1. Spam, keywords, and quoting
\begin {rant}
First, it was inarguably spam, and inappropriate for the mailing
list - but not because it was spam, because it had nothing to do
with Euphoria (the programming language from RDS). Had he been
advertising open-source software written in Euphoria, I'd have
had less-or-no objection to seeing the ad.
Second, if a website uses keywords in a META keywords tag, and
those keywords have nothing to do with the content of the site,
it may very well _not_ be actionable - but it sure as hell
devalues the search engine that makes its offerings based in
whole or in part on those keywords. Too many people pull that
kind of fecality, and search engines like AltaVista go away (from
lack of use due to excessive false positives), and all you have
left are human "moderated" directories, like NewHoo or About.com.
The latter aren't _bad_ - but with internet access and web sites
expanding as rapidly as they are, there's just no way they can
keep up.
Third, the entire thread on the spam and the keywords was longer
than it needed to be, because too many people included the entire
text of the entire thread in their replies - including the HTML,
whose utility in email is at present questionable at best.
People, a little judicious trimming of quotes is a good thing; it
lowers bandwidth and prevents those of us who get the list via
digest from having to page through the whole ^%@#$%^ thing four
times to find any messages that have the slightest possibility of
being interesting or useful. Yes, I know, spam is a trigger -
but email keeps, and it's always better to CALM DOWN BEFORE YOU
PULL THE TRIGGER. That way, you don't subject the whole list to
your flamewar.
\end {rant}
--
Jeff Zeitlin
jzeitlin at cyburban.com
2. Re: Spam, keywords, and quoting
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff Zeitlin" <jzeitlin at CYBURBAN.COM>
To: <EUPHORIA at LISTSERV.MUOHIO.EDU>
Sent: Monday, February 21, 2000 2:35 PM
Subject: Spam, keywords, and quoting
> \begin {rant}
<snip>
> fecality,
Is that copyrighted, or can i use that word too? 
>and search engines like AltaVista go away (from
> lack of use due to excessive false positives), and all you have
> left are human "moderated" directories, like NewHoo or About.com.
I am exploring making a filter for that sort of thing. At least, it's on my
wish list. I agree with the rest of that post too. But one thing i have
noted, while goto.com does have paid references, they seem to be correct
most of the time, *way* above Altavisa or Dogpile.
Kat
3. Re: Spam, keywords, and quoting
Kat wrote:
>
>I am exploring making a filter for that sort of thing. At least, it's on my
>wish list. I agree with the rest of that post too. But one thing i have
>noted, while goto.com does have paid references, they seem to be correct
>most of the time, *way* above Altavisa or Dogpile.
>
>Kat
Haven't tried dogpile and have really hated most of the meta-search engines
that I have tried....take longer...less satisfying. The single most helpful
search engine that I have tried so far has been google. The page loads
almost instantly, the search is quite fast, and a high percentage of the
time I find something that I was looking for in the first ten items.
Everett L.(Rett) Williams
rett at gvtc.com
4. Re: Spam, keywords, and quoting
Thank you for the Good Link! I had to do a not obvious search and was giving
up under the thousands of unusable links that altavista shows...
I confirm: fast and a good percentage.
Riwal (satisfied now)
> From: Everett Williams [SMTP:rett at GVTC.COM]
>
> Kat wrote:
>
> >
> >I am exploring making a filter for that sort of thing. At least, it's on
> my
> >wish list. I agree with the rest of that post too. But one thing i have
> >noted, while goto.com does have paid references, they seem to be correct
> >most of the time, *way* above Altavisa or Dogpile.
> >
> >Kat
>
> Haven't tried dogpile and have really hated most of the meta-search
> engines
> that I have tried....take longer...less satisfying. The single most
> helpful
> search engine that I have tried so far has been google. The page loads
> almost instantly, the search is quite fast, and a high percentage of the
> time I find something that I was looking for in the first ten items.
>
> Everett L.(Rett) Williams
> rett at gvtc.com
5. Re: Spam, keywords, and quoting
On Tue, 22 Feb 2000 00:03:28 -0500, Kat <gertie at ZEBRA.NET> wrote:
I had written:
>> \begin {rant}
><snip>
>> fecality,
To which Kat replied:
>Is that copyrighted, or can i use that word too?
Feel free. I never felt that spoken language was something that
could be copyrighted, and there's absolutely no point in trying
to copyright neologisms - if they "work", they'll enter the
language come hell or high water - consider "aspirin", "kleenex",
and "formica", for example - and they all started out as
trademarks.
>>and search engines like AltaVista go away (from
>> lack of use due to excessive false positives), and all you have
>> left are human "moderated" directories, like NewHoo or About.com.
>I am exploring making a filter for that sort of thing. At least, it's on my
>wish list. I agree with the rest of that post too. But one thing i have
>noted, while goto.com does have paid references, they seem to be correct
>most of the time, *way* above Altavisa or Dogpile.
GoTo.com achieves its result in part by intersecting the results
from the likes of Altavista, Lycos, and so on. The theory is
that if a site shows up in multiple engines, it's more likely to
be a good hit. But if you pollute the engines...
--
Jeff Zeitlin
jzeitlin at cyburban.com
