Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

You Can Navigate Between Any Two Websites In 19 Clicks Or Fewer

Soulskill posted about a year and a half ago | from the too-close-for-comfort dept.

Network 185

An anonymous reader writes "A study done by a Hungarian physicist found that of the billions of websites and over a trillion objects on the web, any given two are separated by no more than 19 clicks. 'Distributed across the entire web, though, are a minority of pages—search engines, indexes and aggregators—that are very highly connected and can be used to move from area of the web to another. These nodes serve as the "Kevin Bacons" of the web, allowing users to navigate from most areas to most others in less than 19 clicks. Barabási credits this "small world" of the web to human nature—the fact that we tend to group into communities, whether in real life or the virtual world. The pages of the web aren't linked randomly, he says: They're organized in an interconnected hierarchy of organizational themes, including region, country and subject area. Interestingly, this means that no matter how large the web grows, the same interconnectedness will rule.'"

cancel ×

185 comments

Assuming they're linked at all (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42953253)

Oh yeah? Nobody links to my blog, because I haven't told anyone about it.

Re:Assuming they're linked at all (4, Insightful)

Sique (173459) | about a year and a half ago | (#42953889)

Then maybe your blog is not part of the World Wide Web, it's just based on the same technologies and can be reached via the same means.

Re:Assuming they're linked at all (1)

Nikker (749551) | about a year and a half ago | (#42954031)

Ahhh Science! Is there anything you can't reason!

Re:Assuming they're linked at all (1)

goodmanj (234846) | about a year and a half ago | (#42955001)

This thread is one gigantic breeding ground for the No True Scotsman fallacy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman [wikipedia.org]

Re:Assuming they're linked at all (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42954719)

Which was my initial thoughts when reading the summary.

I feel this is idea is nothing more than an over thought of under rationalised load of academically perpetuated BS (no I didn't RTFA nor am i going to). It reminds me of when Facebook came out and once said that it wasn't 6 degrees of separation but in fact it was more like 3.something-or-other, where I thought at the time "good on them but the world reaches further than the confines of their website, whether they would like to believe so or not!".

It could be 19 clicks (or less) under an ideal round robin interlinked internet but not the "real" internet which from years of surfing I can undoubtedly say is a cesspool of utter crap that leads absolutely nowhere.

(not to say your blog is crap just saying in general the net is full of crap).

Re:Assuming they're linked at all (1)

egcagrac0 (1410377) | about a year and a half ago | (#42954741)

(not to say your blog is crap just saying in general the net is full of crap).

I fully proclaim* that all my personal webpages are full of crap, and add no value to the internet.

* vs admit; proactive vs reactive.

Re:Assuming they're linked at all (1)

silentcoder (1241496) | about a year and a half ago | (#42954943)

Wait... you consider your 4chan profile a "personal website" ?

Re:Assuming they're linked at all (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42954995)

4chan has profiles? When did this happen...?

Who cares? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42953257)

Who cares?

It is like that "your friends are only 6 friends away" crap, I have yet to see Facebook show me "People I know" that I actually know or care about.

Re:Who cares? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42954735)

Facebook says the max is 4.74 degrees of separation.

Like most overgeneralizations... (3, Insightful)

mark-t (151149) | about a year and a half ago | (#42953303)

... this one is quite obviously false. And illustrates one of the dangers about assuming that extrapolation is equivalent to actual supporting data.

I mean, there are objects behind paywalls that, all by themselves, can be more than 19 clicks away from a highly unrelated web page elsewhere online There are objects which are online that have no external links to them at all. And those are just the obvious ones.

It's an interesting notion, but it's incorrect.

Re:Like most overgeneralizations... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42953353)

Not to mention unconnected pages like a few of my friends that have no external links of any kind. If you were to end up on one of those (though rare) pages you cannot get out, thus breaking this unsupported hypothesis. I also know of a few professional websites that have few if any external links. (HP, Nvidia, Dell, etc... to name a few)

Re:Like most overgeneralizations... (5, Insightful)

Sique (173459) | about a year and a half ago | (#42953885)

If your pages are not connected via links to any extern sites, then by definitionem, they are not part of the World Wide Web.

Re:Like most overgeneralizations... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42954127)

If your pages are not connected via links to any extern sites, then by definitionem, they are not part of the World Wide Web.

Sorry to tell you, but the world wide web existed prior to thorough linking of all sites. There are lots of separate clusters in the world wide web which don't link to another. Thx to censoring it is also going to split up again. It might now be linked, but still unreachable.

Re:Like most overgeneralizations... (3, Interesting)

Sique (173459) | about a year and a half ago | (#42954601)

No, the World Wide Web was the vision which would emerge out of lots of HTTP-Servers serving pages of HTML with links to each other. Tim Berners-Lee explicely stated [google.com] such:

Making a web is as simple as writing a few SGML files which point to your existing data. Making it public involves running the FTP or HTTP daemon, and making at least one link into your web from another.

So yes, to be part of the World Wide Web, your site has to have at least one link from another site -- otherwise it's not part of the public World Wide Web. It's the same with the Internet. Of course you can create another network using IPv4 or IPv6 to connect the nodes to each other, but as long as there is no external link into it, it's just an intranet and not part of the Internet.

Re:Like most overgeneralizations... (2)

im3w1l (2009474) | about a year and a half ago | (#42954733)

The rules state nothing about *outbound* links.

Re:Like most overgeneralizations... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42954213)

If your page has no links but there are links to it from other pages, it's very much a part of the web: see http://www.1112.net/lastpage.html for example - Google even knows about it so something must link to it.

Re:Like most overgeneralizations... (2)

jadv (1437949) | about a year and a half ago | (#42954249)

Then out of spite I am going to create 25 new websites, and have them connected to one another in a chain, the first one of them connected to my Facebook page, with no other hyperlinks in them. And what I post on those websites is irrelevant; as long as they exist I will have tangible evidence of this study's failure.

Re:Like most overgeneralizations... (1)

Sique (173459) | about a year and a half ago | (#42954587)

But the first webcrawler hitting your first link and then following it will index all 25 sites, and then there are external links to each of them.

Re:Like most overgeneralizations... (1)

Esvandiary (1302095) | about a year and a half ago | (#42954727)

Sounds like it's time for robots.txt

Re:Like most overgeneralizations... (1)

egcagrac0 (1410377) | about a year and a half ago | (#42954769)

robots.txt

User-agent: *
Disallow: /

<meta name="robots" content="nofollow" >

Re:Like most overgeneralizations... (2)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about a year and a half ago | (#42954397)

And what if two sites are connected only to each other? Or fifty?

You're wrong, in my opinion. (1)

girlinatrainingbra (2738457) | about a year and a half ago | (#42954525)

re:If your pages are not connected via links to any extern sites, then by definitionem[sic], they are not part of the World Wide Web. You're wrong, in my opinion.
.
Maybe you've got inbound links only, and no outbound links. You're still a webpage.
.
Maybe your page has NO inbound links at all, and a couple of outbound links. Mebbe google and yahoo and bing and so on have not spider-crawled their way out to you, or you are so new and have no inbound links so the web-search-engines don't know you exist yet. You're still a web page if you can be accessed by an HTTP get request, eh?
.
?? maybe you have no inbound links, no outbound links, and an url that was printed in an obscure newsletter: Spelunkers of San Diego, La Jolla Division. So someone has to read the url and type it in. You're still a webpage and part of the World Wide Web just like the other two categories above.
.
You're part of the WWW if you can be reached by an "HTTP get" and respond with some content (doesn't have to be Hypertext-Markup-Language content, either; an url at http://example.com/text-files/i-am-so-on-the-www-v01.txt would also be a part of the world wide web).

Re:You're wrong, in my opinion. (1)

Sique (173459) | about a year and a half ago | (#42954607)

Maybe you've got inbound links only, and no outbound links. You're still a webpage.

Yes, then you have a web, but you are not part of the public World Wide Web. Or to quote Tim Berners-Lee [google.com]

Making a web is as simple as writing a few SGML files which point to your existing data. Making it public involves running the FTP or HTTP daemon, and making at least one link into your web from another.

(Emphasis mine).

Re:You're wrong, in my opinion. (1)

goodmanj (234846) | about a year and a half ago | (#42954989)

You're confusing "inbound" and "outbound".

Re:Like most overgeneralizations... (2)

tverbeek (457094) | about a year and a half ago | (#42954621)

Incorrect. The original specifications of the World Wide Web did not require that every page be linked from others, only that they could be linked from others. That's why every Web browser has had a field for manual input of URLs. Directories like YAHOO and search engines like Altavista, which linked the Web more pervasively, were important to the development of the Web, but every Internet-accessible HTTP server was still part of the Web even without them.

You're probably thinking of the definition of the Internet, which does require every network that is a part of it to be connected to all of the others in some way. If your network is linked to other networks, but none of those networks are connected to the whole of the Internet (e.g. within a totalitarian state that's been unplugged by a dictator), then you might be on an internet, but you aren't on the Internet.

Re:Like most overgeneralizations... (0)

spxZA (996757) | about a year and a half ago | (#42953443)

Hello pedant! I hope you enjoy your stay.

Re:Like most overgeneralizations... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42953791)

Hello pedant! I hope you enjoy your stay.

Hello ruin of science! I hope you leave.

Seriously. There are enough vague theories in science publications nowadays. It is not pendantic if you can dismiss a claim by providing a counter example. Either the theory gets reworked or dismissed. If you have a theory and the first post on slashdot can disprove it you are doing something wrong obviously.

Re:Like most overgeneralizations... (1)

Great Big Bird (1751616) | about a year and a half ago | (#42953575)

Have you read the article? The blog entry is entirely plausible, sounds like research I have been seeing for a good decade or so. I also found the article via the author's website: http://www.barabasilab.com/pubs/CCNR-ALB_Publications/201302-18_RoyalSoc-NetworkScience/201302-18_RoyalSoc-NetworkScience.pdf [barabasilab.com] Interesting citations it has. One can also derive things with statistical methods. I would also note that this is talking about websites, not pages.

Re:Like most overgeneralizations... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42953681)

And still the theory only works for pieces that are linked. There are plenty of pages on the internet which are isolated and need to be accessed directly. So maximum amount of clicks just skims the visible surface. Also the claim on cybersecurity and the danger of chokepoints is moot. There are lots of pages that aren't part of the big link list intentionally. This is the way it worked at the beginning and it will continue to do so despite more and more pages are linked from other pages. It would be interesting how many separate link networks exist on the 'internet'. The problem is you need to know them first which is hard if you aren't involved with them.

The fun with science is that even if it sounds plausible you need only a single counterclaim to dismiss a theory. And the OP already hinted to unlinked pages.

Re:Like most overgeneralizations... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42953799)

And there you are talking about pages again, when the post you replied to specifically made the point that the research relates to web SITES, not pages. How many web SITES do you know of that aren't linked from any other site? Keepingi
  in mind that even if you went and registered a new site tomorrow to prove the research wrong, it'd still be listed on a registrar site.

Re:Like most overgeneralizations... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42954489)

Nonesense

A counterexample limits the range of validity of a theory, thats all. Its not math after all.

Re:Like most overgeneralizations... (5, Funny)

lxs (131946) | about a year and a half ago | (#42953699)

The guy is a physicist so it is only true for spherical websites in a vacuum.

Re:Like most overgeneralizations... (1)

wvmarle (1070040) | about a year and a half ago | (#42953845)

On the other hand, it's said that every person on this planet is connected to anyone else in no more than six links. So any web site linked to any other web site in less than 19 clicks - especially with sites like Google in the mix - sounds rather plausible to me, if not on the high side for number of clicks even.

Re:Like most overgeneralizations... (1)

matunos (1587263) | about a year and a half ago | (#42953853)

Is an object with no external links to it truly online? Is it offline? Is it in a superposition of online and offline?

The mind boggles.

Re:Like most overgeneralizations... (2)

Sique (173459) | about a year and a half ago | (#42953935)

What ever it is, it surely is not part of a world wide web. It's an island all of its own.

Re:Like most overgeneralizations... (1)

Redmancometh (2676319) | about a year and a half ago | (#42953929)

You forgot domain registrars are part of the www too. One or two clicks from every link. The question is whether it counts if it's not a domain.

Re:Like most overgeneralizations... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42954025)

But domain registrars themselves are rarely linked from a random site.

Re:Like most overgeneralizations... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42954065)

Do they have links to all subdomains? If some engineer creates secretproject.researchlab.company.com and only tells the people on the secret project about the new server, does that inevitably lead to a link being automatically created on a registrar site?

Re:Like most overgeneralizations... (3, Insightful)

Hentes (2461350) | about a year and a half ago | (#42954013)

Many times it's not the author being overenthusiastic but the media reports.

Re:Like most overgeneralizations... (1)

pla (258480) | about a year and a half ago | (#42954971)

Like most overgeneralizations... this one is quite obviously false. And illustrates one of the dangers about assuming that extrapolation is equivalent to actual supporting data.

Strange, I would have called it trivially true: click on the URL bar, click the keys "goo.gl/yc2lK", click enter.. Done in 14. :)

I mean, there are objects behind paywalls

I see your point, but actually feel fairly comfortable with the author excluding paywalls and the "dark" web. If I can't get there at all without special access, I just don't care how many clicks it would take for someone to jump through whatever authentication hoops it takes to get there.

Re:Like most overgeneralizations... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42955047)

I smell a true Scotsman...

So Which Web Site is the Kevin Bacon Equivalent? (4, Interesting)

Biff Stu (654099) | about a year and a half ago | (#42953305)

It's got to be a reasonably good, well-liked site, but not a mega-site like Google or Facebook.

How about Salon.com or theonion.com?

I would say /., but by its nature, /. has too many connections to be used for a Kevin Bacon number equivalent. Conversely, The Onion probably doesn't link to enough stuff.

I vote for Salon.com

New game (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42953319)

An idea for a killing-time game.

Pick up a source and a destination website and from the source, try to reach the destination in less than 19 clicks.

I'm going to waste a few hours that way, I think =)

When life gives you lemons (1)

fragMasterFlash (989911) | about a year and a half ago | (#42953323)

So how many clicks does it take to get from Tub Girl to Goatse?

Wait...don't answer that.

Re:When life gives you lemons (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42953359)

Only one! But it takes a ton of lube.

Re:When life gives you lemons (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42953445)

Wrong. It takes 69 clicks.

you only need two clicks (1)

ozduo (2043408) | about a year and a half ago | (#42953365)

if everyone links to Google/ Facebook/twitter/Skype and a thousand other social media sites.

Re:you only need two clicks (1)

eddy (18759) | about a year and a half ago | (#42953725)

Well, it's a directed graph. Someone linking to google/facebook/twitter doesn't necessarily help you get from there back to the page with the outgoing link.

Interestingly, how do you know? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42953371)

"Interestingly, this means that no matter how large the web grows, the same interconnectedness will rule."

Prove it!

It just goes to show (0)

techno-vampire (666512) | about a year and a half ago | (#42953375)

After all is said and done, it really is a small, small world. [wikipedia.org]

YouTube (1)

tsa (15680) | about a year and a half ago | (#42953467)

I often go to a random video on YouTube and then try to get to a certain video just by clicking the suggested videos on the right side of the page. You must try it with videos you normally never watch, otherwise it's too easy. It's fun, you never know what you find on your way.

Re:YouTube (1)

Half-pint HAL (718102) | about a year and a half ago | (#42953817)

The problem with that game is the suggested links are based on your history nowadays, so if it's a video you're likely to want to see, it will be biased to come up early. If it's a video you've never watched and are never likely to want to watch, it may well end up hidden.

I once switched off the adult filter on Youtube, because a video that used the F-word wouldn't play with it on. It's amazing how my search results changed that day.

Re:YouTube (1)

tsa (15680) | about a year and a half ago | (#42953869)

It's true, even if you don't have a Google account it does that now. But still it's a fun game to play, and it should still find related videos, even of stuff you never watched before.

19 clicks? No way...unless... (5, Informative)

Anubis IV (1279820) | about a year and a half ago | (#42953473)

Not a chance, unless you're counting the number of clicks it takes to turn on the on-screen keyboard and type enough characters into Google search for a reliable suggestion to show up. Up until two years ago when I left academia I was with an Internet research lab at a major university, and I saw diagrams of some of the graphs collected by decently large web crawls of the time. None of them would have been clustered enough to allow jumping between two arbitrary sites in 19 clicks or less for three primary reasons:
1) Most links are unidirectional, not bidirectional (e.g. you might link to a news story, but the news site is unlikely to link back to you). As a result, it's rather difficult to reach sites on the fringe of the graph, since many of them have few or no links pointing to them.

2) Domains (as in domains like medicine, technology, and automobiles, not domain name like google.com) tend to be segregated from one another and oftentimes have long chains before they reach more clustered/common parts of the Internet (e.g. if you start at a particular site for a niche topic, there may be only one other site pointing to it, and then only one pointing to that one, and so on for quite awhile).

3) Many sites don't have any links to other sites. It's not as uncommon as you might think, and they'd all count as a dead end, which would obviously end your traversal if you were starting from that site.

When I used to see those graphs, most of them would exhibit chains that would dangle off of the main cluster and would stretch out for dozens or hundreds of sites in length, meaning that if you started from one of those sites in the middle, you'd have to go half that distance in either direction before you'd make it back to the main cluster. Even with as far as we've come in recent years, I seriously doubt that all of those chains have been eliminated.

Re:19 clicks? No way...unless... (1)

CAIMLAS (41445) | about a year and a half ago | (#42954195)

A more interesting observation would be how many links it takes to get a link to Wikipedia, or a Google search result link. That proves closer to truth in my experience.

Re:19 clicks? No way...unless... (1)

egcagrac0 (1410377) | about a year and a half ago | (#42954819)

I have a sneaking suspicion there was a tpyo, and they actually meant 9! clicks.

What a waste of time (5, Insightful)

dcollins117 (1267462) | about a year and a half ago | (#42953477)

If you read the actual article you'll find that his findings "involved a simulated model of the web that he created to better understand its structure. " So this article has nothing to do with the actual internet, but a simulation of it. It's not a noteworthy study, and I'm wondering why I wasted my time reading about it.

Re:What a waste of time (2)

SeaFox (739806) | about a year and a half ago | (#42953641)

It's not a noteworthy study, and I'm wondering why I wasted my time reading about it.

Because you didn't do enough surfing to find the superior time-wasting content that was only a click (or 18!) away?

Re:What a waste of time (1)

RobbieCrash (834439) | about a year and a half ago | (#42953695)

You must be new here. R'ing TFA is frowned upon.

Re:What a waste of time (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42954631)

Maybe Google wouldn't give him permission to use the real web?

I don't think so (3, Funny)

twocows (1216842) | about a year and a half ago | (#42953503)

<html></html>

HAH!

Re:I don't think so (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42953839)

Parent fails HTML 4.01 compliance, so it's obviously not on the Internet. Duh. Or something like that.

-popular web browsers a few releases ago

Re:I don't think so (1)

Half-pint HAL (718102) | about a year and a half ago | (#42954035)

You've forgotten the mandatory , and elements, and leaving out your doctype declaration is very bad practice.

Re:I don't think so (3, Insightful)

Rockoon (1252108) | about a year and a half ago | (#42954141)

The web is all about bad practices.

Re:I don't think so (4, Insightful)

BeardedChimp (1416531) | about a year and a half ago | (#42954093)

HAH! [slashdot.org]

My Study says 2 (1)

ixarux (1652631) | about a year and a half ago | (#42953509)

"A study done by me has found that of the billions of websites and over a trillion objects on the web, any given two are separated by no more than 2 clicks. Distributed across the entire web, though, are links to search engines such as Google —that are very highly connected and can be used to move from area of the web to another. Google serves as the "Kevin Bacon" of the web, allowing users to navigate from most areas to most others in less than 3 clicks."

I need my PhD. Now.

Pages (1)

Max Romantschuk (132276) | about a year and a half ago | (#42953543)

Why does the summary claim "sites" when the TFA clearly says any two pages? Oh well...

3 Clicks to Chasey Lane (0)

cerberusss (660701) | about a year and a half ago | (#42953589)

I dont need to navigate to any website. It takes three clicks to Chasey Lane and that's all that's important:
- click on my bookmark to The Pirate Bay
- click on Search after I type her name
- click on the magnet link

Alright there's a fourth click to start the movie, and I have to reach over to the box of tissues, but we're talking about clicks here.

Obviously false (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42953639)

In less than 30 seconds, I found http://www.arealbizop.com/. Please tell me the sequence of 19 clicks I should use to get from there to , well anywhere really.

Re:Obviously false (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42953707)

Is that a sneaky advertisement..? :)

Re:Obviously false (1)

Half-pint HAL (718102) | about a year and a half ago | (#42954043)

You click "send", to send out the email.

You click "Google"

You click "search" after typing "lawyer".

The next click is the key in the lock of your new cell^H^H^H^Hhome.

And maybe you'll "click" with your new roommate, Bubba.

Parent Directory (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42953647)

I still consider the plain old file listings as websites. You can make the file hierarchy as deep as possible. Internet is pretty connected, but when imagining the movement between two websites as a landscape there are still deep canyons around.

I think it needs more rigor on what a click/link is allowed to be, as well as defining if it is a well-connected Internet; one that can be seen on the surface. The very real Internet is like the real world, you have to go the distance before you find something not known to you.

Wikipedia game (1)

jones_supa (887896) | about a year and a half ago | (#42953731)

Some of you have probably heard about this already, but there is this fun game... With your buddy, you both open a random article in Wikipedia. Then you decide some common article that you both try to reach by clicking only Wikipedia article highlighted words. The one who reaches that article first, wins.

Re:Wikipedia game (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42953801)

With your buddy, you both open a random article in Wikipedia. Then you decide some common article that you both try to reach by clicking only Wikipedia article highlighted words.

Meanwhile Mallory, your evil co-worker, has submitted the target article for speedy deletion as "Not Notable", thereby trapping you and your companion in a race you can never complete.

Re:Wikipedia game (1)

ledow (319597) | about a year and a half ago | (#42954229)

I do the same with movies and IMDB. You have to link actor to movie to actor to movie, and get from anyone (or any movie) to a particular one.

Aliens, I find, is particularly fun to try to get to and almost always the last few links involve Terminator or some such 80's action movie to get there.

I've not YET found a movie I know that I can't link in my head to Aliens even without IMDB's help, but I'm sure the "Kevin Bacon" number for movies must be lower than 19.

Re:Wikipedia game (2)

beowulfcluster (603942) | about a year and a half ago | (#42954923)

The all knowing Wikipedia states:

As of 6 February 2013, the highest finite Bacon number reported by the Oracle of Bacon is 9.

Most important button (1)

abuelmagd (996411) | about a year and a half ago | (#42953771)

I think I do believe the study if we consider clicking the browser's back button to be fair game. I personally prefer the "alt"+"back arrow" shortcut but I guess clicking the button is still one click.

Re:Most important button (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42953919)

The back button is not involved in this. It says that of all possible link-chains to any target, the SHORTEST is = 19.

Re:Most important button (1)

allo (1728082) | about a year and a half ago | (#42955049)

the longest shortest-chain.

sounds strange, but if you think about it, its the correct definition.

What this really means (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42953857)

Step 1: Does your page have a link to Google? If yes:
Step 2: Google the page you want.

Step 1: Does your page have a link to Google? If no:
Step 2: Follow some link on it. Does the new page have a link to Google? If no:
Step 3: Follow some link on it. Does the new page have a link to Google? If no:
Step 4: Follow some link on it. Repeat until you are at Google.

What this indicates is that there are some websites that really hate Google.

Re:What this really means (1)

Rockoon (1252108) | about a year and a half ago | (#42954159)

Remind me never to hire you as a programmer.

Really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42953867)

The author has obviously never tried to navigate the Microsoft web site.

Obviously not considered... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42953987)

Of course, if you include Cisco's website in these results, it becomes 2^12 clicks.

I can improve on that. (2)

Arancaytar (966377) | about a year and a half ago | (#42953995)

*click on URL bar*

*enter URL*

*hit enter*

There, one click.

Re:I can improve on that. (1)

Arancaytar (966377) | about a year and a half ago | (#42954005)

PS: There's actually a key combination to focus the URL bar. Ctrl-L in Firefox, apparently. So 0 clicks, I guess. :P

Re:I can improve on that. (1)

berashith (222128) | about a year and a half ago | (#42954537)

if we want to count kepypresses in general, then f6 does that too...

And my girlfriend wonders... (1)

CAIMLAS (41445) | about a year and a half ago | (#42954181)

And my girlfriend wonders how it can be so easy to end up at a porn site several times a day...

That said, it's a fairly incredible claim. That's not that many deviations of Bacon, considering how many 'deadend' sites there are out there which don't link anywhere. How many of these sites are simply referral to search engines?

Re:And my girlfriend wonders... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42954481)

And my girlfriend wonders how it can be so easy to end up at a porn site several times a day...

So, on which porn sites can we have a look at your girlfriend? These kinds of claims are useless without a link.

I call BS! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42954201)

You cannot navigate ANYWHERE from the end of the internet: http://www.1112.net/lastpage.html.

to avoid the implosion of the web you just need to (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42954585)

reserve two domains
one with one page linking to the other page and just to be sure to what ever you like that is fairly popular..
and one page with no link...

So the page with no link will probably be harvested at some point and can be deemed as "part of the web"...
But no page can be reached from it...
Of course if you accept "both" directions as "acceptable paths", then it's harder, you could make a page that automatically detect that it's been harvested, and then change it's name, and randomly some of it's content, so it "kind of exists" but does not point to anything and although it can be "seen" from the web it cannot be "reached"...

You could call it heisenberg since you could not know at the same time it's position and it's content...

one click (1)

skitchen8 (1832190) | about a year and a half ago | (#42954633)

Click in address bar, type URL, hit enter key. In all actuality 99.9% of the internet is but one mouse click away.

Very old news (2)

Lusitania River (23889) | about a year and a half ago | (#42954665)

How is this news? The author has a book called Linked (published in 2002 and actually a very good book) that already mentioned, in chapter 3, that the degree of separation is 19 (18.59 to be exact). It's interesting that it has not changed in 11 years but it's certainly not news !!!!

Actualy scientific fact (1)

GeekWithAKnife (2717871) | about a year and a half ago | (#42954679)


At any given time you are only up to* 1 location away from being inside or outside.

Serious what the hell is this ridiculous garbage?

If you use Windows 8 (0)

NSN A392-99-964-5927 (1559367) | about a year and a half ago | (#42954749)

You certainly cannot do this but waste half of your life trying to undo the metro system and have to do some registry changes and even that does not work to get rid of the offending system. There was a report on slashdot about M$ blaming manufacturers about the failure of Windows 8.

Here are some links below that will help you out;

http://www.classicshell.net/ [classicshell.net]

http://windowssecrets.com/forums/showthread.php/149299-Method-to-hide-the-Charms-Bar [windowssecrets.com]

But that only helps so far as the damn thing does keep on appearing the only thing you can do after booting up is to run the metro killer

http://www.softpedia.com/get/Tweak/System-Tweak/Metro-Killer.shtml [softpedia.com]

The metro system is that intrusive that one might want to think about downgrading and you can get help with that from;

http://forums.mydigitallife.info/threads/36726-UpDown8-Windows-8-Upgrade-Downgrade-Helper [mydigitallife.info]

hope that helps and if all else fails just get hirens boot cd; reformat and start over from scratch

Official untouched links to windows iso's Digital River here http://www.mydigitallife.info/download-windows-7-iso-official-32-bit-and-64-bit-direct-download-links [mydigitallife.info]

1 Down, 18 to go (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42954929)

Which is why governments are working hard to convince the masses to be scared enough to beg for government control. You know, for our protection from the big evil terrori^H^H^^H^H^H^H China.

They can't have us exercising our innate freedom to associate with each other as we choose. Need all kinds of cyberroadblocks where you have to present your TPM cyberpapers please.

nope. can't be done (2)

Shavano (2541114) | about a year and a half ago | (#42954997)

Because: 1. new sites are created every day initially having no links to them. 2. websites can be and are created that have no external links in them.

The article says *average* distance is 19 links (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42955027)

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v401/n6749/abs/401130a0.html

No, you cannot (2)

allo (1728082) | about a year and a half ago | (#42955035)

There are pages with no outgoing links. Before anyone yells "thats not part of the web", there are ingoing links, so its linked to the web.

Nope (1)

andy.ruddock (821066) | about a year and a half ago | (#42955057)

Create three pages, one of which contains only links to the other two. Now "click" from one of the child pages to the other. On a more serious note - Google may well be a massive generator of links to other sites, but I fail to see its usefulness in being able to click through it to other sites - it does rely on textual input.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...