Who decides what the hashtags are? As I'd like to reserve #superbowl, #olympics, #worldcup, #snow, #summer and perhaps #gmaildown for my yet-to-be-invented product.
Why should Google pay the networks to show their shows to a larger audience? The shows are funded by advertising, the adverts are still in there when you watch them on your Google TV. All Google are trying to do is organise online content you can already watch on your PC.
This is classic old media all over again. They think it's better to lock down content so that almost nobody watches it, than monetise the enormous potential audience of the Internet.
From the article:
"Parliamentary sources have told PC Pro that the Tories' plans were based on foreign investment in the UK broadband network. Google is one of the few companies with the necessary capital and motivation to invest in British broadband"
so this story is based soley on the fact that Google is a foreign Internet company with money?
The Guardian is probably the most net savvy of the big UK papers, so it seems strange that they would ask for something so ludicrous. I'd believe this a bit more if there was a story on it on their own website.
There's a Firefox plug called LiveHTTPHeaders which will show the requests/responses the browser is getting. Using this I can see that the browser only loads the HTML page for the prefetched page, not any associated images/javascript files etc. Because of this you'll only notice a difference if your browser caches the HTML file, and even then the difference in loading time is likely to be minimal.
It's great to see Google supporting these sorts of features, but this is one thing that doesn't really work in practice.
A search for 'stanford' is the example. If you do that on Google, Firefox then goes off and also loads the stanford uni homepage. But if you click on the top Google result (stanford uni homepage), your browser then loads the page again. Why? Because the page doesn't send any cache friendly headers (presumably because it is dynamically generated). So you don't actually gain anything.
URL A is an outclick redirect script from a search engine type site. If you click on the link it redirects with a 302 to URL B
URL B is a normal page with content on
from your explanation above, Google sees the two URLs as having the same content and therefore has to pick one to list (for a given search). Pagerank is a contributing factor here, so if URL A has a higher page rank, URL A would appear *instead* of URL B in the listings?
Would it not make sense to take into account the fact that URL A is a redirect to URL B? And just list URL B?
If the above is true then URL A could remove a competitor from the listings (albeit temporarily) by replacing their entry. Then remove the redirect and just have their own stuff there instead.
A take your point that there is a lot of scare mongering going on here and that this isn't as big a problem as some people are making out. But it does still mean sites can 'fool' the search engines into listing someone else's content on their own domain?
I've seen this effects of this first hand and it's a slightly nastier problem than people realise.
It's not uncommon for search engines to penalise sites for duplicate content, i.e. identical content on multiple domains. So with this problem all it takes is a couple of other sites to link to you, completely innocently with a 302, and *bang*, your site disappears down the listings.
None of the mirrors appear to have the new release yet - perhaps they should release them there first? Some of the ones I checked don't even seem to have FB 0.6.1.
The new Firebird site ain't great either, but not quite as bad as the Thunderbird one. Good job the browser makes up for it.
Slashdot Mirror
Who decides what the hashtags are? As I'd like to reserve #superbowl, #olympics, #worldcup, #snow, #summer and perhaps #gmaildown for my yet-to-be-invented product.
You mean like your email account?
No cable in the area? 'The area' being the middle of London?
Why should Google pay the networks to show their shows to a larger audience? The shows are funded by advertising, the adverts are still in there when you watch them on your Google TV. All Google are trying to do is organise online content you can already watch on your PC.
This is classic old media all over again. They think it's better to lock down content so that almost nobody watches it, than monetise the enormous potential audience of the Internet.
From the article: "Parliamentary sources have told PC Pro that the Tories' plans were based on foreign investment in the UK broadband network. Google is one of the few companies with the necessary capital and motivation to invest in British broadband" so this story is based soley on the fact that Google is a foreign Internet company with money?
The Guardian is probably the most net savvy of the big UK papers, so it seems strange that they would ask for something so ludicrous. I'd believe this a bit more if there was a story on it on their own website.
Does this mean the BBC can apply a little pressure on Adobe to release a 64-bit version of the flash player for Linux?
There's a Firefox plug called LiveHTTPHeaders which will show the requests/responses the browser is getting. Using this I can see that the browser only loads the HTML page for the prefetched page, not any associated images/javascript files etc. Because of this you'll only notice a difference if your browser caches the HTML file, and even then the difference in loading time is likely to be minimal.
It's great to see Google supporting these sorts of features, but this is one thing that doesn't really work in practice.
A search for 'stanford' is the example. If you do that on Google, Firefox then goes off and also loads the stanford uni homepage. But if you click on the top Google result (stanford uni homepage), your browser then loads the page again. Why? Because the page doesn't send any cache friendly headers (presumably because it is dynamically generated). So you don't actually gain anything.
- URL A is an outclick redirect script from a search engine type site. If you click on the link it redirects with a 302 to URL B
- URL B is a normal page with content on
from your explanation above, Google sees the two URLs as having the same content and therefore has to pick one to list (for a given search). Pagerank is a contributing factor here, so if URL A has a higher page rank, URL A would appear *instead* of URL B in the listings? Would it not make sense to take into account the fact that URL A is a redirect to URL B? And just list URL B? If the above is true then URL A could remove a competitor from the listings (albeit temporarily) by replacing their entry. Then remove the redirect and just have their own stuff there instead. A take your point that there is a lot of scare mongering going on here and that this isn't as big a problem as some people are making out. But it does still mean sites can 'fool' the search engines into listing someone else's content on their own domain?I've seen this effects of this first hand and it's a slightly nastier problem than people realise.
It's not uncommon for search engines to penalise sites for duplicate content, i.e. identical content on multiple domains. So with this problem all it takes is a couple of other sites to link to you, completely innocently with a 302, and *bang*, your site disappears down the listings.
"...please use a mirror"
None of the mirrors appear to have the new release yet - perhaps they should release them there first? Some of the ones I checked don't even seem to have FB 0.6.1.
The new Firebird site ain't great either, but not quite as bad as the Thunderbird one. Good job the browser makes up for it.