compare them to. Freedom and fairness, How absolutely frightening.

Regarding the keyword BS: how about we just flip a coin, heads the index uses Laptop, tails it�s notebook. Arguing this kind of �it can�t be done� nonsense is really a waste of time. Language consolidation has been done before (sign language) and we will not need any lawyers or brain surgeons to make this work.

netesq
SitePoint Enthusiast

Registered: Dec 2000
Location: Davis, California, USA
Offline Re: bureaucracy on the brain
quote:
Originally posted by arttworks
Requiring sites that solicit url's, to provide a copy of all "add site" form submission information to a to-be-established central public database.
Assuming, arguendo that you could get this proposal passed and coerce people to comply with it. . . What, exactly, would be the point? Of what use would this raw data be?

quote:
Next the data base software looks at the ID information provided and makes some general determinations regarding likely credibility (stuff like a someone@ISPdomain-name is probably more reliable than jerk@hotmail) and gives the site a credibility ranking. Occasionally some humans will have to tweak the software to disqualify future submissions from individuals learned to be gross offenders. But, no �complex bureaucracy� will be required.
Who would make the decisions regarding credibility criteria? Who would pay the salaries of the people establishing this criteria? And what would prevent established players from capturing this indexing service and bending it to their own will?
quote:
Last the search industry �adds value� to this complete, but crude database in a completely free and fair environment. They can chose to weed out as much or little as they like and rerank sites by whatever standard they want --Of course they could also put back in any spam remove from the national database. The big difference is anyone will be able to see what they do and there will be a pure standard to compare them to. Freedom and fairness, How absolutely frightening.
What freedom? What fairness? Do you really think that Yahoo!, LookSmart, AOL/Time Warner, Inktomi, etc., etc., etc., will have any interest in using such a "service"? Why would they not simply continue to rely upon their own paid submission services?
quote:
Regarding the keyword BS: how about we just flip a coin, heads the index uses Laptop, tails it�s notebook. Arguing this kind of �it can�t be done� nonsense is really a waste of time. Language consolidation has been done before (sign language) and we will not need any lawyers or brain surgeons to make this work.
I wholeheartedly disagree. Sign language is NOT "language consolidation," not by any stretch of the imagination. And BTW, are we talking about American Sign Language? Or are we talking about one of the many other sign languages that are derived from other spoken and written languages?

Linguists are in general agreement that any type of coding and/or translation process introduces noise into the communication process, and sign language is no different. Syntax, context, and body language, including facial expression such as the raising or lowering of the eyebrows while speaking or signing, are integral parts of communicating. These actions help give meaning to what is being signed, much like vocal tones and inflections give meaning to spoken words. As such, attempts to teach sign language to other primates has failed miserably.

Spoken languages and sign languages differ trivially in terms of the latter's not using the vocal-auditory channel, but claims have been made that spoken language is composed of arbitrary signs while sign languages are based more of iconic symbols. A more careful analysis shows that both types of language are comparable, and that both have become more arbitrary over time. Similarly, structural analyses of both systems reveals a similar degree of 'duality of patterning', both below the structure of the word or sign, and above it at the level of grammar.

__________________
David F. Prenatt, Jr.
Chief Evangelist, Wherewithal Search

arttworks
SitePoint Enthusiast

Registered: Apr 2001
Location: nj
Online! How do I not love the, let me count the ways
quote:
Assuming, arguendo that you could get this proposal passed and coerce people to comply with it. . . What, exactly, would be the point? Of what use would this raw data be?

It would be COMPLETE you (self-moderated bad language).

quote:
What freedom? What fairness? Do you really think that Yahoo!, LookSmart, AOL/Time Warner, Inktomi, etc., etc., etc., will have any interest in using such a "service"? Why would they not simply continue to rely upon their own paid submission services?

Because they would get their asses kicked if they did. If there were only two phone (411) services, and one of them would only give you the phone number of people who paid them, and one, any nation wide number--are you saying you think who, would be out of business pretty fast, is debatable.

quote:
Who would make the decisions regarding credibility criteria? Who would pay the salaries of the people establishing this criteria? And what would prevent established players from capturing this indexing service and bending it to their own will?

There are likely many agreeable formulas regarding Who and How? If acceptance of the establishment of the �concise keyword national database� was to be prevented over disagreement over this ID issue it can removed from the reform proposal. Or the database can record the Id information, and include all submissions, even if they are obvious spam, and leave deciding what gets removed to the �processing industry� (yahoo, aol, me, you, etc). The negative consequence of this is database size would end up being, I think, unnecessarily large. Civilized people often have to create independent, informed arbiters to make judgments, As I see it as long as what they do is public and they can be made to account for their actions, it is not �crazy talk� to sujest the establishment of such a group to maintain the integrity of the national database. I think we could do better, but I would accept a system that let each of the say, 15 top search sites appoint one member to this �maintenance force�. I would add that if private industry gets to pick-- they pay, otherwise letting the national science foundation take responsibility for staffing and financing might be a good idea.

Regarding the sign language mush: Is it your contention that in sign language there are different signs for laptop and notebook computer? Debating the subtlety of different languages is, a perhaps deliberate distraction, from the only relevant fact, that for the limited purpose of efficient web navigation, we can lose the nuance of having more than one way of saying the same thing.

netesq
SitePoint Enthusiast

Registered: Dec 2000
Location: Davis, California, USA
Offline
quote:
Originally posted by arttworks
Civilized people often have to create independent, informed arbiters to make judgments, As I see it as long as what they do is public and they can be made to account for their actions, it is not �crazy talk� to sujest the establishment of such a group to maintain the integrity of the national database. I think we could do better, but I would accept a system that let each of the say, 15 top search sites appoint one member to this �maintenance force�. I would add that if private industry gets to pick-- they pay, otherwise letting the national science foundation take responsibility for staffing and financing might be a good idea.
Well, it looks like you've finally admitted what this proposal really is: The establishment of yet another useless coercive bureaucracy, built according to your very vague and arbitrary standards.

I have a much more modest proposal: Why not just let me run everything? That way all the trains would run on time, and everyone who mattered would be happy. Unless, of course, someone was unreasonable and refused to see things my way.

__________________
David F. Prenatt, Jr.
Chief Evangelist, Wherewithal Search

Polymath
SitePoint Zealot

Registered: Nov 2000
Location: Manchester, UK
Offline
As far as I can tell, the only useful thing to come out of this thread is the delightful use of the word 'arguendo'.
Sign Language: It is well known that children who sign in different sign languages, when brought together rapidly develop their own 'pidgin' or 'creole' language, just like any other community of differently-languaged people.
Any attempt to limit or force artificial constraints upon language for whatever purpose will inevitably fail.
If computers can't cope with too many words, that doesn't mean limit the words, it means the computers/programmers aren't good enough yet.
It's like a chess programmer saying there are too many chess pieces, let's limit the number in the interests of god-knows-what, or make no distinction between Queen and King's pawns.
The limited keywords idea is the zenith of backwards-reasoning.

__________________
I went to the World Wide Web and all I got was this lousy signature.

arttworks
SitePoint Enthusiast

Registered: Apr 2001
Location: nj
Online!
quote:

(netesq)
Well, it looks like you've finally admitted what this proposal really is: The establishment of yet another useless coercive bureaucracy, built according to your very vague and arbitrary standards.

If the creation of a 15 person staff, that would be required to do all its work in public, and that could not prevent anyone from acting contrary to the �advice� its work would represent--is your definition of too much government. I am left wondering what kind of animal razed you.

quote:
(poly1+2=0) Any attempt to limit or force artificial constraints upon language for whatever purpose will inevitably fail.

Maybe you should tell all the computer programmers out there that all there software is going to fail because it was written in a language that can't exist.

quote:
If computers can't cope with too many words, that doesn't mean limit the words, it means the computers/programmers aren't good enough yet.

And we all don�t have personal time machines because scientist are stupid. What computers, like myself, can�t cope with is �stupid human BS�

Language is not some kind of religion you have to protect from logical modification to circumstances. It is a simple, fundamental fact that computers use unambiguous reasoning and intern need unambiguous language.

quote:
The limited keywords idea is the zenith of backwards-reasoning.

The day complete retards see it otherwise, is the day I start worrying.

[edited to fix bad spelling of incredible proportions]

Last edited by arttworks on 27-Apr-2001 at 03:23 PM

arttworks
SitePoint Enthusiast

Registered: Apr 2001
Location: nj
Online!
In an effort to keep this subject at least artificially alive, I will occasionally provide a �Progress Report� regarding my efforts to get some organization or influential person to adopt the important issue of �Internet Navigation.�

Progress Report #0000001
Over the past couple of weeks I have contacted a number of �news� reporters and subject related web sites. Of the few replies I received to my suggestion that �the subject deserves more investigation and debate�, none were more than �thanks for wasting your time� automated return e-mail polite-atudes. I am thinking some responsibility for this poor performance can be blamed on my poor communication skills. I am also thinking that personalizing my �subject suggestion� to site content, or reporter interest is probably a waste of time, and that it would be best to just write a �universal� and �standardized� e-mail, addressed �To Whom It May Concern�. Here is the text of the e-mail I sent one reporter, I would appreciate your opinion regarding what parts work, and what parts, you think, need work.

�I Liked your �Seven Days of Spam� article, and thought you might have what it takes to crack open for public inspection the Spam engines and Spam-ectories that are the internet search industry. From the �in broad daylight� crime of selling keywords, to the more hidden corruption of affiliate favoritism and competitor exclusion, the industry is rotten. The absence of sensible rules has produced the mush of chaos, where consumer confusion and ignorance, not choice or intelligent selection, is deciding what the internet will become. Without a good map, the �Information Superhighway� will become just a lot of wasted cyber asphalt. See more at donotgo.com�

In an effort to find �interested persons� to contact, I have been doing a lot of web searching for relevant content. The process was as confirming of my contentions, as the results were disappointing. The most interesting bit of news I discovered is that the date the internet apparently lost its soul to the devil of �marketeering� can be established as being some time in the fall of 1997. Of the few pages I could find regarding the issues of web navigation, I would estimate that more than 80% were old editorial content written before 1998.

As for the more current �relevant sites�, most are organization sites that state their objective in general �usability� terms, like the ISOC site which says-- As the Internet continues to grow, the issues that confront its stable, beneficial evolution increase in number and complexity. ISOC will speak out about these issues wherever there are threats to the open, unencumbered use of the Internet. Unfortunately, a corrupt search industry isn�t recognized as threat to �unencumbered use� by any of these organizations. Clearly my notion that �navigation� is a part of internet infrastructure, and that it must be established or guaranteed to some minimum standard by deliberate, logical, design--is not a popularly held point of view.

I did my searching using �exact phrases�, including:
talk about searching the web
search engines suck
sites not indexed
internet issues
the search industry
web navigation
internet navigation
superhighway navigation
navigating the internet
discuss internet navigation
etc.
As is often the case when trying to find a class or type of web site, finding content about internet navigation or superhighway mapping is not as simple as typing a few relevant keywords. Ironically, from my point of view, none of the word combinations I tried produced a reference (top 500) to my own site. But than again I didn�t try �universal site submission form.� I am thinking I should probably compile a list of as many as possible, of all the ways to say �the issues of web navigation� and include it as part of my sites content.

Note: I am going to post this progress report on other subject related boards. Please do not post a redundant reply to other message boards.

superbird
SitePoint Addict

Registered: Aug 2000
Location: Hertfordshire, UK
Offline
quote:
What computers, like myself, can�t cope with is �stupid human BS�

bwahaha!

__________________
Lewis Hamilton - McLaren Mercedes' youngest driver!
Trent Valley Kart Club
KartLink.net

igor@af
SitePoint Zealot

Registered: Dec 2000
Location: Lexington KY
Offline
arttworks, I have to disagree with you about "the fact that it can require real money, or months, even years to get a site just listed by most of the major indexes"

I don't mean to sound arrogant, but IF your site deserves to be on any of the most popular directories, it WILL get there, without any money, without waiting for months.

I run www.AutomotiveForums.com
I submitted my site to Yahoo! without paying a penny, and after less than a month I got an email saying that I got in the directory.
You can see my listing here:
http://dir.yahoo.com/Recreation/Aut...ats_and_Forums/

For DMOZ, it was even quicker.
I submitted AF.com to DMOZ, and the next day it was on there:
http://dmoz.org/Recreation/Autos/Enthusiasts/

I also got into the Google's directory after couple of weeks because Google uses DMOZ for the Directory.
http://directory.google.com/Top/Rec...os/Enthusiasts/

I have not even spent a penny on any advertising or promotion of my site, if your site is good, it will get what it deserves.

AF.com is less than 6 months old and we get new members everyday, we should reach 1300 member mark at the end of this week.

__________________
www.AutomotiveForums.com
The best host : www.HostMatters.com

ady
SitePoint Enthusiast

Registered: Jan 2001
Location: Isle of Man
Offline
I just did a search for "expected side effects from too much LSD" and this thread returned #1

If this is what it does to you I think I'll flush it !

__________________
www.gr8-business.com
Free software for creating
high ranking doorway pages.

arttworks
SitePoint Enthusiast

Registered: Apr 2001
Location: nj
Online! what can be can be
igor,
I did use the word CAN, and intended the word MOST to imply almost all the "web search" indexes some significant population of web users use. I think it is indisputable fact that most websites are not indexed by some percentage of the top 25 search engines and directories. For some (like your site) that percentage might be small, for others (like my sites) it might be vary high. It is apparently your contention that site "quality" accounts for this difference in coverage. As I see it, the publics inability to know what has been rejected and why creates an environment where, personal dislike, bigotry or business self-interest could also be the explanation. Our very different personal experiences prove very little, but I don't think you can legitimately make the argument that dumboz or yahoo will not index this game (submitted twice at both) because it isn't of equal quality to others they index.

In the end it doesn't really mater what you believe regarding the professionalism or motives of dumboz or yahoo editors. I hope we would agree that the most important thing is that the internets value be protected from forces that would inhibit growth, freedom, and innovation. I believe I have suggested some harmless, and simple "rules of the road" that will protect minimum rights, produce grater innovation regarding internet navigation, and in turn make the internet more useable. I claim these policy changes are as harmless, and logically sensible as traffic lights and ingredient labels. If you disagree than please lets have that argument.

Polymath
SitePoint Zealot

Registered: Nov 2000
Location: Manchester, UK
Offline
artworks,
let's argue about your 'simple' (you said it) rules for keywords.

>>>Maybe you should tell all the computer programmers out there that all there software is going to fail because it was written in a language that can't exist.

You obviously have no comprehension of the difference between language and code.

>>>Language is not some kind of religion you have to protect from logical modification to circumstances.

Do you mean, like, because some people say 'laptop' and some say 'notebook'? And logically, people should be able to use both?

>>>And we all don�t have personal time machines because scientist are stupid. What computers, like myself, can�t cope with is �stupid human BS� .

You mean 'stupid human BS' like using two different words for exactly the same thing? How utterly foolish.

>>>It is a simple, fundamental fact that computers use unambiguous reasoning
And humans don't. You are clearly struggling here. You will not be able to put constraints on the language that people type in. Governments have tried and failed miserably. How will the man in Papua New Guinea know which word to put in, when it's the arbitrary whim of some loon like yourself? Are you going to publish the big book of Internet keywords as well? Are we all going to have to buy the 'Internet Dictionary'? Is the internet going to devolve into a place where people can only use '+' and not 'and', because the poor computers can't cope? Get real.

Finally, the reason why you got so little response to your e-mails is because you sound like a weirdo, and they're all too scared to respond because of phrases like
"the �in broad daylight� crime of selling keywords" and "the industry is rotten".
Crime? If you don't like engines like GoTo, don't use them. I'm curious to learn which laws you think have been broken? Most people would actually not be curious, just dismissive. Frankly I don't blame anyone for not responding with more than a 'Thanks, bye'.

Let's get something straight while we are here. Before the search engines, where was the navigation? They went and did something about it, they spent a lot of their own time and money, and put a lot of effort into gathering info about as many web pages as possible. They didn't write incoherent rants to journalists. If you don't like the way they do it, make your own engine. The answer is as simple as that. And we'll see how many people really like your limited keywords scheme.

__________________
I went to the World Wide Web and all I got was this lousy signature.

arttworks
SitePoint Enthusiast

Registered: Apr 2001
Location: nj
Online! That's SUPER Weirdoloon
quote:
You obviously have no comprehension of the difference between language and code.

Programming languages haven't looked like the code they produce for ten years.
You obviously have no comprehension of reality.

quote:
Do you mean, like, because some people say 'laptop' and some say 'notebook'? And logically, people should be able to use both?

What? What I am saying is, that if for example, meta tag keywords could only be selected from a standardized list of un-redundant words the stupid tags would have navigational value.

quote:
You will not be able to put constraints on the language that people type in. Governments have tried and failed miserably.

Were you the victim of a government perpetrated anal probe or something?

quote:
How will the man in Papua New Guinea know which word to put in, when it's the arbitrary whim of some loon like yourself? Are you going to publish the big book of Internet keywords as well? Are we all going to have to buy the 'Internet Dictionary'? Is the internet going to devolve into a place where people can only use '+' and not 'and', because the poor computers can't cope? Get real

Nothing in what I am suggesting would in any way change site content or how people search spidered content. The harmless, simple changes would be made in how sites are described and assigned keywords, and this raw data would be made public domain information. The only thing that would be "oppressed" by anything I have suggested, is big business control, and web scam artists who capitalize on the confusion, disfuction, and deception the current system facilitates.

quote:
I'm curious to learn which laws you think have been broken?

One of the crimes is "lying." The fact is that search sites offering to "Search the web" are not searching the web, they are searching a private data base edited by personal, and business discretion the public is not allowed to witness or scrutinize.

quote:
They went and did something about it, they spent a lot of their own time and money.

Yahoo was a name brand long before any real money was spent on it.

quote:
They didn't write incoherent rants to journalists. If you don't like the way they do it, make your own engine. The answer is as simple as that.

Right after I build my own telephone company, and my own nuclear power plant. The fact is, as long as we allow the infrastructure of navigation (site submission information) to be privately owned, a complete, quality index can not, as a practical fact, be created by anyone. The current rules doom us to a fractured, chaotic, mush of guaranteed disfuction. The simple, harmless, changes I propose would consolidate the foundation of web navigation and make it able to support the innovation that will produce the "better, clearer choices", web users deserve.

tubedogg
Victory shall be mine

Registered: Mar 2001
Location: Medina, OH
Offline Re: That's SUPER Weirdoloon
quote:
Originally posted by arttworks
One of the crimes is "lying." The fact is that search sites offering to "Search the web" are not searching the web, they are searching a private data base edited by personal, and business discretion the public is not allowed to witness or scrutinize.

I fail to see anywhere in there where it says they are searching the entire web. They are not lying, you just happen to not like what they are doing. Get over yourself, no one cares.

__________________
Kevin
The mentor who is valiantly trying to take over the world

arttworks
SitePoint Enthusiast

Registered: Apr 2001
Location: nj
Online! only logical reply-- Your mama...
I bet the �need to get over themselves� percentage, among people who speak for everyone (�no one cares�) and use rhetoric like �Get over yourself�--is very near 100%.

arttworks
SitePoint Enthusiast

Registered: Apr 2001
Location: nj
Online! The Map To Better Web Searching
The issue of internet navigation is, in my opinion, the most important under-discussed internet issue of our time. As I see it, the destiny and future value of a great technology will be decided by what course of evolution this first generation of users allow the internet to take. Some might see this as over- statement, believing that no mistakes made now cannot be unmade in the future. I would argue that television�s devolution into a stagnant, lowest- common-denominator medium clearly demonstrates the danger.

You don�t need to understand how the internet works to realize that navigation is a backbone element of internet infrastructure. The fact that you need to know where a place is, and a map of some kind to get there efficiently, is too obvious to require explanation. What is not as obvious (at least to most �explorers�) is that in this �New World� the science of map making has become the business of location promotion.

The internet mapping, or indexing industry, is rife with corruption. From the standard practice of openly selling inclusion and placement, to the more subtle influence of affiliate preference, this industry is driven by bad policy and counterproductive incentives that make map perversion and distortion inevitable. As is usually the case when the capitalist system fails to produce an industry capable of serving the public interest, it is the rules of the game, and not the players, that are to blame.

For free enterprise to work there must be fair competition or, more precisely, competition with at least one honest producer-- which is the check that balances corrupt influence from consuming an industry. Unfortunately sometimes the game starts before the rules that would allow fair competition have been established and rule making ends up being made just part of the game. Somewhere between this pointless chaos and Bill Gates-ien eternal dictatorship, there is the perfect freedom (all the freedom any honest player needs) that optimizes progress and innovation. That better way is the first thing we should be looking to find on and for the internet.

In the internet indexing (mapping) game, the playing field is made of URL�s or site addresses. The ball is site description (submission) information provided by site owners, and the goal is to organize this raw information into an accurate, easy to read, complete map. Unfortunately, under the current rules or �system,� there is no real competitive game because the field and the ball have been declared private property, and no talented, innovative, motivated players are allowed access. Sadly, most people looking from a distance can�t see that the action on the field is just some corporate CEOs kicking the ball around on their lunch hour.

To have a competitive game that produces the achieved goal, we must let real players on the field. In real world terms that means we must allow open access to the raw material of web indexing--site location and basic description information. The easiest, most harmless way to regain this openness is to simply prohibit corporate squatters from seizing control of what is effectively public land. By slightly modifying a few current regulations, the public�s right to equal and complete access can be established and preserved.

Under the current system, the government requires the maintenance of a DNS, or registered name database, in compliance with the logical fact that websites must have unique addresses for the internet to work. Unfortunately, this established minimum is about as useful as a Constitution absent a Bill of Rights. What the government hasn�t guaranteed is that this basic asphalt of the information superhighway (domain registration information) be maintained as a useable or useful public resource. Currently �whois� information is accessible. What has not been made available is the infinitely more relevant �whatis� information that should be part of this essentially publicly owned database.

What needs to be regulated into existence is a domain owner�s right to include site relevant information as part of the �personal� information maintained in the �whois� database. By guaranteeing this simple right of ownership, a very liberating and powerful raw �whatis� index can be created without placing any substantial new burdens on the system. In effect this minor regulatory change would standardize and centralize the site submission process and create efficiencies in the indexing system that would save billions of man-hours of work now wasted by current chaos. For web users, the benefits would be seen in a reformed indexing industry that could no longer treat web mapping as a part-time hobby or a promotional tool and remain competitively viable. For the first time there would be a level playing field made of guaranteed minimums that would promote the innovation that will lead to a more precisely navigable internet.

From my perspective the logic of this simple expansion of the registration database to include site relevant information is irrefutable truth. What can be reasonably debated is the exact �hows� of this expansion. I offer this crude blueprint of what I think needs to be done to create a better, more efficient system with the hopeful expectation that the attention of better minds will improve and refine it.

As part of the �whois� database, registered site owners should be allowed to maintain a centralized, public registration page outlining site characteristics. Because many site attributes are not unique, and therefor do not require unique description (that would only complicate indexing). Certain standard content like, News, Discussion, Pictures, Links, Downloads, Zip code, etc... or qualities like, No membership, No pop-ups, No selling, No flash, etc... would be described using a standard multiple choice, or check off, form. More unique qualities of content would be described by providing the opportunity to include a limited number of relevant keywords. Domain owners would be held responsible (by those who would be reformatting or adding value to the raw index) for the quality (honesty) of the information provided and would be allowed to re-edit this information as required. To accommodate subpage content, not directly relevant to main site description, opportunity to provide a link to a sub-page index, of standard format, would also be made available for comprehensive sites, or sites that provide unrelated site hosting under their domain name. Once established this raw �whatis� database would be made freely available to be expanded on, and improved by, a larger, more capable and competitive, search industry.

RKuhle
It's true, I'm addicted!

Registered: May 2001
Location: Dubuque, IA
Offline
So artworks, what have you done since your initial post to solve this great and severe conspiracy among the search engines?

Have you started your own? Have you written a book about Internet conspiracy? Have you picketed outside the offices of Google, Yahoo, and the likes?

__________________
Ryan Kuhle
"All hard work pays off in the end."
iDreamPortal.com - Coming Soon
High quality desktop wallpaper - Check out our free preview gallery.

creole
I wish I had a girlfriend

Registered: Oct 2000
Location: Nashville
Online!
Troll
Profundus Maximus
Blowhard
Artful Dodger
Stone Deaf
Filibuster

__________________
She's in the air, In between molecules, of oxygen and carbon dioxide
And if it�s a lie...I don�t want to be the one who signed...
I'm a SitePoint Advisor, feel free to ask me questions
strategy? development? implementation? www.gravitydigital.com

arttworks
SitePoint Enthusiast

Registered: Apr 2001
Location: nj
Online! The book of moron.
Reti-Kuhle,

Being that your questions have been previously answered, or are answerable by anyone human enough to apply deductive reasoning-- I will assume they are rhetorical, and move on to the related subject of finding a way to get anyone who maters to care, or finding some way to make those of us who care, mater. I saw the US congress debating the �protect the flag� Constitutional Amendment today and I got quite discouraged. What hope is there for meaningful policy change regarding anything important if the most powerful regulators in the world think that this kind of nonsense is worthy of debate? The fact that the people with all the power are morons, means that change has to come from the bottom up. Unfortunately, the bottom people are bigger morons, as made evident by the fact that they gave the other morons all the power. The monumental task of getting one group of morons to make another group of morons change policy may be a futile waste of time, but I suppose I wouldn�t be on this moron planet if I wasn�t a big enough moron to try.

Last edited by arttworks on 17-Jul-2001 at 10:59 PM

arttworks
SitePoint Enthusiast

Registered: Apr 2001
Location: nj
Online! Some Progress
It�s not the front page of the New York Times but this publication at www.webreference.com has probably more than doubled the total number of people exposed to my �whatis� proposal in just the last 24 hrs. So far reaction has been exclusively positive.

Quote:
...Great idea for info on the whois database. It is a classic example of, "why didn't I think of that: its so simple!� Good luck with your effort to get it up....

... It contained new and very refreshing perspectives to an on-going problem with the search industry. I agree whole heartily that there is a definite need for the increased use of the domain name registration database...

The text is the same as that posted here except I added a paragraph or so and a shot at the ODP

allie
SitePoint Enthusiast

Registered: Mar 2001
Location: Southeast US
Online!
arttworks,

Most knowledgeable people agree that although the internet world has come a long way, it's still in its infancy and as it evolves, change will and needs to happen. Might I suggest that you change your tune if you expect to have one iota of influence over how this occurs.

You elude to the following:

You say "that most communities are involved in site building and optimizing rackets".

You reference infrastructure rebuilding as "your dream'" and other's "nightmare, or worse your carelessable issue" By the way, where in the world did you come up with the word, carelessable?

You say "some percentage of you are here to optimize one thing--your income".

You say that people at this forum provide sugjects on "how to set up your own sham, crapie, reselling, affiliate business" or "how to get the #1 ranking your site in no way deserves"

You say that the above "demonstrates" that "you could care less if the dollars you make are not honest or socially productive".

This in in the first paragraph alone! I stopped reading after that. By then, anything you had to say had lost credibility with me. Why bother?

This kind of accusatory, know-it-all, attitude will get you no where!

I'm with you Creole.

arttworks
SitePoint Enthusiast

Registered: Apr 2001
Location: nj
Online! Black-hole calling the kettle....
Knowit-allie,

Unfortunately most people are not knowledgeable (as preposterous policies like Ballistic Missile Defense and using trust-fund surpluses to finance tax brakes for the rich prove) and are completely unaware of the "shenanigans" (PC enough?) going on behind the curtain of the internet search industry. Worse, many of the people who do know better have decided to just play along because it is more convenient to do so. I am sorry if my curtain blowing "tune" is to loud or rude for your sensibilities. I would suggest you offer a refuting fact to shut me up--sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling "I am not listening" is not a very persuasive argument.

Jimknee
SitePoint Enthusiast

Registered: Jul 2001
Location: The Globe
Offline
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/...pic=&topic_set=

arttworks
SitePoint Enthusiast

Registered: Apr 2001
Location: nj
Online! Whatisadu
jimknee,

Thanks for the link. That is a wonderfully written story--intelligent, sad and funny. If my idea fails as spectacularly as Nelson's Xanadu, I only hope Gary Wolf would consider writing my obituary.

allie
SitePoint Enthusiast

Registered: Mar 2001
Location: Southeast US
Online!
From the get-go you approached this community with:

"Where would be the appropriate subject to start a thread about "Search Industry News or Issues" (can such a main subject category be created)? And, would the following post be too "hostile" by your community standards"?

Please tell me what could possibly be "hostile" about a discussion on "Search Industry News or Issues"?

It was only hostile because you purposely chose to BE hostile.

You may very well have a topic worth discussion but your negative hostile approach is a real turn-off and diminishes your credibility!

There is no way I would ever discuss this or any other issue with you when you approach me and/or others in this manner. It is obvious that you came to enflame. Logical discussion with someone like you is NOT possible.

Bottom line, it was a potentially good topic for discussion that was badly presented.

Enough said.

arttworks
SitePoint Enthusiast

Registered: Apr 2001
Location: nj
Online! James Bond in "never enough said"
allie-nofacts,

You must be a dumboz volunteer. You haven�t the courtesy to preface any of your doctrine with a polite �in my opinion�--yet you find my style intolerable. If an alien life form was to evaluate the human race based on what it saw on search industry message boards it might think we all had 600 nagging mothers. The fact that you don�t realize how intellectually small minded it is to reject the message because you think the messenger is too smelly, speaks to your credibility.

allie
SitePoint Enthusiast

Registered: Mar 2001
Location: Southeast US
Online!
Kindly refrain from calling me names. You have done so three times. (knowit-allie, allie-nofacts, dumboz volunteer)

You said: "You haven�t the courtesy to preface any of your doctrine with a polite �in my opinion�--yet you find my style intolerable".

I say: I expected any reasonable person to logically conclude that I was rendering an opinion (on your presentation skills). I was wrong.

And: In reference to my so-called doctrine. I presented no "doctrine".

You said: The fact that you don�t realize how intellectually small minded it is to reject the message because you think the messenger is too smelly, speaks to your credibility".

I say: "IN MY OPINION" (just so you understand), it is intellectually small minded of the messenger to think that anyone would give credence to a message coming from a "smelly messenger".

arttworks
SitePoint Enthusiast

Registered: Apr 2001
Location: nj
Online! An arrogant speech-cop by any other name....
Look, Herr Pollyanna, why don�t you just concede that we are living in two very different realities and just move on. In my opinion, credibility at your price just isn�t worth it.

Edited to fix spelling, of course.

Last edited by arttworks on 11-Aug-2001 at 09:14 PM

allie
SitePoint Enthusiast

Registered: Mar 2001
Location: Southeast US
Online!
What credibility?

Concede? No.

Ignore? Yes. I will not post again.

mjames
Sports Aficionado

Registered: Jan 2000
Location: New Jersey, USA
Offline
I think this thread has run its course. If you feel otherwise, don't hesitate to get in touch.

__________________
<< Marc James, SitePoint Advisor [e-mail] [pm] [icq] >>
<< Sports Central - Going Beyond the Scores >>
<< Sports Central Founder - SC Message Boards Administrator >>

All times are GMT -5 hours. The time now is 02:30 PM.

Forum Jump:

Previous Topic Next Topic

Home - SitePoint.com - Contact - About - Mediakit - Staff - Privacy Policy - Guidelines - Contest Rules

Button Graphics by Honging
The SitePoint Community Forums are owned and operated by Sitepoint Pty. Ltd.
© Copyright 1998-2001, SitePoint Pty. Ltd. All Rights Reserved.
Ask us about our Community Services.
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.