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
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
