Isn't that kind of antithetical to the reality of most research-based writing, and, I would presume, much creative writing?
Seems to me that continuing, modifying, starting from, old work is better than scrapping it and starting over. But that may be a little more philosophical than high school teachers wanting to discuss students that turn in their own untouched paper from courses past.
Barring the potential IP issues, what happens to students who (legitimately) re-use portions of their own work, only to have it called out upon second use because it's already in the database.
Seems pretty flawed. Do they cite original sources when they tag a new paper as being plagiarized?
When looked at from a user standpoint, a good search engine is often one that simply provides a direct answer to a user's questions. Google understands this, and you see it in response to, amongst others, queries like "define [such-and-such]", arithmetic and conversion queries, and queries about movie showtimes. For usability reasons, the trend should be toward fulfilling a user's goals more simply. Providing content in a one step (search only) process rather than a two step (search-navigate) process is definitely simpler.
In light of this, Mr. Langdon's comment about search engines not reproducing content is pretty much untrue. The penultimate search engine would simply give a user exactly what they wanted. If they wanted a link then the content providers can still be happy, but if they just wanted content, the providers better figure out another revenue stream.
Won't Search King now be getting a beautifully high PageRank with lots of the major Internet-related news sites providing a nice little link to them?
After this all washes over, won't this leave them in a much better position whether or not they win a lawsuit if it's even heard?
Just a thought...
Slashdot Mirror
Isn't that kind of antithetical to the reality of most research-based writing, and, I would presume, much creative writing? Seems to me that continuing, modifying, starting from, old work is better than scrapping it and starting over. But that may be a little more philosophical than high school teachers wanting to discuss students that turn in their own untouched paper from courses past.
Barring the potential IP issues, what happens to students who (legitimately) re-use portions of their own work, only to have it called out upon second use because it's already in the database. Seems pretty flawed. Do they cite original sources when they tag a new paper as being plagiarized?
When looked at from a user standpoint, a good search engine is often one that simply provides a direct answer to a user's questions. Google understands this, and you see it in response to, amongst others, queries like "define [such-and-such]", arithmetic and conversion queries, and queries about movie showtimes. For usability reasons, the trend should be toward fulfilling a user's goals more simply. Providing content in a one step (search only) process rather than a two step (search-navigate) process is definitely simpler.
In light of this, Mr. Langdon's comment about search engines not reproducing content is pretty much untrue. The penultimate search engine would simply give a user exactly what they wanted. If they wanted a link then the content providers can still be happy, but if they just wanted content, the providers better figure out another revenue stream.
Now we know why little children are so frightened by Big Bird.
Won't Search King now be getting a beautifully high PageRank with lots of the major Internet-related news sites providing a nice little link to them? After this all washes over, won't this leave them in a much better position whether or not they win a lawsuit if it's even heard? Just a thought...