Beta
×

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!

The Anti-Thesaurus: Unwords For Web Searches

timothy posted more than 12 years ago | from the these-are-not-the-words-you're-looking-for dept.

The Internet 148

Nicholas Carroll writes: "In the continual struggle between search engine administrators, index spammers, and the chaos that underlies knowledge classification, we have endless tools for 'increasing relevance' of search returns, ranging from much ballyhooed and misunderstood 'meta keywords,' to complex algorithms that are still far from perfecting artificial intelligence. Proposal: there should be a metadata standard allowing webmasters to manually decrease the relevance of their pages for specific search terms and phrases."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

I r0X0r!! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2588141)

as Natalie Merchant says: "Because the night belongs to us"

Re:I r0X0r!! (-1)

I.T.R.A.R.K. (533627) | more than 12 years ago | (#2588187)

Yeah, and I fucked that bitch where the sun doesn't shine!

- I throw rocks at retarded kids

Re:I r0X0r!! (0)

smackmonkey (537507) | more than 12 years ago | (#2588491)

Did she squirt?

Poot! (-1)

crossbow_of_speed (527135) | more than 12 years ago | (#2588222)

[nt]

Sounds Good But... (3, Insightful)

TMacPhail (519256) | more than 12 years ago | (#2588143)

This sounds like a good plan but i dont think anyone would be willing to risk having their page show up lower in a search when someone was intending to find it. Plus anyone that finds the page in a search by accident is just a new potential customer.

Re:Sounds Good But... (2, Interesting)

/Wegge (2960) | more than 12 years ago | (#2588164)

Plus anyone that finds the page in a search by accident is just a new potential customer.

On the other hand, any potential customer who find the page as a result of a broader match than warranted by the page might also remeber the site as one that doesn't have what he needs. I don't claim to understand mainstream consumerism, but in my professional capacity, I tend to avoid companies that tries to make a followup sale on a completely unrelated issue.

Re:Sounds Good But... (4, Interesting)

Krimsen (26685) | more than 12 years ago | (#2588182)

You are basing this on the fact that all people are consumers and all they are searching for are goods and services. What if I am searching the web for info on the DMCA and someone's webpage was called "DMCA" -short for "David, Michael, Cathy and Andrea" (or whatever) If they find that a lot of people are coming across the page accidentally, they can lower the relevance on the page on searches for "DMCA"...

Re:Sounds Good But... (1)

TMacPhail (519256) | more than 12 years ago | (#2588189)

Ok, so this hypotheical "David, Michael, Cathy and Andrea" site might get more hits than they wanted. If they were not intending to sell something then they probably dont actually care about the number of hits that they get. In all likeliness the site is a free site hosted by geocities or some other similar service. In this case it would be considerate of them to use DMCA as a nonword for the meta tag but they would have no responsibility to actually place it as one. For the sites who are trying to gain buisness through the web, they usualy like the extra hits because it creates potential customers. Or at least someone who might happen to mention something they saw to another potential customer.

Re:Sounds Good But... (2, Insightful)

Krimsen (26685) | more than 12 years ago | (#2588201)

Agreed on all points. I guess this concept of nonwords really is kind of dependent on people putting some effort towards something that doesn't immediately benefit them. Eventually "What goes around, comes around" and if eveyone uses the non-words, searches will become better. However, I'm not so sure that people are willing to put effort into something that they won't see return from right away.

Re:Sounds Good But... (1)

FleshWound (320838) | more than 12 years ago | (#2588655)

Wow..."Flamebait"?

We've got some real winners modding around here as of late... *sigh*

Re:Sounds Good But... (1)

cetan (61150) | more than 12 years ago | (#2588781)

Since this summer (or winter if you're below the equator) there has been a concerted effort to completely f the moderation system. Someone(s) or something(s) are specificly targeting good posts and modding them down. Individual posters have been targeted as well.

The only thing to do about it is to metamoderate and make sure lame behavior like modding your parent post "Flamebait" get's marked "Unfair"

Re:Sounds Good But... (3, Insightful)

jaavaaguru (261551) | more than 12 years ago | (#2588540)

If David, Michael, Cathy and Andrea were paying per megabyte for the bandwidth used by their site (for instance if they required what some ISPs consider to be premium services such as ASP or PHP) they would not want everyone who was looking for DMCA information to view their site, since that would most likely more than double their bandwidth consimption. With a frequently searched for word such as DMCA being used as a nonword for their site, they are both saving their own money and the performance of their ISP's network and servers. Another example would be if someone's surname is the same as that of a commercial organisation. They do not want all of that organisation's customers wandering into their site by accident.

h to the izzo (-1)

beee (98582) | more than 12 years ago | (#2588150)

t to the hirdpost

NO AC, FIRST POST WITH INTEGRITY

Screw you hippies! (-1)

Pr0n K1ng (160688) | more than 12 years ago | (#2588156)

All the other first post attempts can suck it! This is the only first post that counts, mother fuckers!

How about this? (4, Insightful)

NitsujTPU (19263) | more than 12 years ago | (#2588158)

Just shitlist any site that is obviously reaching for hits? If a porn site has the words "Alan Turing" in its metadata and doesn't mention anything about Turing later in the site, list them as not being allowed to participate in your search.

Hell, an engine that did that would almost be useful.

Re:How about this? (3, Funny)

H310iSe (249662) | more than 12 years ago | (#2588229)

from webmonkey on search engine foolin' software:

You can guess why: Search engine developers buy copies of the same software, learn how to recognize its output, and then demote your site or block it altogether when they spot that pattern in your pages.


no hard "this site was banned" but it seems there are some who do demote/block if they catch you putting garbage in your keyword list.

PS if any porn site puts 'alan turing' in their keywords I would actually want to go there - shows some imagination to say the least, gotta give them props for that...

Re:How about this? (4, Informative)

21mhz (443080) | more than 12 years ago | (#2588347)

This is where the Google's PageRank(tm) system chimes in: an Alan Turing biography linked by half a hundred sites, each having own decent ratings, will be rated undoubtedly higher than a porn site that just listed "alan turing britney spears anthrax riaa cowboyneal" in their meta keywords and is linked by a handful among millions sites alike. Use the great cross-linking fabric of the Web, Luke.

Disclaimer: I'm in no way associated with Google.

Re:How about this? (-1)

sales_worldwide (244279) | more than 12 years ago | (#2588475)

But I had a few hundred spare domains at my provider all providing links to each other, with an endless amount of pseudoramdonly (repeatable - same for every invoation) generated pagges, using a chomskybot type perl program. Fooled google quite well ....

Re:How about this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2588420)

Your scheme can't be automised. This scheme can. Your scheme doesn't scale to the needs of a modern search engine. This one does.

Hey - I'm fucking drunk and I know this. Now I'm gonna have a shower and go to bed yes yes

You know this is going to happen (4, Funny)

Satai (111172) | more than 12 years ago | (#2588161)

I can see it now. To Do lists are being written up as we speak...

  1. Increase relevance for Penis Enlargement.
  2. Decrease relevance for Bullshit.


Re:You know this is going to happen (2)

leuk_he (194174) | more than 12 years ago | (#2588360)

just as webmasters used to spend hundreds of largely-wasted hours trying to manipulate SEs through the META KEYWORDS tag

You are right. Any system where the webmasters have an impact on search relevance will be beaten. Hey they even found a way to beat google. Just create a fake front end that looks serious with one button "naked pictures". The system he describes works best for altavista (6 months ago) like systems.

Even /. got lots of trolls spending 1000ths of hours whose biggest effort is to lead you to goatse.sx.

Re:You know this is going to happen (1)

DoorFrame (22108) | more than 12 years ago | (#2588580)

goatse.cx, not .sx.

important distinction.

Thesaurus.... (-1, Offtopic)

heldlikesound (132717) | more than 12 years ago | (#2588162)

Ok, now is that kind with the three spikes on their heads or is the kind with the really long tails that can swim? Either way I'd love to have been able to seen one of those things face to face.

Oh, wait.... Wrong "aurus".

heldlikesound

Hey Carroll! (-1)

Pr0n K1ng (160688) | more than 12 years ago | (#2588163)

You're idea's been tried before [goatse.cx] . It got lost somewhere down there amongst all the other stupid ideas.

This post in support of tr0ll tu3sd4y. Come on board and join the fun.

I search for 'slash' and 'dot' and end up *here*?! (3, Interesting)

Overcoat (522810) | more than 12 years ago | (#2588166)

Is the phenomenon of people naming their website something that has nothing to do with the content of the website so widespread that it necessitites a new metadata tag and the consequent alteration of search engines to recognize it?

Google seems to do a good enough job of filtering out irrelevant responses as it is.

Proposal won't work: No incentive! (1, Redundant)

dstone (191334) | more than 12 years ago | (#2588168)

Proposal: there should be a metadata standard allowing webmasters to manually decrease the relevance of their pages for specific search terms and phrases.

Okay, pretend I'm a webmaster. What's my incentive to have my page show up LESS in anyone's search results?!

If someone didn't want my site, why do I care if they get it? And if someone wants my site, I don't want to take any chance with an "anti-thesaurus" that might end up excluding my site!

Re:Proposal won't work: No incentive! (5, Interesting)

Nate Eldredge (133418) | more than 12 years ago | (#2588246)

I work as a sysadmin for a computer science department. Until recently, the system staff would frequently get messages along the lines of

From: frankie3327@aol.com
To: staff@cs.here.edu
Subject: help!

i have a lexmark 4590 and it wont print in color.
it only makes streaks. also the paper always
jams. how do i fix it? please reply soon!

The senders never had any connection to the college or the department. We'd reply telling them we had no idea what they were talking about, and that they should seek help elsewhere. It was rather annoying.

We eventually figured it out. The department web site maintains a collection of help documents for users of the systems. One of them talked about how to use the department's printers, what to do if you have trouble, etc. At the bottom it listed staff@cs.here.edu as the contact address for the site.

You've probably guessed it by now. That page came up as one of the top few hits when you searched for "printing" on one of the major search engines (I forget which one). Apparently lusers would find this page, notice that it didn't answer their question, but latch on to the staff email address at the bottom, as if we were an organization dedicated to helping people worldwide with their printers. Furrfu!

I think we reworded the page to emphasize that it only applied to the college, and we haven't received any more emails lately. But if we could have kept search engines from returning it, that would have been even better. Since in our case the page was intended for internal use, we don't care whether anyone can find it from the Internet. Our real users know where to look for it.

So in answer to your question: When a search engine returns a page that doesn't answer the user's question, the user will often complain to the webmaster. That's a clear incentive to the webmaster not to have the page show up where it's not relevant. Also, it's not the goal of every site simply to be read by millions of people; some would rather concentrate on those to whom it's useful.

Re:Proposal won't work: No incentive! (4, Informative)

Ex Machina (10710) | more than 12 years ago | (#2588312)

But if we could have kept search engines from returning it, that would have been even better. Since in our case the page was intended for internal use, we don't care whether anyone can find it from the Internet. Our real users know where to look for it.

http://www.robotstxt.org/wc/exclusion.html [robotstxt.org]

robots.txt ? (3, Informative)

Atrax (249401) | more than 12 years ago | (#2588341)

did you have the page disallowed for search engines? if something is for internal use only, you really ought to have dropped in a robots.txt to exclude it altogether.

if more people used robots.txt, a lot of 'only useful to internal users' sites would drop right off the engines, leaving relevant results for the rest of the world...

just a thought......

Re:robots.txt ? (1, Interesting)

SilencedScream (517078) | more than 12 years ago | (#2588383)

Thats just it though. You say to use robots.txt to have it excluded from search engines but that would exclude it all together. With this new metatag it would only have excluded search engine from returning the page for say a search on "printers" but still return a result for " tech support" If that indeed is what the page was intended for. I think this is a great idea.

Re:robots.txt ? (1)

Atrax (249401) | more than 12 years ago | (#2588384)

missing the point. the post talked about *internal* pages - this isn't a page that should really even be looking for a search engine listing, really, apart from perhaps some altruistic urge. an outside user should end up at the real support site, not a university CS dept., which is *just* for the university. it's a pretty big issue, and i was only pointing at a small part of it...

j

Re:robots.txt ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2588388)

He specifically said, "We don't care whether anyone can find it from the Internet. Our real users know where to look for it." He should be using robots.txt to keep the spiders out, period.

Re:Proposal won't work: No incentive! (0, Redundant)

dun0s (213915) | more than 12 years ago | (#2588505)

Isn't this what robots.txt is for? You disallow all search engines apart from your own from indexing pages that you don't really think people outside your department will want to see. Think how long it would take to put excluded words into every page of your site when a single line in robots.txt would suffice :)

Re:Proposal won't work: No incentive! (1)

-brazil- (111867) | more than 12 years ago | (#2588318)

What's my incentive to have my page show up LESS in anyone's search results?!


Saving bandwidth, perhaps? For a hobbyist's website hosted cheaply (and thus having a low transfer limit), it might be quite desirable not to attract too many visitors who aren't actually interested in the site's contents. Of course, that's not a very common scenario, good search engines will give such sites a low priority anyway because they're not linked to very often.

mod_rewrite is your friend (4, Insightful)

Dr. Awktagon (233360) | more than 12 years ago | (#2588173)

Well it's not as good/effective an idea as what this fellow is suggesting, but you can have a lot of fun with people based on their Referer fields. for instance, use it to just bounce them back to their queries, or bounce them to a different query (one for porn sites is always fun), or bounce them to a more relevant page, or fuck with them however you like. If you've ever had to set up Apache to block people from linking your images, you already know how to do it.

Re:mod_rewrite is your friend (2)

ConsumedByTV (243497) | more than 12 years ago | (#2588262)

If you've ever had to set up Apache to block people from linking your images, you already know how to do it.

Can you point me to a good howto?

Re:mod_rewrite is your friend (1)

Zocalo (252965) | more than 12 years ago | (#2588364)

There's a pretty good "howto" thing here [apache-server.com] that should get you started.

Re:mod_rewrite is your friend (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2588690)

That article was written by a moron. Yes, you can somewhat stop people from putting image requests to your server in their pages, but you can't stop people from snarfing your images. Even the casual Internet Exploder user can save a page with all the images and it will happen all automatically and with all the proper referrers. In Netscape, right click, save image, and you don't have to go digging through your cache.

A bit negative? (2, Interesting)

ukryule (186826) | more than 12 years ago | (#2588175)

Wouldn't it be better to put more effort into describing what a site IS about, rather than what it ISN'T?

After all, if you describe your site, a good search engines will use this information well (so you shouldn't get too many erroneous hits). However, if you list your non-words, a bad search engines will just see this list and treat them as keywords!

Re:A bit negative? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2588676)

The Anti-Thesaurus is a great idea! You are right that until the major search engines support the feature, it would actually be worse to add anti-keywords.

If I had a site "appleman.com" dealing with tasty apples, and I happen to mention computers somewhere on the page, I might get lots of people looking for "apple.com". If I could list "computer" as an anti-keyword, I'd save a lot of bandwidth. Until we get anti-keywords, putting "This is not Apple Computer, try apple.com instead" on your page would just get more traffic.

Turning lemons into lemonade (2, Interesting)

Walter Bell (535520) | more than 12 years ago | (#2588178)

When I first read this, it seemed like a good idea. However, it quickly dawned on me that this is a solution in search of a problem. How many people are actually complaining about too many hits to their web site?

Please forgive me for mentioning capitalism on Slashdot, but a website that receives many misdirected hits is perfect for targeted marketing. Think of the possibilities: if your web site is getting mistaken hits for "victor mousetraps," sell banner ads for "Revenge" brand traps and make a killing on the click-throughs. With a little clever Perl scripting, determine which banner ad to show based on which set of "wrong keywords" show up in the referer. Companies will pay a lot of money for accurately targeted advertisements. Selling these ads would undoubtedly pay the whole bandwidth bill and probably make a profit to boot.

So no, unwords are not necessary. Unless you're running a website off a freebie .edu connection and aren't allowed to make a profit off of it. Otherwise you're just throwing money away.

~wally

Re:Turning lemons into lemonade (-1)

I.T.R.A.R.K. (533627) | more than 12 years ago | (#2588190)

"How many people are actually complaining about too many hits to their web site?"

Anyone who's ever been slashdotted, I'll wager.

- I throw rocks at retarded kids

Re:Turning lemons into lemonade (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2588285)

misdirected hits [...] accurately targeted advertisements.

How about accurate hits and misdirected advertisements? I don't give a shit about the commercial web.

Re:Turning lemons into lemonade (0)

smackmonkey (537507) | more than 12 years ago | (#2588501)

Welcome to the Soviet Union of America, comrade.

Re:Turning lemons into lemonade (0)

utdpenguin (413984) | more than 12 years ago | (#2588339)

An interesting idea, but I wonder about implementtion: Dear revenge moustraps, a lot of people come to my site by pure accident. They are not looking for my site. They are not looking for you product. They are looking for your competitor's product by name. This is a great advertising oportunity.


Or for those looking for People looking for Hannibal: Dear Canibals society, I hear you are haveing a member drive . . .


Or, bet yet, for "stalking onthe internet" : dear
equal rights for perverts society . . . .

Re:Turning lemons into lemonade (1)

Stultsinator (160564) | more than 12 years ago | (#2588937)

While it may take a leap of logic to want to do this for external search engines, I ran into this problem when building the search engine for our e-commerce site.

At first we just allowed our out-of-the-box search engine package to index our catalog, but the problem we kept running into was the relavance of the results (for example returning VCR stands ahead of an actual VCR when the search was "VCR".)

So to solve this our merchandizers manually added keywords to each group of products that amounted to a thesaurus. We coded the indexing to place a weighted value for these keywords ahead of the title words, and those ahead of body text.

It's actually a bigger problem than most geeks realize (as our CEO pointed out.) We were trying to return not just pages that corresponded to the search string, but to the intent of the user. That takes a little more thought on the part of the search engine coders and the implementers.

Bad planning (5, Funny)

ahoehn (301327) | more than 12 years ago | (#2588179)

Not such a bright idea to whine about too much traffic on your website and then get a link to your site from a slashdot article.

You're going to have to excuse me... (1, Flamebait)

Telek (410366) | more than 12 years ago | (#2588183)

If I think that this is just a retarded stupid idea.

The people whose web pages are being thrusted to the top of the query lists are the people who are polluting the metadata and other tags for the sole purpose of getting their sites higher in the search lists

So lemmy get this straight: you want all good and honest people (who aren't causing the problem in the first place) to opt-out of common searches (which they'd never want to do), and this will thus remove the legitimate entries from the pool of queries, returning an even more polluted list from your search engine.

am I missing something here?

Although there are a few people who would be helped by removing absolutely irrelivant queries, the vast majority would actually suffer if they used this.

Re:You're going to have to excuse me... (2)

vidarh (309115) | more than 12 years ago | (#2588603)

No, he wants them to opt out of searches that they know have no relevance to the content, and where they know that they users who get there will just get annoyed and go somewhere else anyway. For people trying to make money on the web, this is a way to reduce bandwidth costs, and to be able to better target people actually interested in what they provide (and thus more willing to pay or click on ads).

The US Gov't Won't Like It (1)

Asahi Super Dry (531752) | more than 12 years ago | (#2588184)

when it realizes that all the TERRORISTS have to do is put the following bit in their HTML: to conceal their web-based activities....

Better Metadata (4, Interesting)

nyjx (523123) | more than 12 years ago | (#2588191)

While the idea would probably do some good if widely adopted what's really needed is to reduce the need for text based indexing of web sites but increasing the amount of explict semantic information about its content.

Marking up pages with information about the meaning of the terms on them is the main thrust of the work on semantic web - see http://www.daml.org/ [daml.org] (for DAML - the DARPA Agent Markup Language), http://www.semanticweb.org/ [semanticweb.org] (One of the main information sources) and finally the new W3C activity on the subject: http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/ [w3.org] .

How far, how fast it will go is another matter but there's certainly a lot of interest in creating a more "machine readable" web.

Re:Better Metadata (1)

Chris Croome (24340) | more than 12 years ago | (#2588671)

It seems to be a chicken-and-egg situation at the moment -- I'm doing quite a lot of work producing Dublin Core [dublincore.org] metadata in XHTML and RDF format for a content management system, however no search engines yet support the indexing or searching of this metedata.

When they do then a proposal like this might make (some) sense.

FIRST FUCK TACO UP THE ASS POST (-1)

mark knopfler 69 (535609) | more than 12 years ago | (#2588200)

you fuck him, not me. i'm not like that. fag

search issues (2, Interesting)

jahjeremy (323931) | more than 12 years ago | (#2588207)

Tbe problem stems from the basic lack of data tagging standardization on the internet. HTML is formative rather than indicative of the types of data that are present. While META keywords are useful, validation is a problem using this method, given the huge number of pages and the propensity of some webmasters to fill this section with irrelavent garbage.

The main power technique, at least on google, is utilizing quotes and AND/OR to limit search results. Rather than spewing a line of text, enclosing specific "phrases" often gives more accurate results.

Then again, I have been able to simply cut n' paste error messages into the groups.google.com form and immediately receive accurate, useful hits. I think that though the internet and webpages and generally disorganized and uncentralized, an outside entity can impose order given enough bandwidth, time, energy and intelligence. In the future, web services, probably based on CORBA and SOAP, will allow sites to return messages to searchers or indexing services, thus doing away with a lot of the mystery in the current system.

All that said, I have had excellent luck with google finding about 95% of all the information I have searched for in the past couple months, showing that a well-written spider and intelligent classification and rating can circumvent the problem of so much untagged, nebulous information.

The internet is something like the world's largest library where anyone can insert a book and random organizers may (if they wish!) go through and make lists, hashes and indexes of the information for their own card catalogs. Right now, each search service maintains its own separate list! The crawler is like a super-fast librarian who can puruse the book. The coming paradigm will be fewer, more accurate and useful catalogs along with books that "insert themselves" into these schemes intelligently and discretely after a validation of informational content.

Not even slashdotted (0, Redundant)

evil_roy (241455) | more than 12 years ago | (#2588212)

I reckon his site can handle the superfluous hits.

Sounds Good (1)

Kira-Baka (463765) | more than 12 years ago | (#2588217)

My friend found that one of the highest things people were finding his webcomic by was "Digimon Porn"... And his comic has no "digimon" or "porn" about it...

Re:Sounds Good (1, Funny)

pen (7191) | more than 12 years ago | (#2588231)

my site [geekissues.org] gets at least 50 hits a month from searches for "swedish porn". also, "amputated penis", "charcoal underwear", and "president bush daughter".

Re:Sounds Good (1)

c=sixty4 (35259) | more than 12 years ago | (#2588493)

Ah, the joys of analog [analog.cx] . I regularly look though my log files for interesing stuff. Stuff people have been looking for and finding my web site [stacken.kth.se] (not as perverted as indicated) include:
  • "Long fingernail and long toenail fetish"
  • "mime nude photos"
  • "16 year old boys whith arm pit hair"
  • "easy and fast directions to make crack cocaine in the microwave"
  • "but she was my student why did i have impure thoughs"
  • "nude cartoons inspector gadget"
  • "secrets on how to suntan through your computer"

The Wayback Machine (1)

wormyguy1 (266395) | more than 12 years ago | (#2588221)

With all the terrabytes a day coming into the Wayback Machine (http://web.archive.org), plus the tons and tons of stuff they have from ancient times (as far back as 1996!) it would be awsome of it was searchable. Even some kind of mundane type of search. Sure, Google's index is great, but this blows Google way out of the water. I've found sites in there I made in middle school and never wanted to see again, but data is data.

Isn't that what - is for? (2, Informative)

pen (7191) | more than 12 years ago | (#2588223)

If I'm searching for something and the wrong sites come up, I simply look for a keyword that is present on most of the sites I don't need that wouldn't be present on the sites I do need, and then add it to the exclusion list.

For example, if I'm looking for info on a Toyota Supra and too many Celica-related pages come up, I'll type:

toyota supra -celica

On a related note, does anyone feel that Google's built-in exclusion list of universal keywords (a,1,of) is really aggravating when Google excludes those words in phrases?

Re:Isn't that what - is for? (2)

vidarh (309115) | more than 12 years ago | (#2588599)

That is completely different.

The suggestion was intended to tell the search engines what words on your site aren't relevant for search purposes. So a site primarily about Toyota Celicas, but that mention Supra a couple of places might want add Supra to their "nonwords" entry, to avoid confusing people looking for info about Supras.

So if the suggestion were in use by most people, you might not have to add "-celica" to your search, as it would be easier for the search engine to exclude pages that contain the word "Supra" but that isn't relevant for your search.

It's in no way a perfect idea. But if enough people use it it may have some value.

Mike Bouma, open source hero dead at 36 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2588225)

I just heard some sad news on talk radio - open source hero Mike Bouma was found dead in his San Francisco home this morning. There weren't any more details. I'm sure everyone in the Slashdot community will miss him - even if you didn't enjoy his work, there's no denying his contributions to the open source comunity. Truly an American icon.

That's not going to help bandwidth (3, Funny)

Rosco P. Coltrane (209368) | more than 12 years ago | (#2588226)

If you replace <meta="keywords" content="mickey mouse"> by <meta="nonwords" content="bestiality mouse-fucking zoophilia kinky ....>, you might draw more Disney lovers and less perverts to your site, but I suspect your HTML file will grow quite a lot bigger ...

Re:That's not going to help bandwidth (1)

pogen (303331) | more than 12 years ago | (#2588989)

If you replace <meta="keywords" content="mickey mouse"> by <meta="nonwords" content="bestiality mouse-fucking zoophilia kinky ....>, you might draw more Disney lovers and less perverts to your site

Mommy, what does "view source" mean, and why is the computer swearing at me?

Other Uses (0)

Solidblu (241490) | more than 12 years ago | (#2588234)

It not only could it be used to make some pages better but it would also be interesting to see how it would dumb down legal jargon such as laws to see if the average person can read them without banging thier head against the wall repeatedly over a parking ticket

Why not using the refferer heder of HTTP (1)

Advocadus Diaboli (323784) | more than 12 years ago | (#2588255)

I can understand the author of the proposal, but I'm afraid that his proposal won't help the usual web searcher.

So I would suggest that he could think about checking the refferer as this site [internet.com] is showing and maybe directs all users that come from a search engine to a page where he offers a search engine that is limited to his site. Since the referrer also includes the whole search string he could maybe even use it to fill out his search form.

I would even prefer this method because it often happens to me that I enter a site via link from a search engine and then I find out that the result page is just a part of a frameset and its missing properties like Javascript variables. If I would redirect search engine users to a defined starting point on my site they would have less troubles (Don't start a disscussion about the sense and use of frames here :-) )

WIPOooOooOoo.. (-1)

George WIPO Bush (308209) | more than 12 years ago | (#2588258)

THE OFFICIAL TACO-SNOTTING FAQ [slashdot.org]
By The WIPO Troll [slashdot.org] , $Revision: 1.9 $

What is "Taco-snotting?"

"Taco-snotting" is a term used by one
Rob "CmdrTaco" Malda [cmdrtaco.net] , owner of the popular technology website Slashdot [slashdot.org] , to refer to the practice of sucking the penis of a homosexual man (or unwilling heterosexual; CmdrTaco doesn't care, and is rumored to actually prefer rape) and blowing the semen back out his nose onto his partner's (or victim's) face or body. Usually a long, bubbly stream of milky-white semen is left on CmdrTaco's face, dribbling out of his nose, down his cheek: hence the term, "Taco-snotting."

Good Lord. And what is a "Circle-snot"?

A "circle-snot" is a Taco-snotting
circle-jerk, another practice common among homosexual geeks. This is when CmdrTaco, CowboiKneel [yahoo.com] , and Homos get together and Taco-snot each other repeatedly with their gooey, hot, and sticky cum -- spooging their dicks all over each other's faces and pasty-white bodies until they're all covered head to toe with man juice. Roblowme usually provides plenty of extra lubricant; he owns a limo service and has ample supplies of motor oil and axle grease.
To complete this perverted orgy, fellow geeks Michael, Timothy, and Jamie often join in, dressed in black Gestapo uniforms, jack boots, and leather gloves. The whole group then proceeds to snot each other's spunk and whip each other's pudgy asses with riding crops and chains until their pasty-white geek bodies are sweaty and exhausted from all the passionate, homosexual revelry.

Ewwwww. Why have I been receiving emails from CmdrTaco asking me if he can Taco-snot me?

I'm guessing you've received an email similar to the following:
From: malda@slashdot.org [mailto]
To: wipotroll@hotmail.com
Subject: Hey, baby - jion me in a taco-snott! :)

Hey, baby!

Ever done a taco-snotting with anothar fellow geek? Its more fun then trolling Slashdot, trust me! all that talk you troll with about homasexual incest and stuff got me all horny and hot for you! Is it serius? Please tell me that itt is! If you want to get with me and my Slashdot bois, drop me an emale!

ps- Please replie to me at horny_rob_6969@hotmail.com. I'd rather the guys at VA Linux are not seen this. :) :)

--
CmdrTaco (malda@slashdot.org [mailto] )
You most likely forgot to uncheck the "Willing to Taco-snot" checkbox in your account preferences. Whenever CmdrTaco gets bored (and who wouldn't, running a site like Slashdot all day), he roams through the Slashdot database, penis in hand, looking for people who might enjoy being Taco-snotted. How he determines this is anyone's guess; but if you have a homosexual-sounding nickname, you're in trouble. So this time, he found you. Lucky you.
CmdrTaco has probably already got the hots for your wad, and he's probably already been lurking outside your bathroom window for weeks with a camera, some tissues and lube. There's no escaping a geek in heat, so it's probably too late for you, but you can possibly rectify this situation. To remove yourself from CmdrTaco's sights, log into your Slashdot account, go to your user page, click on
Messages, and uncheck the box next to "Willing to Taco-snot." Maybe he'll ignore you. Probably not.

I can't stop receiving these emails from CmdrTaco!?

Probably not. If you indulge him in a Taco-snot or two, he
might leave you alone. You might also want to look into mail filtering, restraining orders, or purchasing a heavy, blunt object capable of warding off rampaging homosexual geeks in heat. Trust me, when they charge... oh, the humanity. If he gets you, and you let him Taco-snot you, he might end up tying you up in his basement to use you as his sex slave for the rest of your life (or until he accidentally drowns you in spunk in a circle-snot).

Have you ever been Taco-Snotted?

Unfortunately, yes. I first met CmdrTaco at an
Open Source Convention [yahoo.com] . He invited me back to his room for a game of Quake, but when I got to there, he jumped me and tied me to his bed, stripping me. After taking his "Commander" out of his pants, Mr. Taco made me suck the withered, little thing several times. He then performed his vile Taco-snotting ritual on me three times over the next two hours, bringing me to orgasm after sweaty, mind-numbing orgasm... then he snotted my own milky-white jizz back onto my face, into my mouth, then again on my exposed belly.
CmdrTaco invited several of his Open Source (or rather, "Open Sauce" -- man sauce) buddies over to continue the twisted snotfest. Linux Torvalds
raped my ass [yahoo.com] with his "monolithic kernel [yahoo.com] ," and Anal Cox used his "network stack" in a multitude of unspeakable ways on and in every orifice in my defenseless body.
How did you finally escape, you ask? After about 16 hours of countless homosexual atrocities perpetrated against my restrained body, they all finally went to sleep on top of me, sweat-soaked and exhausted. I was left there, covered in bubbly, translucent jizz-snot, chained to the bed, with half a dozen fat, pasty-white fags lying around and on top of me. Fortunately the spooge coating my flesh worked wonderfully as a lubricant; I was able to squirm my way out of the handcuffs and slip out the back door. I'm just glad I survived the ordeal. These geeks had a lot of built-up spunk in their wads -- I could've easily been drowned!

That's horrible. Does "Taco-snotting" have anything to do with CmdrTaco's "special taco"?

No, that's a different disgusting perversion CmdrTaco indulges himself in. CmdrTaco is usually not satisfied with merely snotting your own jizz back onto your face, he most often enjoys involving his own bodily fluids in his twisted games.
WeatherTroll [slashdot.org] has spent some time trying to educate the Slashdot readership about this vile practice (emphasis added):
You may be wondering what CmdrTaco's "special taco" is. You will be wishing that you hadn't been wondering after you finish reading this post. To make his "special taco", CmdrTaco takes a taco shell and
shits on it. He then adds lettuce, jacks off on the taco, and adds a compound to make the person who eats the taco unconscious. Of course, the compound does not make the person unconscious until the taco is fully eaten. Thus CmdrTaco force-feeds the taco to the unsuspecting victim.
After the victim is unconscious, he is held against his will and used for CmdrTaco's nefarious sexual purposes. This includes shoving taco shells up the victim's ass, Taco-snotting, and getting Jon Katz involved.
Completely different, yet no less revolting. It should be clear to you now that CmdrTaco is a very, very sick individual, as are most of the Slashdot editors.

Does Jon Katz get involved in any of this? I thought he was a paedophile, not a homosexual.

Actually, Jon Katz is a homosexual paedophile. He's also a coprophiliac, and, many suspect, a zoophile. Jon Katz is somewhat of a loner and doesn't involve himself in circle-snots. Mr. Katz usually engages in a game called "
Katz juicy-douching [yahoo.com] " with his harem of little-boy slaves: a vile practice which involves administering an enema to himself of the little boy's urine (forced out of them with a pair of pliers), spooging the vile muck from his ass back into the enema bag, then squirting and slathering the goo all over himself, and the little boy's chained-up and naked bodies. If he's in the mood, he will sometimes skip refilling the enema bag and just squirt it from his ass [yahoo.com] onto his boys. Unwilling boys are further tortured with the pliers until they comply and allow Mr. Katz to juicy-douche them for the rest of their lives.
As I already said, Mr. Katz is
also a zoophile. As if the sexual escapades with the helpless little boys aren't enough, Jon usually enjoys his juicy-douches best when his penis is firmly planted in a female goat's anus [yahoo.com] . He is also rumoured to get off on watching his little boys eat the goat's small, bean-like turds.

...Are you getting hard writing this?

Why, yes. :) Join me in a WIPO-snot? I promise I won't try and rape you or kidnap you and make you my sex slave or anything. I'm not like CmdrTaco or Mr. Katz; I only enjoy snotting on willing partners.

What's that screaming I hear coming from your basement?

Oh, that's just my little sister; I got her chained up down there. In fact, I just finished snotting all over her body. You should see her squirm when I spooge on her belly, lick it up, and snot it all over her face! She's such a feisty little 14 year-old bitch. Of
course she's my sex slave, she's my sister. What else would she be good for? So, join me in a WIPO-snot?

No, thanks. I'm already CmdrTaco's boi toi.

________________________________________
READER COMMENTS

  1. Digusting and Shameful (Score:-1)
    by egg troll [slashdot.org] on 2001.11.18 22:27 (#2582054 [slashdot.org] )

    Having masturbated *twice* to this post, I'm still incredibly aroused! Come over for a Taco Snot. I'll be wearing my crotchless Clifford the Big Red Dog outfit!!

    For more info check out this /. article [google.com]

  2. IMPROVE THE FAQ (Score:-1, Flamebait)
    by Anonymous Coward on 2001.11.18 12:03 (#2580822 [slashdot.org] )

    add more links to goatse and to cowboineal's site to make it better. a link to rotten.com would be nice too

    • Re:IMPROVE THE FAQ (Score:0)
      by Anonymous Coward on 2001.11.18 12:18 (#2580832 [slashdot.org] )

      and a link to michael's site and to jon katz's site if he has one and homo's site. i dont know what else to say. maybe a few links to phallic.org they have nice penis pictures! a link to the planet quake site or whatever. really make the reader feel this faq really answers their questions. oh yeah, and when you talk about cmdrtaco snotting you, say he brought you to "orgasm after sweaty orgasm". describe it more is all i'm saying. and use more italics and bolding! and when you talk about jon katz shitting or whatever have a link to fecal japan on rotten.com

      other wise a great job wipo troll! keep up the good work!

  3. Re:CmdrTaco's filthy secret! (Score:-1)
    by Wil Wheaton [slashdot.org] on 2001.11.18 6:41 (#2580438 [slashdot.org] )

    Hi. Let's be buddies.. butt buddies.
    --
    WIL WHEATON DOT NET [wilwheaton.net]

  4. WIPO speaks the truth (Score:-1)
    by dead_puppy [slashdot.org] on 2001.11.18 5:33 (#2580342 [slashdot.org] )

    Here is an e-mail I received a week ago:

    From: malda@slashdot.org
    To: puppy_dead@hotmail.com
    Subject: were where you last friday? :(

    I thought we where supposed to meet at Backdoor's at 8-ish, sugar-lips? You could've at least told me that you could'nt make it! I was even in my favorite pink skirt for you, honey-cup... next time, you could be more considarite and tell me you cant come... bastard.

    --
    CmdrTaco (malda@slashdot.org)

    You finding Ling-Ling's [babysue.com] head?

  5. Taco snotting is WRONG!!! (Score:-1)
    by Big_Ass_Spork [slashdot.org] on 2001.11.18 4:53 (#2580300 [slashdot.org] )

    I do it wrong

    Laying here in the shadows of my room, I squint up at my love. My Ms. Portman. I am sore and tired after fucking her for eight solid hours. My chapped and aching dick is soaking in grits to relieve the pain. She gets on her knees and starts lapping the grits up out of the bowl. She places her beautiful hands on my penis and starts to lick the grits off my achy piece.

    Massaging my nutsack she....

    WAIT, I DO IT WRONG!!!!

    Yanking my dick out of her mouth I throw her to the ground and shove it in to her gaping freshly fisted ass. [goatse.cx]

    "OH BIG ASS SPORK!! Fuck my ass, fuck my ass good. DEEPER, my stallion, deeper!! Make a Beowulf cluster of sperm on my back!!"

    "Imagine a Beowulf cluster of this baby!"

    I DO IT WRONG!!!!

    ---
    All your Sporks are belong to Big_Ass_Spork! What you say?! All your Sporks are belo... forget it...

  6. Rob Malda Dead at age 25! (Score:-1)
    by j0nkatz [slashdot.org] on 2001.11.17 22:54 (#2579596 [slashdot.org] )

    I just heard some sad news on the radio -- famous queerbait Rob Malda was found dead in his Holland home this morning. The details were a bit hazy, but it seems that he drowned in jizz while Taco Snotting his friend Hemos. I'm sure everyone in the /. community will miss him -- even if you didn't enjoy his queer antics and boring ass website, there's no denying his contributions to the homosesual cultural development, particularly in the areas of Taco snotting. Truly an American icon.

    I wanna Open Source sex so it won't be worth a shit either.

  7. TACO-SNOTTING is really Donkey-Punching (Score:-1, Troll)
    by Anonymous Coward on 2001.11.15 6:38 (#2567601 [slashdot.org] )

    No no no, the correct term for that is "donkey-punch". I have eye-witnessed this amazing eye-popping event demonstrated on unsuspecting hose-monsters by my frat brothers in the past.. . :-)

  8. Re:the effect of knowlege laws... (Score:1)
    by AbsoluteRelativity [slashdot.org] on 2001.11.15 5:31 (#2567457 [slashdot.org] )

    The WIPO Troll [foundus.com]
    Slashdot and the Karma Lottery - News for uber monkeys, by uber monkeys.

  9. Re:Taco-Snotting (Score:-1, Troll)
    by Anonymous Coward on 2001.11.13 9:27 (#2557632 [slashdot.org] )

    Oh, man that's just sick !

  10. HOW DO I GET AN ANONYMOUS PROXY? (Score:-1, Troll)
    by Anonymous Coward on 2001.11.13 9:03 (#2557604 [slashdot.org] )

    TELL ME WHERE I CAN GET AN ANONYMOUS proxy please WIPO Troll. Maybe later i will join you in a snotting at my place. ;P

  11. Re:Taco-Snottage!?!?!? (Score:-1, Offtopic)
    by vikool [slashdot.org] on 2001.11.13 7:43 (#2557495 [slashdot.org] )

    what is this bull shit,i feel offened that some people feel so so senseless to post stuff like these esp when such a tragic incident has occured

  12. Re:Taco-felching!! (Score:-1)
    by I.T.R.A.R.K. [slashdot.org] on 2001.11.11 22:38 (#2551890 [slashdot.org] )

    Where the fuck do I sign up?!

    - I throw rocks at retarded kids

    "Adequacy.org: Where congenital stupidity is not an option, but a requirement."

  13. Re:Taco-felching!! (Score:-1, Troll)
    by Anonymous Coward on 2001.11.11 21:53 (#2551753 [slashdot.org] )

    this shit is hilarious..keep up the good work.

  14. Re:Taco-felching!! (Score:-1, Offtopic)
    by rockwood [slashdot.org] on 2001.11.11 21:49 (#2551746 [slashdot.org] )

    OMG! That is the most disgusting thing I have ever heard! WHo in their right mind would sit down and waste the time to construct such a replusive story. I guess I'll be skipping lunch and dinner today.. and possibly tomorrow also. The game doesn't affect reality. Reality affects the game.

  15. Re:Ban this! It's disgusting!! (Score:0)
    by Anonymous Coward on 2001.11.11 14:43 (#2550701 [slashdot.org] )

    dude, this is crap-flood material if i ever saw it.
    duuuuuuuuudddddddddddddeeeeeeeee.

  16. Re:Taco-Snotting = HATE SPEECH (Score:-1, Flamebait)
    by Anonymous Coward on 2001.11.11 8:16 (#2550266 [slashdot.org] )

    horny_rob_6969@hotmail.com

    Ah, so that's what the alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.horny-rob newsgroup is about!

  17. MOD THIS UP PLEASE!!! (Score:-1)
    by egg troll [slashdot.org] on 2001.11.11 5:34 (#2550024 [slashdot.org] )

    +5, Arousing

    For more info check out this /. article [google.com]

  18. Re:Taco-Snotting = HATE SPEECH (Score:-1, Offtopic)
    by Anonymous Coward on 2001.11.11 4:39 (#2549891 [slashdot.org] )

    WINNER>

  19. Re:Taco-Snotting = HATE SPEECH (Score:-1, Offtopic)
    by Anonymous Coward on 2001.11.11 4:37 (#2549887 [slashdot.org] )

    I love you. Why do you use your bitchslapped account, rather than signing up for a new account to post at +1 before getting bitchslapped by the censors here? I guess I should speak for myself, but I don't want to log out and lose all my slashdot customization properties, nor do I want to lose my 50 karma yet.

  20. Re:On Taco-Snotting (Score:0)
    by Anonymous Coward on 2001.11.09 9:19 (#2542412 [slashdot.org] )

    you fucking rock! right down to the expanded cvs id!

    WIPO trolls > linux

________________________________________

$Id: tacosnotting.html,v 1.9 2001/11/19 04:27:13 wipo Exp $

Jon-Katz docking (-1)

sales_worldwide (244279) | more than 12 years ago | (#2588488)

You forgot to mention Jon Katz's "docking" games, where he places his chopper head to head with another chap, and rolls the other guys foreskin over his own circumcised end ("docking"), providing him with fantasies of actually having his own forskin ...

PROLOG HELP!!! (0, Offtopic)

clinko (232501) | more than 12 years ago | (#2588259)

Someone quick!, I have a program due in PROLOG in about 5 hours!

ok, I just need to convert a string to all caps so I can compare it to its reverse (simple palindrome program)

I've gotten everything to work except converting the string to all caps, or all lowercase, or finding a caseless compare statment. 1 of the 3 will work and save my ass.

Thanks for the help!!!

Re:PROLOG HELP!!! (-1)

DivineOb (256115) | more than 12 years ago | (#2588272)

The answer is obvious... kill yourself...

Re:PROLOG HELP!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2588332)

That's easy: it's all about defining requirements.

First thing the program does is print: "this program requires the state of the capslock to be on at any time. The shift key should never be used."

Of course... (1)

Dog and Pony (521538) | more than 12 years ago | (#2588260)

... you could just get people to switch to Google [google.com] instead.

Re:Of course... (1)

mojo-raisin (223411) | more than 12 years ago | (#2588290)

wow. that's a cool site. thanx.

I thought of a similar idea and worded it as such: (1)

Bakajin (323365) | more than 12 years ago | (#2588263)

On my idea notepad I said this:

"Technique to negate words in a document for increased searching. For instance, include files that cause a phrase like 'How we converted to XHTML 1.0' to show up on every page. Only the page with actual information, should show up in search, not every page with the include file."

Re:I thought of a similar idea and worded it as su (1)

Bakajin (323365) | more than 12 years ago | (#2588267)

To further clarify, search engines should search for patterns of words wich indicate it is being over-used. May be very difficult, but I think recognizing include files/libraries might be feasible.

Not quite correct. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2588288)

After reading the value / reference calling thread, I checked out the section "Wish you were here". And found two errors:

Extensions: Unless you are modifying the java interpreter, even the 'core' libraries (on my platform, anyway) must be in the classpath. So 'extending' the language consists of putting a jar file in the classpath. C# has the same thing, called the global assembly cache. - now, before you say, yes, but you have to add a reference to it, I want you to remember that you have to reference every assembly you use, including System.dll - there is a (customisable) set of references appended by default by the c# compiler.

Dynamic class loading: you skip over Reflection everywhere, as far as I can see, and here is no exception: I have written an app that finds all the .dll's in a directory, instatiates each class in those dll's that implement an interface or have a certain (custom) attribute, and then calls methods and responds to events from those classes. It is possible, using reflection's emit classes to have your code write those classes before calling them. I have used this same thing to accept url's of web services to call them dynamically (for testing). How is it possible you missed something so major to the language? (check out Assembly.Load(), Object.GetType(), and Type.Invoke..)

It makes me wonder if I can trust the research done on the rest of the article. Thanks for the effort, much of it is very well written... but if I can't trust it all, it's not much use to me.

Sincerely, Mike Bouma

Interesting (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2588289)

Some quotes from the article I find disturbing: "Federal agencies are imposing a stricter standard in reviewing hundreds of thousands of Freedom of Information Act requests from the public each year; officials no longer have to show that disclosure would cause "substantial harm" before rejecting a request. Watchdog groups say they have already started to see rejections of requests that likely would have been granted before."

"Officials acknowledge that there are very few examples of terrorists actually using public records to glean sensitive information, but they say that the terrorist attacks prove the need for extraordinary caution."

"We have to get away from the ethos that knowledge is good, knowledge should be publicly available, that information will liberate us," said University of Pennsylvania bioethicist Arthur Caplan. "Information will kill us in the techno-terrorist age, and I think it's nuts to put that stuff on Web sites.

"Indeed, chemical and water industry groups are lobbying the Bush administration to curtail regulations providing public access to the operations of public facilities, data that environmentalists say are critical to ensuring safety."

Filenames as an unname (1)

t0qer (230538) | more than 12 years ago | (#2588291)

I use filenames all the time on google to find what I want. Sometime's I get lucky and find the file in a directory, with many other files related to the files I am looking for. Another added bonus is I don't have to wade through annoying banner ads or popup windows.

Then what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2588292)

So when all this information is destroyed/access limited and no one has "how to" instructions for committing any act of violence, then what will we destroy when the violence persists? Each other?


If someone wants to commit a violent act, they can easily succeed WITHOUT a "how to" manual. They may not get away with it but that hardly matters if the violence results in deaths.


Take away documentation on bridges, buildings, weapons and whatever you want. They'll ALWAYS figure out another means of attack that wasn't considered.


In fact, the current state of affairs can be considered a side effect to their attack that the terrorist probably hadn't considered but is surely welcome news to them regardless. Terrorism has infected America and its affect is spreading from within. Terrorists attack our way of life. We'll destroy our way of life by trying to protect ourselves from another such attack.


How about this: Let's just completely dispose of the Bill of Rights, right now, in the name of national security! I mean, really, we may all die because of the freedoms it allows. Do away with freedom and we'll live forever. Freedom isn't all that it's made out to be anyway. Take Cuba and China for example. They're wonderful places to live. All the people throughout history that died fighting for their freedom must have been idiots, huh? The people that died for America's freedom and ultimately the Constitution and Bill of Rights. What a waste when all they've done is ensure our death at the hands of someone that has learned to build a bomb from publicly available information.


I prefer to die free, fighting for freedom, than to "live" shackled and bound.


The problem isn't' information availability. The problem is how we treat each other that can infuriate someone to the point of hatred.

Why this is redundant, and overly subjective (2)

K-Man (4117) | more than 12 years ago | (#2588297)

Given a particular word on a particular website, it's fairly easy to decide if it's relevant or not. How? By looking for links to that website from other websites which mention the same word. That's the idea behind Teoma [teoma.com] and a number of other search algorithms. Sites which "unintentionally" get hits for unrelated topics simply don't register on these engines. Link analysis provides much more accurate metadata, because it's based on other people's opinions.

Another problem with metadata in general, of which spam is but one symptom, is the fact that creators of content often have no idea of how their content appeals, or fails to appeal, to other people. Did Mahir have any idea that his name would become a top-ranked search term? Does anyone have any idea how his content should be ranked for a given search term (besides number one, of course)?

What is the number one piece of metadata found in spam messages? This is not spam.

Things you just have to accept. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2588298)

Another classic case of worrying about the horse long after we deliberately opened the barn door.

We presume to live in an open society, where both personal and information freedom are allowed and valued. We must all simply accept that the risk to such a society is that those freedoms may be abused by some.

The only remedy is everyone's constant vigilance that those freedoms are taken advantage of OR unduly restricted, if we want to maintain our open society. It's not a cliche, it's a truism.

The approach of restricting such public infrastructure information is hopeless. It cannot work. A few years ago one of the major scientific journals looked at possible vulnerabilities to terrorist attack in North America. They came up with a laundry list of infrastructure weaknesses that would be both crippling and impossible to defend against without restructuring the entire continent and imposing a security-obsessed state.

My favorite was the electrical grid. A key type of transformer - of which there are not many in demand and thus are not easily replaced - apparently normally sits out in the middle of nowhere with only a chain-link fence protecting it. One person with a deer rifle and a single bullet could destroy it.

Such a risk is impossible to reasonably defend against at this point. You just have to accept and realize it exists.

Domain names (1, Offtopic)

Breace (33955) | more than 12 years ago | (#2588301)

On a related subject, I've been looking for a domain name that is a) easy to remember and b) does not generate a zillion hits if you type the name in a search engine. (and c) is not a silly long string of words).

It's funny how most people thing that common word domains are valuable, but forget that if you have a name that, when typed into a search engine, jumps out as the only result is pretty valuable too. Especially if it sounds like it is spelled.

Maybe not the best example, but since the 4 letter TLD's are practically all gone, I was going to register duxo.com. Unfortunately one of the many domain hogs got it the day I was going for it. :o(

I got an other one though, but it's not up yet so I won't tell what it is! ;o)))

Where is this leading to? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2588302)

If terrorists can speak English, it's easier for them to hide amongst law-abiding folks. It follows that all material relating to the teaching of American English should be available only to K-12 children with suitable clearances.

Movies, such as "The Dambusters", are clearly usable as training material for further attacks, and must be withdrawn, lest the secrets of how to utterly obliterate the landscape escape the control of the UK and US Governments.

Other movies, such as "Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves", encourage hostility to the duly-established authority. "Star Wars" even does so, openly in the name of religion! Incitement and fermentation of potential dissidents.

Photographs, from aircraft, is used in archaeology to locate buried ruins. The same technique could easily have a more sinister purpose. To prevent terrorists from gaining potentially useful intelligence, all arial photography needs to be banned!

Super-cooled and/or parallel arrays of computers can perform amazing feats of computation. To protect secret information, there is no recourse but to ban the use of electricity.

Thoughts cannot be monitored, and there are no accurate or reliable methods of profiling. The primary chemical involved in terrorist thinking is oxygen, which must now be reserved for official use only.

ObTrivia: NASA tested a satellite designed to detect intelligent life on other worlds, by pointing it at Earth. The probe returned a definite negative. Might we now consider the possibility that the probe was, indeed, correct?

I hate to see restrictions on information availability. but one must understand, that it is the unbalanced distribution of information that gives one entity power over another - Privacy advocates should not expect free access to information...

I believe total, omnidirectional, societal transparency is the way forward, given the existance of surveillance technology - rather than that, we seem currently headed to a "Big Brother" scenario, with a ruling body which has total access to surveillance of the public, but a public with no access to surveillance of the ruling body. This gives far too much relative power to the government.

A trivial example: The CCTV networks that have sprung up all over the country in the U.K. should be real-time public-access. And there should be public-access cameras in police stations too. That way, everybody can watch everyone else. It would also have fringe benefits - supposed to meeting someone? check if they're there yet by patching into the a monitoring station... I would predict that in such a society, ordinary day-to-day privacy concerns would not be much of an issue - some oddball getting off on watching people use the toilet would also know that he was being watched, and this would make all but the most strange people behave decently... And everyone would know who the wierdos were...

David Brin explores this in his book, The Transparent Society. Chapter one is available online here. I urge, strongly, that people read it before mouthing off on either issues of freedom of information or privacy, since otherwise, they may not be aware of the logical inconsistencies of their position. Don't eat yellow snow

Conspiracy theorists of the world unite! A few bigshots decided to let September 11 to happen, or even encouraged it to happen, in order to pull a quick one on the American public and legalize an incredibly powerful and invasive government reminiscent of Orwell's 1984 while encouraging a stupidity in the public. Restriction of liberties will continue until everyone of intelligence moves to Australia. Sound likely? Timmy

This article was published in the Sydney Morning Herald (an Australian news source). It's an editorial piece regarding the changing face of the Web (which, despite what some say, is still fairly dominated by US content). It details how some popular search engines are chopping and changing information to create 'a morally acceptable view of the world'. Anyone who's read 1984, that book that keeps getting mentioned now, will recognise something called revisionist history.

Knowledge is... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2588309)

Knowledge and information are power. The military has understood this for a very long time only they called knowledge "intelligence." Power can be used for good and ill. Measures like this are attempting to restrict the amount of free intelligence available to would be terrorists. This is not necessarily a bad move.

As for the common "this wouldn't have stopped the 911 terrorists" remarks. So? Are you saying that we should wait to implement such a measure until the terrorists realize that sensitive information is readily available to them directly from the Great Satan itself? Until its too late? Again? Do not condemn yourself to a purely reactive and therefore inefficient government. One where every policy must be written in the blood of innocents who died because it was not enacted soon enough. The government should be looking at how it "does business" everywhere and reform/restructure areas where that "business" could aid potential terrorists.

The truth is that the current government realizes that instead of sitting on its ass, like the previous administration, government needs to be continuously reforming itself. The government that the current administration inherited was badly in need of reforms that the previous adminstration had promised in 1992 but never carried through with. Multiple bureaus like the patent office, FAA, DOE, and INS are badly in need of serious reform. And they have been in need of it since long before 9-11.

Now the question is if some of these regulations are changed to reflect that the "public" may not be safe, what are they going to be changed too. For instance, if the public cannot audit waste and water facilities directly through what mechanism can they do so? Authorized public auditors? These need to be changes and reforms not restrictions on the rights of the citizenry. To do such a thing would be a step backwards.

This will never work (1)

SendBot (29932) | more than 12 years ago | (#2588315)

More hits is almost NEVER a bad thing for a site's main purpose (getting people to see it, and hopefully take an interest in what's there)

For just the same reason as the automotive industry has made clean fuel vehicles standard, and the very way our capitalist world operates. For the time (money) it takes to implement this thing to make the world a better place, the costs can not be substantiated. Granted, if a lot of sites did this, there would be more time for everyone to spend playing with their dog rather than dig through irrelevant search results. But Joe webmaster's company is never going to pay him to do it, and he's not going to spend his free time doing it when he could be spending time with his dog.

That's the way the world is working right now, and people who want to change the world to a better place will probably spend their time doing other things rather than putting unwords in their web documents.

I don't see how is this going to help (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2588319)

Eight months ago I undertook LASIK surgery, which corrects vision problems using a procedure often referred to as Laser Eye Surgery. To date, the procedure has been a resounding success for me, and I would like to share my experiences with this technology to those who are interested or curious in the procedure.

Definition: What is commonly referred to as "laser eye surgery" actually refers to two separate procedures. Photorefractive Keratectomy (PRK) was the first procedure developed, followed by the newer Laser-assisted Intrastromal Keratoplasty (LASIK). There are other procedures as well, but they are much less common than LASIK and PRK. PRK is an older procedure and is rapidly being replaced by LASIK for most patients. PRK involves using a specially tuned laser to burn the surface of the eye until it matches a predefined shape set out by the doctor. Since this procedure affects the cornea (the outer layer of the eye), it is often associated with a great deal of pain. However, the amount of pain varies from person to person, usually high-strength pain killers (codine) will be enough for most people. A more detailed explanation can be found here.

The procedure I undertook was LASIK. This surgery involves cutting a corneal eyeflap, and using the same method as PRK to alter the shape of the layer underneath the corneal flap directly. After the re-shaping takes place, the original flap is replaced. Since there are no nerves where the burning takes place, it does not involve any pain. A more detailed explanation can be found here.

Risks: The most realistic risk of the procedure is that you will have to undergo the procedure a second time. Sometimes the doctor will be conservative and under-correct the eyes. In other cases the procedure is successful, but the eyes will regress over time and require some fine-tuning in a second operation. Unfortunately the eyes need to heal before another procedure is done, and there can be several months of wearing interim prescription glasses that is different from the original one. This risk varies depending on your original prescription and the accuracy of the doctor performing the procedure.

The other realistic risk is a slight degradation in nighttime vision. The halo that accompanies bright lights at night will be enlarged for many people, but again it varies from person to person. For the first several months, it may be difficult to drive at night, and to read backlight signs. However this goes away for the vast majority of people after several months.

Another risk is termed "haze" and refers to a slight degradation in clarity, while still retaining good vision. I understand this sounds contradictory, but having experienced this myself, it does in fact occur. You retain 20/20 vision, but everything looks as though it is covered with a thin film, it is similar to a difficulty in focusing. Again, in most cases this usually does not last more than a few months.

With the PRK procedure, there is risk of infection because the surgery is done to the exposed eye. The clinic will provide anti-inflammatory drops that should prevent most problems. With the LASIK procedure there is a risk of shifting the eyeflap, it is critical not to rub your eyes for the first two weeks after the procedure is finished.

There are other risks though. In a small percentage of cases, patients will have to continue to require glasses, often with a different prescription. Also in very few cases the eyes will not be able to achieve 20/20 vision even with. According to my research, there have been no cases of blindness from anyone undergoing laser eye surgery as of this writing.

For a quantifiable estimation of risks, visit this page. Many clinics will tout results much better than this, so these should be considered very conservative.

Benefits: The main benefit it obvious: you can see! But there are countless benefits that are difficult to quantify or predict before the surgery, so I will list some of my personal favorite post-op benefits.

Sunglasses. Before it was required to get prescription sunglasses made, requiring a several hundred dollar purchase, and was restricted by style and lens type. Activities. Water-skiing, scuba-diving, swimming, many sports are possible with glasses, but are much better enjoyed with corrected eyes. Simple Things. The pleasure of waking up in the middle of the night and reading the alarm clock without fumbling for glasses is enormous. Kissing. It sounds silly, but it is really great not to poke your partner in the face with cold glasses while kissing. Others. Not experiencing the panic of losing or breaking glasses or contact lenses. In short, the feeling of having vision unencumbered by an external device is simply wonderful. And you can't quantify that! Where to go: If you decide to undergo the procedure, or are trying to decide if it is right for you, choosing your clinic is an important step. Before my surgery I visited three different clinics, and had a radically different experience in each one. The first clinic was The Laser Center (TLC) who actually denied me surgery on the basis that my glasses-prescription had shifted within the last three years. I appreciated that a great deal, so two years later, I visited the same clinic again. However, they were undergoing a complicated change-of-management so I stuck with the doctor instead of the clinic, and visited The Pacific Laser-Eye Center (Pacific). The price quoted to me by Pacific was $4,000 (CAD) for both eyes, much greater that others in the area.

So I visited a local clinic (which I will leave unnamed) for the purposes of comparison. The difference was outstanding. At the local clinic, the price quoted was $1,900 (CAD), but I was appalled at the business practices. The doctor approved me for the procedure before reviewing my medical history, and when I confronted him on this he derided it as unimportant. The success rate that he predicted was much higher than predicted by TLC or Pacific, which I read as shucksterism, not a genuine prediction. So I chose the more expensive clinic with the doctor that I trusted, even though the cost was more than double the cheaper place. If you are investing laser-eye surgery, I strongly encourage you to ensure that choose a reputable clinic. Try to find other people in your area who have had the procedure done, and investigate the various clinics as much as possible.

The surgery: I chose to have the LASIK procedure, because I preferred the personal risk of rubbing my eyes over the external risk of infection. I visited the clinic on a Thursday morning, and arrived bright and early, and very nervous. First the doctor did a final inspection on my eyes to ensure that nothing had changed in the past days since he last saw me. Then, the assistants took me into a separate room for eye-numbing drops, and awaited my surgery. When the room was prepared I went in the room and laid down underneath the scary-looking laser machines.

At this point I was exceptionally nervous, so they gave me little stress balls to grip. The first step was to cover one eye, and to put a little clamp around the other eye, which felt like a little pinch. This made me unable to blink or move my eyes to any great degree. Then they instructed me to "look at the red light" and the cutting started, as they cut a little circle in my eye around the area. It was quite scary as all of a sudden the little light I was looking at went all fuzzy - the corneal flap was removed! Now the re-shaping was ready to start, and I was strongly reminded to look straight ahead at the red light. Well at this point my blood was pumping so strong and was breathing so hard that they could not continue.

They turned off all the fancy devices, and gave me a sedative, which was great. Thankfully they stopped before I could do any damage, and felt much better after a few moments. Now, they re-attached the eye clamp, and began the re-shaping procedure. The buzzing noise of the laser, and the smell of my own eyes burning was a bit disconcerting, but it only took a few moments, and they re-attached the flap and patched me up to do the other eye. The second eye went without a glitch and I was off the operating table within perhaps 15 minutes. Afterwards, they did some tests to make sure everything was a/ok, and sent me packing. The entire procedure took only 60 minutes including prep time, my freak out, and the actual surgery.

Results: As I have stated throughout this article, my results were a resounding success. Right after the procedure, my eye doctor reported that I had 20/20 vision. Of course, I was patched up at the time, and was terrified of shifting my eyeflaps... but I could see like a normal person. These results were confirmed the next day, and again the following week, month, and ½ year. I returned to work four days after the surgery, and resumed a normal schedule after a week. I'd do it again in a heartbeat.

Note: This topic has been covered before in a different format on Kuro5hin.org, some other excellent testimonials to laser-eye surgery can be found here, here, and here.

A part they left out of the story; (4, Funny)

vectus (193351) | more than 12 years ago | (#2588326)

Webmasters, however, should be careful with these new "anti-words", as when they mix with their word counterpart, a gigantic explosion results.

It might help only minimally with spammers (0, Offtopic)

Billly Gates (198444) | more than 12 years ago | (#2588330)

I use to have an account here on slashdot with an email address. I also had one at zdnet's talkback with my email address on it as well. I got constantly spammed and it annoyed the hell out of me. I read here on slashdot that spammers use bot machines running perl scripts which just read slashdot and zdnets posts for email addresses and then sends them to a database which spams them around the clock. Another really bad place is newsgroups. Sadly mostly pedophiles and pornographers just spam the hell out of anyone who posts on these groups thinking everyone uses them for just porn.



In the old days of the internet back when it was run by the government, you could be literally be expelled from using it if you ever did this. Now its a standard practice and many schools ban the newsgroups. This very fabric of how the internet got started and contains valueable learning materials. Why? Well thank these porn spammers! Boy, does that piss me off more then anything else. Anyway I think the indexing metadata is a good one for web searching. It will make searching for valueable data alot easier and give AOL users a reason to switch. You might hate AOL but the users I know who use it say everything is organized right in front of you at your fingertips. No searching needed. If you ever needed to do a search for something specific you can always find what you need immediately. This is quite difficult with the world wide web unless you know exactly where to look.

I can see it now... (2, Insightful)

dun0s (213915) | more than 12 years ago | (#2588331)

Porn sites who promote (through a variaty of means) the words "free, porn, sex" and the like and then demote "pay, fee, membership, credit card".

This proposal will not make the indexing of sites more reliable. If anything it will add to the common confusion associated with meta keywords. Yes it is quite a nice idea in theory but I can't see anyone wanting to exclude words from being searched. The main point in the proposal was that the author felt guilty about pulling in people who had entered search terms that appeared on his page. One would ask why he is publishing information on the internet if he doesn't want people to look at it. A better solution would be to get people to use search engines properly. As an example I will use the stalking on the internet term. If people put these words into google and come up with his page then prehaps they should have modified their query to something like "stalking on the internet" and they may not have found his page. On the other hand if his page contains the phrase "stalking on the internet" it migh be just what the seaker was looking for.

To this proposal I say nay. or prehaps oink.

wtf? (-1, Flamebait)

Cagey B (536967) | more than 12 years ago | (#2588335)

this bozo's bright idea basically amounts to 'listing all the topics and subjects your website is not about' in order to defeat metaspammers. I have never heard of anything more idiotic in my entire life, I am not kidding.

Just in case you, the reader, don't understand why this is so ridiculous, let me try and spell it out: It is safe to assume any given website is already not about %99.999999999999999999 of all conceivable topics.

Writing down which topics your site isn't about is about as smart as wearing a nametag of all the names that definately aren't yours.

The Semantic Web (5, Interesting)

mike_sucks (55259) | more than 12 years ago | (#2588343)

Surely this kind of issue is what Tim Berners-Lee and the W3C is trying to address with the Semantic Web. [w3.org]

The problem with content on the web today is that while it is perfectly readable by humans, it is incomprenesible to machines. If Tim and Co get their way, and I for one would love to see the Semantic Web catch on, then we can get rid of kluges like the Anti-Thesaurus, HTML meta keywords and the like.

Strings convey no meaning out of context (1)

SgtChaireBourne (457691) | more than 12 years ago | (#2588535)

Whether you put them in meta elements (keyword, antithesaurus) or in the body of the document, strings by themselves have no meaning, no connection to the concept which they represent.

Take for example a search for the string tar, which will yield documents containing:
tar -zxf update.tgz, or cp update.tar update.old, or roofing tar , or jeg tar en øl nu

Each instance of tar above has a different meaning, but the same spelling. When you get into misspellings, spelling variations, and conjugation, then the actual concept is even harder to associate with a given range of strings.

Even Google searches are for strings and not concepts, but Google's ranking algorithm [google.com] relies on which pages get the most links from pages that also get the most links. However, you'll still get different results for color vs. colour and tyre vs tire. Because the algorithm only reflects how people have chosen their links, it does, from time [theregister.co.uk] to time [theregister.co.uk] give unusual associations. ;)

Could have done with this years ago (2, Funny)

Curl E (226133) | more than 12 years ago | (#2588387)

A long time ago (in a galaxy far away) I kept a playlist of my radio show. I had one page per month. One month I played Prono For Pyros "Pets" twice. Guess which web page in our department had the highest hit count for the next year...

What about !keyword? (3, Informative)

Ed Avis (5917) | more than 12 years ago | (#2588435)

I thought we already had this by prefixing keywords with a ! sign. For example, the BSD FAQ [uni-giessen.de] used to have the line:
Keywords: FAQ 386bsd NetBSD FreeBSD !Linux

Presumably the same could be done for <meta name="keywords"> in HTML.

I like the idea (2)

Florian Weimer (88405) | more than 12 years ago | (#2588449)

In some jurisdictions, you get into trouble if a search engine refers to one of your pages when you enter a trademark (and you are not entitled to use that trademark). This way, you could easily tell search engines not to list your pages when such a trademark is present in the query. Complying with court orders wouln't be a major problem any more.

However, you could show some information if people visit with a certain Referrer header, directing them to more useful pages. This works in the majority of cases, and it doesn't need much cooperation from the search engines.

XML Search engines (-1)

sales_worldwide (244279) | more than 12 years ago | (#2588503)

XML is the correct way to develop search engines. You mark up your page with a standard XMLL based schema, and

For example, you may enter you car with make, color, year, price, engine size etc. on your own web page.

As long as a standard XML schema exists, I could then search, using a standard XML search engine, the net for all pages with cars for sale falling in a certain price range., certain country/state, colour etc. etc. - no B2B centre needed!

Exclude genealogy pages; nonsearch tag (1)

texchanchan (471739) | more than 12 years ago | (#2588579)

1. When you search on almost any name of European origin, hundreds of genealogy pages show up. Including -genealogy -rootsweb -descendants only works to a certain extent. Many people would be grateful for genealogy page exclusion.

2. Some sites have menus on each page listing every topic on the site. You search on a word and get every page in the site returned, including those that mention the topic only in the menu. A tag such as this <nonsearchable> </nonsearchable> surrounding the menus might aid in solving this problem.

The Wrong Tree (2)

karb (66692) | more than 12 years ago | (#2588604)

Unfortunately, these problems are always better solved by stronger search engines. Even though it is several orders of magnitude harder for a search engine to figure out that those things aren't important, it's several orders of magnitude easier to get google to do it than it is to convince 10 million web page maintainers to do it.

The Load on Search Engines. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2588890)

I believe that most search engines would implement
this by not indexing those words for that page.
It is the only way to do it without increasing the
load on SE. The other way, no matter how efficiently implemented, would add processing needed to produce results. This means more machines need to be added to the clusters.

Very few webmasters complain about users finding
their site because bad search results.
Most of them are happy to have traffic.

Why this won't work (2)

fleener (140714) | more than 12 years ago | (#2588986)

Most web sites don't have meta tags, but most web designers do want their clients to see impressive hit counts in their traffic reports. Ummm, so who thinks web designers are going to take the time and trouble to add a feature that will decrease traffic?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?