Yes, negative search terms help, but this is usually a response to getting crap back on the first search. Which implies two things. 1) I am spending more time searching than I'd like, and 2) I need to figure out the pattern to the crap myself to try to filter it out. If I can notice a pattern, then google could figure it out too.
And I'm talking here about crap pages that are pretending to be useful, not pages that are useful about something else. For that 2nd case, I can use a quick negative filter or another positive one.
Your idea about sites using hidden keywords would never fly, but some kind of client side white list & black list could be useful.
Good. A good start. As I said, this is simple information pollution, just like spam, and should be treated as such - using filters - both algorithmic and empirical. Google and the other search engines need to do a better job of filtering.
The problem is not the domain names. The name space could be infinite, and should be infinite. If it costs more to register on.com people will just move to.somethingelse where it is cheaper. The problem is one of information pollution.
I despise this this sea of crap web sites that clutter and pollute the web. The signal to noise ratio of useful information keeps going down when you do random searches. And since it only hurts when you do a random search, it is the search engines themselves that need to filter out the crap. Google needs to do a better job searching in this new landscape that is so heavily polluted. Times have changed. A new breed of search will need to be able to cut through the crap better. Probably Google itself will simply improve. I sure hope so.
But, getting back to the click-through problem, the financial incentive needs to be removed/lessened. Google needs to address this themselves by either changing their business model or changing their fee structure. Also, if the crap filter worked better then we wouldn't stumble on these sites and then they wouldn't earn as much money.
This crap-web has the effect of enhancing the value of known brands (Amazon, for example), because people can't be bothered hunting for anything else. Slowly people will start to change the way they surf. They will stop starting in the Google search field, and fall back to their own set of known bookmarks. The real losers will be genuine new web sites that gather dust because no one finds them. Like the music scene, in a way.
Although, Apple was late with the iPod too. MP3 players have been around for a long time, but it wasn't until the last few years that the herd knew about them. Apple got the design, the timing, and the marketing right. Not necessarily in that order of importance.
Small off-topic aside: there are hundreds of Canadian beers. You owe it to yourself to try something better than than Labatt's Blue. Likewise, Fosters is Australia's most well known beer brand, but also one of the worst.
In Canada the offending organization is called SOCAN. They collect a tax on every blank CDR/CDRW sold. It doesn't matter if I am using the CD for storing my own photos. They distribute the wealth to record companies.
Slashdot Mirror
Got any solid examples of this, or are you just making wild guesses?
Yes, negative search terms help, but this is usually a response to getting crap back on the first search. Which implies two things. 1) I am spending more time searching than I'd like, and 2) I need to figure out the pattern to the crap myself to try to filter it out. If I can notice a pattern, then google could figure it out too.
And I'm talking here about crap pages that are pretending to be useful, not pages that are useful about something else. For that 2nd case, I can use a quick negative filter or another positive one.
Your idea about sites using hidden keywords would never fly, but some kind of client side white list & black list could be useful.
Good. A good start. As I said, this is simple information pollution, just like spam, and should be treated as such - using filters - both algorithmic and empirical. Google and the other search engines need to do a better job of filtering.
Do you really think google even noticed what his site was?
The problem is not the domain names. The name space could be infinite, and should be infinite. If it costs more to register on .com people will just move to .somethingelse where it is cheaper. The problem is one of information pollution.
I despise this this sea of crap web sites that clutter and pollute the web. The signal to noise ratio of useful information keeps going down when you do random searches. And since it only hurts when you do a random search, it is the search engines themselves that need to filter out the crap. Google needs to do a better job searching in this new landscape that is so heavily polluted. Times have changed. A new breed of search will need to be able to cut through the crap better. Probably Google itself will simply improve. I sure hope so.
But, getting back to the click-through problem, the financial incentive needs to be removed/lessened. Google needs to address this themselves by either changing their business model or changing their fee structure. Also, if the crap filter worked better then we wouldn't stumble on these sites and then they wouldn't earn as much money.
This crap-web has the effect of enhancing the value of known brands (Amazon, for example), because people can't be bothered hunting for anything else. Slowly people will start to change the way they surf. They will stop starting in the Google search field, and fall back to their own set of known bookmarks. The real losers will be genuine new web sites that gather dust because no one finds them. Like the music scene, in a way.
PC Gaming has been getting a lot of flak lately.
ha ha
It's called a teaser.
I forgot to mention that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_Galaxy is the wikipedia article.
That was the joke.
Remember, in the world of computer development, 95% means you are only 1/2 way. Moreover, 95% of all statistics are made up.
How many music videos strive to be something more than advertising for the song/album? They should pay you to watch them.
Although, Apple was late with the iPod too. MP3 players have been around for a long time, but it wasn't until the last few years that the herd knew about them. Apple got the design, the timing, and the marketing right. Not necessarily in that order of importance.
Nice.
So much for Bill Gates' recent proclamations about the Son of iPod. Apple is one step ahead again.
Small off-topic aside: there are hundreds of Canadian beers. You owe it to yourself to try something better than than Labatt's Blue. Likewise, Fosters is Australia's most well known beer brand, but also one of the worst.
No, use headphones.
Interesting, if true. Can you back that up?
Kansas City must have crap ISPs. That's a rip off.
There is plenty of Java/Swing "done right" out there. For example: http://www.jgoodies.com/freeware/jdiskreport/ is small and sweet. And then there is this sightings list: http://java.sun.com/products/jfc/tsc/sightings/S21 .html
So it go's. I'm know better my self.
While you are being picky: Germans not German's
Yes, that is a reasonable argument. They can't have it both ways. Remind me to buy a spindle of blank CDRs the next time I am out of the country.
In Canada the offending organization is called SOCAN. They collect a tax on every blank CDR/CDRW sold. It doesn't matter if I am using the CD for storing my own photos. They distribute the wealth to record companies.