"Goodness Google fixes things quick. I see the phrase in every result returned"
Check again. Apparently, you did not scroll down to see results 7-10. You looked at the first three and said it was perfect! You missed the two toward the end that still do not contain the phrase.
"It might be considered a flaw in some ways - at the moment - but it's also Google's greatest strength. Associating keyword referrals with pages allows me to find relevant websites even if I don't know exactly what words to type."
I only use search engines to find pages that contain what I am looking for. Only rarely do I ever want to do any sort of link-to search. The example you described with Opentype would be an annoyance I would always move around. To find such pages, I'd search for "opentype" only, without adding OS X. Search engines have had an "or" syntax as well.
"Disinterested, independant, impartial--the Wikipedia is an ideal teacher of contentious issues."
Wikipedia is the ideal teacher of NON-contentious issues. When it comes to contentious, especially politicial issues, it is no more an ideal "teacher" then a Usenet political forum: fierce partisan editors engage in change-wars in Google entries of controversial subjects. The Bush and Kerry entries in the last election were a great example of this.
""to be +or not to be" (quotes and all) give you nothing but appropriate answers on the fist page"
Did you even try it? I did. The plus makes no difference. Results 8 and 9 do not contain what I was looking for. Besides, having to put + in front of words INSIDE a quote sure is a hassle: is it so hard for a search engine to find the phrase without having to learn complicated rules?
Apparently, it is not hard. Long forgottten www.lycos.com produces 100% relevancy in the first 10 results (as opposed to an 80% score for Google). It does not have this proble.
"Google rules because it gives *relevant* results"
No, it rules because of caching and having a lot MORE results. It certainly isn't succeeding at relevance when it is easy to do searches and have results that don't even contain what you are looking for.
I gave up on Altavista because it had fewer results than Google and no caching. However, at the time I ditched it, searches would come up 100% relevant on Altavista, but only 80% relevant on Google. It was a lot more accurate. AskJeeves I never really used much because it was and is a visual mess.
"Is Google doing anything to stop Google bombing?"
I detailed this elsewhere. All Google has to do is add a filter to its results so that pages that do not actually contain the search word/phrases do NOT show up in result lists.
This used to be standard search-engine behaviour, and because of this, results used to be a lot more accurate (unless they were merely outdated, but even in this case, the results were accurate at one time!).
"The strangest spam I got was for a french buldog site"
That does seem strange. If it was a French Bullfrog site instead, it would be quite understandable.
"I have developed some methods for controling it, but I do not want to divulge them publiclly since the bad guys would then know my counter measures"
Yeah, I know. Those French bulldog guys play hardball. They monitor all the Slashdot posts, too, so you are wise not to reveal your tricks. I know myself, that every time someone mods me down, it has to be one of those bulldog spammers.
"Click on http://www.parismastiff.com for your best Gallic bulldog deals!"
That is a safe guess, regardless, considering the Mac's tiny share of the market!
In any case, you still might want to pick up an Apple USB Keyboard "
There is no such problem on my desktop, but the ports are really crammed in there on my PC notebook. Looking at some pics (I don't know anyone with a Powerbook to check for real), it appears that Mac notebooks might have the problem too: Look at this powerbook pic. They look rather crammed on this one as well.
Googlebombing is part of Google's design flaw.
on
'Online Poker' Googlebomb
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Googlebombing is just a result of the problem where Google can return totally irrelevant results to a search: pages that don't even contain the phrase/words being looked for.
A good example is a search on "to be or not to be". Even in quotes, 2 or so of the top 10 results are dross: they do not even contain the phrase. Google has some great things, like so many more results and caching, but it is annoying to have bogus results come up like this. If they, by default, actually returned only the pages that contained what you were looking for, the googlebombing "abuse" problem would vanish. There is a keyword (either noanchor or inanchor?) that ensures that Google produces accurate, relevante results, but you have to type it in.
Even more importantly, it would get rid of the bogus/irrelevant results in searches and make the search experience a lot better. You'd only get online poker sites containing "onlike poker".
I will from now on refer to them as Lego-brand legos, as to distinguish them from those cheap knock-off no-name brand legos you can get by the bucketfull at Wal-mart.
"You forgot to mention that it was a flimsy piece of trash"
For the price of one iMac, you could have bought two of these, and have a backup parts source. Not only that, you could actually run programs with it. Not so with the iMac which had hardly any software for it: no wonder the ad campaign never showed one turned on. They did their best when looked at as an object, but not used as computer.
It would have been easier, too. I actually saw an eOne in a store. I never saw the iMac in a store.
"It's been a while since the business with the original iMac ripoff, so my memory might be a bit fuzzy"
That was the emachines eone. Compared to the iMac, it contained standard ports alongside the parallel ports, and built-in floppy (all of which were missing in the iMac), it was a lot faster and had twice as much memory.....and it cost hundreds less. No wonder Apple had to sue it out of existence.
Did you even read the article? This is not just an MP3 player: it looks and has controls just like the iPod. Outrage over any non-Apple MP3 player is one thing. Outrage over a non-Apple player that is a deceptive look-alike is another.
3. Make it narrower (even if it means making it longer to cram the electronics in). This is one area where it would actually improve on the real Shuffle, which is just too wide, especially where it plugs in, requiring a USB extension cable or unplugging the other plugs that are crammed in near the USB plug.
This lawsuit-bait would almost be worth considering if it had an AM radio. I wonder why these things include FM radio only. Perhaps the AM radio hardware is much more expensive. Regardless, it is much less useful without it. An FM radio is sort of redundant. I use FM radio for music, and there are already music files on the player. I use AM radio for news, and there aren't news MP3's.
"In my book that makes you an equal git with the RIAA. They might be over-zealous, but you are a plain and simple thief."
How can he be a thief when no theft is involved at all? Copyright infringement does not meet the definition of theft, and pointing out such facts as the distinctions between entirely different crimes is not an attempt to justify copyright infringement or say it is OK.
Slashdot Mirror
Check again. Apparently, you did not scroll down to see results 7-10. You looked at the first three and said it was perfect! You missed the two toward the end that still do not contain the phrase.
Since you said it was NOT by George Lucas, I was not tending to think it was sub-par already.
I only use search engines to find pages that contain what I am looking for. Only rarely do I ever want to do any sort of link-to search. The example you described with Opentype would be an annoyance I would always move around. To find such pages, I'd search for "opentype" only, without adding OS X. Search engines have had an "or" syntax as well.
Wikipedia is the ideal teacher of NON-contentious issues. When it comes to contentious, especially politicial issues, it is no more an ideal "teacher" then a Usenet political forum: fierce partisan editors engage in change-wars in Google entries of controversial subjects. The Bush and Kerry entries in the last election were a great example of this.
Did you even try it? I did. The plus makes no difference. Results 8 and 9 do not contain what I was looking for. Besides, having to put + in front of words INSIDE a quote sure is a hassle: is it so hard for a search engine to find the phrase without having to learn complicated rules? Apparently, it is not hard. Long forgottten www.lycos.com produces 100% relevancy in the first 10 results (as opposed to an 80% score for Google). It does not have this proble.
No, it rules because of caching and having a lot MORE results. It certainly isn't succeeding at relevance when it is easy to do searches and have results that don't even contain what you are looking for.
I gave up on Altavista because it had fewer results than Google and no caching. However, at the time I ditched it, searches would come up 100% relevant on Altavista, but only 80% relevant on Google. It was a lot more accurate. AskJeeves I never really used much because it was and is a visual mess.
I detailed this elsewhere. All Google has to do is add a filter to its results so that pages that do not actually contain the search word/phrases do NOT show up in result lists.
This used to be standard search-engine behaviour, and because of this, results used to be a lot more accurate (unless they were merely outdated, but even in this case, the results were accurate at one time!).
That does seem strange. If it was a French Bullfrog site instead, it would be quite understandable.
"I have developed some methods for controling it, but I do not want to divulge them publiclly since the bad guys would then know my counter measures"
Yeah, I know. Those French bulldog guys play hardball. They monitor all the Slashdot posts, too, so you are wise not to reveal your tricks. I know myself, that every time someone mods me down, it has to be one of those bulldog spammers.
"Click on http://www.parismastiff.com for your best Gallic bulldog deals!"
That is a safe guess, regardless, considering the Mac's tiny share of the market!
In any case, you still might want to pick up an Apple USB Keyboard "
There is no such problem on my desktop, but the ports are really crammed in there on my PC notebook. Looking at some pics (I don't know anyone with a Powerbook to check for real), it appears that Mac notebooks might have the problem too: Look at this powerbook pic. They look rather crammed on this one as well.
A good example is a search on "to be or not to be". Even in quotes, 2 or so of the top 10 results are dross: they do not even contain the phrase. Google has some great things, like so many more results and caching, but it is annoying to have bogus results come up like this. If they, by default, actually returned only the pages that contained what you were looking for, the googlebombing "abuse" problem would vanish. There is a keyword (either noanchor or inanchor?) that ensures that Google produces accurate, relevante results, but you have to type it in.
Even more importantly, it would get rid of the bogus/irrelevant results in searches and make the search experience a lot better. You'd only get online poker sites containing "onlike poker".
I will from now on refer to them as Lego-brand legos, as to distinguish them from those cheap knock-off no-name brand legos you can get by the bucketfull at Wal-mart.
Pay then entirely in Flooz.
For the price of one iMac, you could have bought two of these, and have a backup parts source. Not only that, you could actually run programs with it. Not so with the iMac which had hardly any software for it: no wonder the ad campaign never showed one turned on. They did their best when looked at as an object, but not used as computer.
It would have been easier, too. I actually saw an eOne in a store. I never saw the iMac in a store.
Why stop there? Why not a Beowulf cluster of these super suffles?
Here is a view of Mr Sparkle: click here.
Thanks, Slashdot. Was always looking for a technical justification for not bothering to clean the house.
How about a new name for this, Lux? "EyePawed: Shah-phel"
In northern Europe, they also sold the iVorkVorkVork.
Is it any tastier than iPod Quiche? Will it collapse if you slam your Powerbook closed?
Yeah, but they were the first to make an MP3 player that could cook up a souffle and not have it collapse if you took the thing jogging.
That was the emachines eone. Compared to the iMac, it contained standard ports alongside the parallel ports, and built-in floppy (all of which were missing in the iMac), it was a lot faster and had twice as much memory.....and it cost hundreds less. No wonder Apple had to sue it out of existence.
Did you even read the article? This is not just an MP3 player: it looks and has controls just like the iPod. Outrage over any non-Apple MP3 player is one thing. Outrage over a non-Apple player that is a deceptive look-alike is another.
1. Make it black
2. Make the circular control area square.
3. Make it narrower (even if it means making it longer to cram the electronics in). This is one area where it would actually improve on the real Shuffle, which is just too wide, especially where it plugs in, requiring a USB extension cable or unplugging the other plugs that are crammed in near the USB plug.
This lawsuit-bait would almost be worth considering if it had an AM radio. I wonder why these things include FM radio only. Perhaps the AM radio hardware is much more expensive. Regardless, it is much less useful without it. An FM radio is sort of redundant. I use FM radio for music, and there are already music files on the player. I use AM radio for news, and there aren't news MP3's.
How can he be a thief when no theft is involved at all? Copyright infringement does not meet the definition of theft, and pointing out such facts as the distinctions between entirely different crimes is not an attempt to justify copyright infringement or say it is OK.