 |
 |
 |
|
Re: Friday, May 16, 2003
The walled-off nature does make it more difficult to find, but the point was that the orginial meaning gets recoded, if you will, into meaning something entirely differing. Its not only, about being found, its that the noise drowns out the original source. Other less noisy engines, don’t seem to manifest this problem as greatly, and when gaming Google becomes a sport, well people start noticing the changes. The idea that Google is truth is the fallacy. And it is not just “walled vs. open”; web pages come and go, caches aren’t forever. Truth gets lost. When the “comments about” transform into what it was, thats when you have problems. The noise drowns out the speaker; original intent, gets remade. The idea that all you have to do is throw everything out there, and Google will play God and find the most perfect answer is dead wrong. Too perfect world. A Web that’s growing larger and more important to nearly everybody? Ahhh drinking from the always-expanding, ever-increasing, ‘Dow-always-goes-up’ fountain, eh? Gonna party like it’s 1999? :) And sorry to burst that Bubble, but, in fact, the opposite is true... “The online population is fluid and shifting. While 42% of Americans say they don’t use the Internet, many of them either have been Internet users at one time or have a once-removed relationship with the Internet through family or household members.” - The Ever-Shifting Internet Population, Pew Internet Project A spam problem that has made email all but unmanageable, Search Engine Noise, Software/Hardware problems, Virii/Worms/Security problems, endless Discussion Lists that spin eternal circles and solve nothing. The Net has moved away from novelty to utility. Ever expanding? No, as Pew says, it is “fluid and shifting”. And increasingly, people are logging off, not making the Web central to their lives, using it merely as a tool. Whole world out there, not on Google, and since Google only indexes 1/3 of the Web, whole Web out there too, but I guess thats all just a “colossal anachronism”. There are responses to this message:
|
