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!

Google and Yahoo! Working Together On Better Web Indexing

CmdrTaco posted more than 7 years ago | from the my-robots.txt-thanks-you dept.

94

Karzz1 writes "In an exclusive video interview with WebProNews, Yahoo and Google announced a collaborative site called sitemaps.org. Yahoo!'s Tim Mayer states in the video, 'This is something we are announcing tonight at around 9 PM tonight (Las Vegas) Google and Yahoo have gotten together to provide webmasters and publishers a unified way to send their content... let our search engines know about new and existing content.'"

cancel ×

94 comments

What About Microsoft? (5, Interesting)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 7 years ago | (#16871392)

Well, I went to the sitemaps.org site & looked around for the people owning/running/maintaining the page. In the TOS, I found it to start with:
Terms of service

This is a contract between you and each of the sponsors of Sitemaps.org: Google, Inc., Yahoo, Inc., and Microsoft Corporation (referred to collectively in this agreement as the "Sponsors," "we," or "us"). By using the Sitemaps.org website (the "Website") you agree to be bound by the following terms and conditions (the "Terms of Service").

Scope of Terms of Services; License

These Terms of Service govern your use of the Website. The Sponsors' copyrights in the sitemaps protocol specification, as published on the Website (the "Specification"), are licensed to you under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (version 2.5). Other than the Sponsors' copyrights in this Specification, no intellectual property rights of any kind are granted or may arise under these Terms of Service, whether express, implied or otherwise.
So as you can see, Microsoft is also involved in a project under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (version 2.5). Which is in and of itself something newsworthy in my opinion--since they're so often played as the bad guy on Slashdot. Frankly, the article states:
"The quality of your index is predicated by the quality of your sources and Windows Live Search is happy to be working with Google and Yahoo! on Sitemaps to not only help webmasters, but also help consumers by delivering more relevant search results so they can find what they're looking for faster," said Ken Moss, General Manager of Windows Live Search at Microsoft.
So why is Microsoft omitted from the summary & title of this news? Surely their Windows Live Search is contributing just as much as Yahoo!'s search or Google's search engine.

I'm confused--when Microsoft does something good, do we just ignore it? You know, I'm all for criticizing their evil plans for world domination in the software market but shouldn't news be subjective not objective even if it is only for nerds?

Side note, I'll bet this post hits rock bottom like any other post that says something positive about Microsoft [slashdot.org] .

Spinning (1)

CheeseburgerBrown (553703) | more than 7 years ago | (#16871532)

This is obviously a tech-community spin to avoid tainting the news from the start.

Like if you were hosting a conference on global peace you might keep quiet about Dubya being a keynote speaker.

Re:What About Microsoft? (0)

HoldenManiaC (1028188) | more than 7 years ago | (#16871566)

Its not the fact that we ignore the good things that Microsoft do...its the fact that that Microsoft rarely do a sumthing good that we get distracted by the bad things its doin....take XP for example....everytime Microsoft do something good, i still can't help but want to throw my computer out the window because XP is always crapping out on me. plus the fact that the good things that Microsoft *rarely* do are always so small and insignificant that no one cares.

Re:What About Microsoft? (4, Funny)

Himring (646324) | more than 7 years ago | (#16871974)

Its not the fact that we ignore the good things that Microsoft do...its the fact that that Microsoft rarely do a sumthing good that we get distracted by the bad things its doin....

...

ahh, my hed asplode....

Lard Thunder 'n Jesus! (1)

ShieldW0lf (601553) | more than 7 years ago | (#16879716)

Can you believe de nerve of dem bys down dere me son?

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<urlset xmlns="http://www.sitemaps.org/schemas/sitemap/0.9 ">
<url>
<loc>http://www.example.com/</loc>
<lastmod>2005-01-01</lastmod>
<changefreq>monthly</changefreq>
<priority>0.8</priority>
</url>
<url>
<loc>http://www.example.com/catalog?item=12&amp;de sc=vacation_hawaii</loc>
<changefreq>weekly</changefreq>
</url>
<url>
<loc>http://www.example.com/catalog?item=73&amp;de sc=vacation_new_zealand</loc>
<lastmod>2004-12-23</lastmod>
<changefreq>weekly</changefreq>
</url>
<url>
<loc>http://www.example.com/catalog?item=74&amp;de sc=vacation_newfoundland</loc>
<lastmod>2004-12-23T18:00:15+00:00</lastmod>
<priority>0.3</priority>
</url>
<url>
<loc>http://www.example.com/catalog?item=83&amp;de sc=vacation_usa</loc>
<lastmod>2004-11-23</lastmod>
</url>
</urlset>


Take it from me, me bys, dere's no better place fer a vacation den up e're on de rock where de liquors hard and de sluts are everywhere!

Re:What About Microsoft? (1)

Phu5ion (838043) | more than 7 years ago | (#16875440)

Its not the fact that we ignore the good things that Microsoft do...its the fact that that Microsoft rarely do a sumthing good that we get distracted by the bad things its doin....take XP for example....everytime Microsoft do something good, i still can't help but want to throw my computer out the window because XP is always crapping out on me. plus the fact that the good things that Microsoft *rarely* do are always so small and insignificant that no one cares.

Like, the Office grammar check crapping out on you?

Re:What About Microsoft? (1)

HoldenManiaC (1028188) | more than 7 years ago | (#16879836)

no...thats the firefox spell check :D

Re:What About Microsoft? (4, Funny)

Kozz (7764) | more than 7 years ago | (#16871758)

I'm confused--when Microsoft does something good, do we just ignore it?

You must be new here.

Re:What About Microsoft? (3, Informative)

Salvance (1014001) | more than 7 years ago | (#16871798)

What I find interesting is that this article was submitted multiple times last night with Microsoft's name actually included Microsoft in the title (the Firehose is a pretty cool feature of being a subscriber BTW since you can see all submissions, not just accepted ones). Either the wording wasn't as concise/clear (I don't remember), or there was a little bias exhibitted by the editors.

Re:What About Microsoft? (3, Funny)

ScentCone (795499) | more than 7 years ago | (#16872528)

or there was a little bias exhibitted by the editors

Is that like being a little pregnant?

Re:What About Microsoft? (2, Informative)

mpcooke3 (306161) | more than 7 years ago | (#16871818)

To be fair google and yahoo are the big search engine players, MSN search is under 15% of the market compared to say googles at around 45% and yahoo at around 30%.

Source: http://searchenginewatch.com/showPage.html?page=21 56431 [searchenginewatch.com]

Re:What About Microsoft? (3, Insightful)

joto (134244) | more than 7 years ago | (#16872320)

In other words, MSN is bigger in the search market, than firefox is in the browser market.

Re:What About Microsoft? (1)

crumley (12964) | more than 7 years ago | (#16872640)

Right, Firefox is a distant second in browsers, while microsoft is a distant third in search.

Re:What About Microsoft? (1)

mpcooke3 (306161) | more than 7 years ago | (#16872824)

Well if you look closely at the picture in the article you can see that Google is the only one to make it. MSN and Yahoo are just disposable booster rockets.

And yes, firefox market share is small.

Re:What About Microsoft? (4, Informative)

Karzz1 (306015) | more than 7 years ago | (#16871904)

I was the one who submitted this article and the reason MS was not mentioned is that they were not involved in the video interview that was released. I could have been a bit more specific with regards to the description though, so as not to ignore MS involvement in the project.

Re:What About Microsoft? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16871996)

I could have been a bit more specific with regards to the description though, so as not to ignore MS involvement in the project.
This isn't your fault, don't apologize for anything. My original post about lack of Microsoft was actually targeted at the editors who select stories. I'm just trying to raise concern that the "Slashdot Criteria for story selection" now includes spin against Microsoft and they don't like stories that mention Microsoft doing good [slashdot.org] .

Re:What About Microsoft? (3, Funny)

pboulang (16954) | more than 7 years ago | (#16873704)

That is completely new behavior on the part of the editors. In the past they have always had the utmost journalistic integrity and wrote the book on balanced reporting. Maybe they are being held captive kidnappers and this is their cry for help. You should call the FBI to come in and investigate.

Re:What About Microsoft? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16876370)

I was the one who submitted this article and the reason MS was not mentioned is that they were not involved in the video interview that was released. I could have been a bit more specific with regards to the description though, so as not to ignore MS involvement in the project.
So the quote from TFA is from Microsoft and they use Microsoft all over TFA that you linked. So you admit to not reading TFA at all, just watching the video and you're modded as +5 informative? Sounds just like typical moderator behavior on this site.

Re:What About Microsoft? (2, Insightful)

Coward the Anonymous (584745) | more than 7 years ago | (#16872318)

I'm confused--when Microsoft does something good, do we just ignore it? You know, I'm all for criticizing their evil plans for world domination in the software market but shouldn't news be subjective not objective even if it is only for nerds?

You got those backwards. Objective means without bias while the news you are complaining about is subjective, it is biased towards downplaying the good things Microsoft does.

Semantics, they'll get you everytime.

Re:What About Microsoft? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16872464)

Side note, I'll bet this post hits rock bottom like any other post that says something positive about Microsoft.

Phaw! I bet you're just pissed because that comment broke your karma whore streak.

Re:What About Microsoft? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16872544)

You have the meanings of subjective and objective confused.

Re:What About Microsoft? (2, Interesting)

_Sprocket_ (42527) | more than 7 years ago | (#16872612)

Side note, I'll bet this post hits rock bottom like any other post that says something positive about Microsoft


Sometimes I get this petty little feeling that there should be a "-1, Martyr Complex" mod option. But of course, this only feeds said complex. And that's the problem with a lot of moderations - sometimes its more effective responding with why an opinion might be missing something.

Having said that - responding is also only so effective. The linked example works well to demonstrate it. In the responses this down-modded post got, someone took the time to point out to you that "free" was not an issue of cost. Your entire post was derailed. Now you moan and groan about the injustices visited upon you due to anti-Microsoft sentiment. You're either refusing to listen, are slow on the pick-up, or are intentionally trolling.

Back on point...

Sure - there's a fair amount of anti-Microsoft sentiment here. I like it. You'll have to excuse me if I don't gush about Microsoft's latest venture like so much of the rest of the industry. But I will agree that we must be guarded to ensure we don't allow ourselves to get too carried away.

Next time - have the conviction in your opinion to state it without the cheap mod / martyrdom ploy.

Re:What About Microsoft? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16872838)

Sometimes I get this petty little feeling that there should be a "-1, Martyr Complex" mod option.
And I'm starting to wish there was a "-1, psychoanalysis bullshit" mod option.

What's wrong with pointing out that anything pro microsoft is bad on Slashdot? What's wrong with providing proof of that sentiment?

Re:What About Microsoft? (1)

_Sprocket_ (42527) | more than 7 years ago | (#16873082)

What's wrong with pointing out that anything pro microsoft is bad on Slashdot? What's wrong with providing proof of that sentiment?


Nothing. But claiming "I bet this gets down-modded" and then showing a previous example of a down-mod doesn't add anything to the point. Especially if that down-mod was shown to be accurate. Go back and re-read what I wrote.

It should be stressed that the "I bet I get modded" schtick applies to anything, not just the Slashdot-criticisms.

Missing a few Sprockets. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16873566)

Nothing. But claiming "I bet this gets down-modded" and then showing a previous example of a down-mod doesn't add anything to the point. Especially if that down-mod was shown to be accurate. Go back and re-read what I wrote.
The original post was modded as flamebait. If it was modded off-topic, fine. It was modded as flamebait because I said something nice about Microsoft. Go back and re-read what I wrote & stop being so blind about basic anti-Microsoft sentiment on Slashdot.

Re:Missing a few Sprockets. (1)

_Sprocket_ (42527) | more than 7 years ago | (#16874100)

The original post was modded as flamebait. If it was modded off-topic, fine. It was modded as flamebait because I said something nice about Microsoft. Go back and re-read what I wrote & stop being so blind about basic anti-Microsoft sentiment on Slashdot.


You're right. One of the better mods should have been "off-topic" as most of the post was. The closest you seemed to come on that one was:
I know it's not open source and the license I got from them was super flaky. But in the interests of being able to use every technology available to me, I'll learn .NET. I'm more marketable to employers and, hell let's face it, even coding Microsoft libraries can be fun.

So you'll find some of their free (yes, free) software on my machine. Now, I had to pay for XP to be able to install that ... but I still feel like I paid for XP & not the Express tools.


And that's where it starts coming close to flamebait. The only question would be if you're intentionally trying to confuse the "free" meaning or not. Trolls willfully do it.

In any case, your post is a poor example of retribution for saying nice things. You even pointed out yourself that you should have gotten "off-topic" mods. I suppose if you did, it simply would have been more anti-Microsoft sentiment and not because of the post itself being poorly conceived.

Re:Missing a few Sprockets. (1)

Raenex (947668) | more than 7 years ago | (#16881260)

My God but you are a karma whore. You resort to posting anonymously for follow-ups? Is there some prize for having a high karma history that I don't know about? Pathetic.

Re:Missing a few Sprockets. (1)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 7 years ago | (#16889938)

News flash, this site is about discussions. People set anonymous cowards to -7 so they don't have to read bullshit like the above. It isn't about being a karma whore, it's about making trite arguments invisible. It's also about being able to tell someone to go fuck themselves when they called you pathetic.

Understand genius?

Honestly, what did the above comments (or your own even) add to the fucking relevant discussion?

My God but you are a karma whore. You resort to posting anonymously for follow-ups? Is there some prize for having a high karma history that I don't know about? Pathetic.
My God but you are stupid. You resort to replying to anonymous follow-ups? Is there some prize for taking the conversation off-topic? Pathetic.

Re:Missing a few Sprockets. (1)

Raenex (947668) | more than 7 years ago | (#16891638)

I replied to an anonmyous coward that wasn't really anonymous, and that was following the conversation. You're a karma whore, and it was fun to call you on it.

Re:What About Microsoft? (1)

homey of my owney (975234) | more than 7 years ago | (#16876042)

> shouldn't news be subjective not objective even if it is only for nerds? Umm, I think we all got your point, but Subjective would make the omission fine and expected. It's Objective we want...

better togethor than alone. google sucks! (0, Troll)

Asshat_Nazi (946431) | more than 7 years ago | (#16871412)


ENOUGH OF THIS GAY BANTER, ON WITH THE TROLLING!!!

8====D~~



During my years as a councilor at a Boy Scout camp, I have had the chance of many experiences. The chance to see naked boys in the community showers and the sight of sexy bodies going for a dip in the lake but one memory comes back clearer than ever.

First let me introduce myself. My name is Joshua, but friends call me Josh for short, I am 17 years old and about 5 foot 11 with a really toned body. I run 2 mile each morning right after I wake up to keep myself in shape. I had always loved the outdoors and I have plans to be a teacher when I got older so I thought teaching kids is going to be a great experience for me and that's how I became involved in the scouting program.

It was my second year at scout camp being a councilor and that comes with some major seniority, and that was the ability to have the over 21 staff buy me alcohol. One night after a stressful day of working with a bunch of crying whiny little kids I decided its time to crack open my 1/5 of jack. I sit back in my tent relaxed just slowly drinking the night away when Caleb popped his head into my tent. He was 16 years old with a body to die for, he was center for his High School football team and had a six
pack any guy would give his left nut for.

"Hey josh," Caleb muttered, I could tell he had been drinking, " come over to my tent, I cant find my flash light." So I stand to the best of my ability and stumble following him over to his tent, and fall in, shining my light around till he finds his. Then I take the last drink of my jack and lay the bottle down why I lay there looking up into the dark tent ceiling. All of a sudden my dick began to get rock hard as a thought of a plan. I pulled my 8 inch dick out and started jacking off and said "Caleb I am going to masturbate in your tent." "Na you wouldn't dare do anything like that" he replied as he shined his flashlight on my hand as I slowly pumped my cock. He looked at my cock with wide eyes as I began to pump a little faster. I saw him reach over and take off his boxers and began to play with his 5-1/2 inch cock. I laughed at him and said "Wow you really do have a small cock why don't you jack me off and see how it is to hold a real cock on this boy hands."

He looked at me and shook his head no, I reach over and forced his hand away from his cock and began to jack him off he followed suit and began to do the same with me. It feel good because he was going at a fairly fast pace and I began to moan softly. Then he did something I didn't expect he move his mouth over my dick and began to softly suck it. His bobbed his head up and down making sure to please my dick equally with his tongue. He moved his dick over my mouth and I began to suck it, taking it in inch by inch till I hit his pubes then I began to take it in and out slowly. I took my mouth off his dick and used my tongue to pleasure the left ball then the right, then taking them both into my mouth being careful. As we continued to 69 it up, I thought I heard a noise outside so I moved slightly and apparently he took this as a sigh to stop and got off, I was pissed so I grabbed his hand and placed it back on my cock as he began to jerk me off again he got up took off his boxers and said to me Fuck me josh, Fuck me hard"

I couldn't resist this little hot stud so I placed him on the floor and put my cock to his virgin hole and began to softly push inward. I heard him grunt softly as in pain and I stopped; keeping my cock still it was about half way in. Keep going I heard him mutter and I began to put more pressure till my pubes touched his ass. I said here we go as I began to slowly fuck this tight virgin man hole enjoying each pleasure able in and out I took. I began to pump faster and faster letting my balls made contact with his ass.

i am Cumming I muttered as I released 5 huge squirts of my man juice inside his virgin hole. I quickly drew out and turned him over and began to give him a blow job leaving nothing in question and within 30 seconds my mouth was filled full of this studs seed as I drank each gulp that he so graciously gave me. I gave him a firm kiss on the lips and said Good night my Caleb as I walked back to my tent and fell asleep at 2:09.

fuck, it's been a while. -=9qks7sjhs700..**asgdk=- (1)

Asshat_Nazi_v2.0 (989409) | more than 7 years ago | (#16871462)

time tunr on the EAT bsd for other ways trolling under skids. mine is forth in the fourth term for vehicles under time.

jason has a firm grip on shitstick.. just thought you would wanna know.

keep posts on topic

rate this post "+5 donkey dong" please

7

The Department Raises a Valid Point (1)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 7 years ago | (#16871466)

from the my-robots.txt-thanks-you dept.
As we learned a short while ago [slashdot.org] , this initiative will make it that much easier for bots to detect what content a site has to offer. Is this good or bad for the end users of the internet--will it just increase the incentive for spiders and bots to crawl sites? What is the real purpose of this collaboration? To me it looks like an attempt for the search engines to get content providers to make the search engine's job that much easier.

Re:The Department Raises a Valid Point (2, Insightful)

Rob T Firefly (844560) | more than 7 years ago | (#16871636)

What is the real purpose of this collaboration? To me it looks like an attempt for the search engines to get content providers to make the search engine's job that much easier.
That makes sense, though. The whole reason for the web is the content provided by content providers, and they need the search engines to know what they have to offer just as badly as the search engines need the content to search for. It's all symbiotic, and it is just logical that one side is willing to help the other do something that ultimately helps both sides.

Re:The Department Raises a Valid Point (1)

kfg (145172) | more than 7 years ago | (#16871658)

To me it looks like an attempt for the search engines to get content providers to make the search engine's job that much easier.

Yeeeeeeeeeeeah, and. . .?

KFG

Re:The Department Raises a Valid Point (2, Informative)

garcia (6573) | more than 7 years ago | (#16872348)

Is this good or bad for the end users of the internet--will it just increase the incentive for spiders and bots to crawl sites?

I've been using Google's Sitemaps program for quite some time. I don't want the spiders crawling old and pointless content when there is new and more relevant stuff available for them to display to end users. Why would it increase spidering when they are being specifically told what and how important something is to spider?

I have noticed a significant decrease in the overall spidering of my site (thank god) but more targeted spidering, especially after Google is notified that I have a new sitemap available.

Re:The Department Raises a Valid Point (1)

juiceCake (772608) | more than 7 years ago | (#16876578)

To me it looks like an attempt for the search engines to get content providers to make the search engine's job that much easier.

Which is wonderful. Web developers can use a standardized file to help optimize search engine support, makng their job that much easier, rather than developing these types of guidance or sitemap files separately for each search engine. Afterall, most of my clients, and I'm hazarding a guess here I know, but most clients want their site to be able to be found via a search engine from time to time. It benefits everyone it seems. Nice attempt indeed.

Be really hard to filter (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16871470)

For more information on Harry Potter visit lemonparty.com

wow (1)

forrestf (1028150) | more than 7 years ago | (#16871526)

i can see it now, GooYahoo

Re:wow (2, Funny)

JCOTTON (775912) | more than 7 years ago | (#16871600)

YAGOO

Re:wow (5, Funny)

harrythefish (1028136) | more than 7 years ago | (#16871624)

YaGoo(r)! Surely? Sounds like a Web 2.0 Bukkake party

Re:wow (1)

MORB (793798) | more than 7 years ago | (#16871712)

Sounds like something that could have came out of Renault's car model name generator (Twingo, Kangoo, Logan, Koleos...)

Re:wow (1)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 7 years ago | (#16871676)

i can see it now, GooYahoo


Hey! That's MSGooHoo to you, bub!

Re:wow (1)

forrestf (1028150) | more than 7 years ago | (#16871772)

hahha, Mircosoft GooHoo Live!

Re:wow (1)

Supergibbs (786716) | more than 7 years ago | (#16871892)

I like Yahgoosoft

Re:wow (1)

FuzzyFox (772046) | more than 7 years ago | (#16871792)

Yahoogle!

Re:wow (1)

robbywalker (968790) | more than 7 years ago | (#16871902)

If only a few more engines get involved we could have YahooglycosexcitavistapileSNbotomi

Re:wow (1)

reifman (786887) | more than 7 years ago | (#16875140)

GooHoo?

it's national troll day! good work asshat(s)! (0, Troll)

Fruity McGayGay (1005769) | more than 7 years ago | (#16871580)

I submit David Hasselhoff is the AntiChrist
And I have the proof

How can one explain the phenomenal global success of one of this country's least talented individuals? There are only three ways.

* Mr. Hasselhoff actually is talented, but this goes unnoticed in his own country.
* Mr. Hasselhoff has sold his soul to Satan in return for global success.
* David Hasselhoff is the AntiChrist.

I vote for the latter -- and perhaps, after seeing the facts involved, the rest of the world will agree.

The Facts First, the obvious. Add a little beard and a couple of horns -- David Hasselhoff looks like the Devil, doesn't he? And the letters in his name can be rearranged to spell fad of devil's hash.

What does this mean? Well, Baywatch is David's fad. David is the devil. The Hash is what makes Knight Rider popular in Amsterdam.

(I was actually hoping to make the letters in his name spell out he is of the devil, which would be possible if his middle name was "Ethesis," which it might be. I'm sure his publicist would hide such a middle name if it were true.)

Second -- and most importantly -- David Hasselhoff and his television series were foretold in the Bible. Biblical scholars worldwide may quibble over interpretations, but they all agree on this. For a few telling examples let's skip to the end of the Bible. If any book of the Bible will tell us who the AntiChrist is, it's the Revelation of Saint John, which basically describes the AntiChrist and the Armageddon He causes. I'll just give you the verse, and the current theological interpretation of that verse.

Who is the Beast?
Rev 13:1 And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns The Beast, of course, is David Hasselhoff. The Heads are His separate television incarnations. Young and the Restless, Revenge of the Cheerleaders, Knight Rider, Terror at London Bridge, Ring of the Musketeers, Baywatch and Baywatch Nights. The ten horns represent His musical releases: Crazy For You, David, David Hasselhoff, Do You Love Me?, Du, Everybody Sunshine, I Believe, Looking For Freedom, Night Lover and Night Rockers. Not only does Mitch The Lifeguard literally "rise out of the sea" on Baywatch, but David's musical career has mostly occurred in Europe, a metaphoric rise to fame from across the sea. Rev 13:3 And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed: and all the world wondered after the beast. Of course, this is a reference to his third head: Knight of the Phoenix, the first episode of Knight Rider. In this episode, "Michael Long, a policeman, is shot and left for dead. The shot is deflected by a plate in his head, but ruins his face. He is saved and his face reconstructed. He is reluctant, but agrees to use K.I.T.T. to help the Foundation for Law and Government fight criminals who are 'beyond the reach of the law'. " Knight Rider has been shown in 82 countries. Rev 13:5 And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies; and power was given unto him to continue forty and two months. The following blasphemies are actual quotes from David Hasselhoff -- I read these while he was 42 years old.
"I'm good-looking, and I make a lot of money."

"There are many dying children out there whose last wish is to meet me."

"I'm six foot four, an all-American guy, and handsome and talented as well!"

"Before long, I'll have my own channel -- I'll be like Barney."

"(Baywatch) is responsible for a lot of world peace." which the Hoff said at the Bollywood Oscars. Don't believe me? Read the original article!

And here's a blasphemy that came from David's recent (Feb 2004) visit to the Berlin Wall museum. I couldn't have made something this great up by myself. He was upset that the museum didn't spend more time devoted to his personal role in the fall of Communism. You can read more about it here, if you don't believe me.

The Second Beast: Television
Rev 13:11-13And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon. And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him, and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed. And he doeth great wonders, so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men,

The Second Beast, with it's dual antennae, is obviously the Television -- merely a pawn in Hasselhoff's underworldly regime. His stereo speaker (the dragon's voice) spews forth the blasphemy of Baywatch until He has caused all people of the earth to worship and watch Baywatch and Baywatch Nights. How well has he done? Baywatch is now seen by about one billion viewers in 140 countries -- the most watched series ever.

You probably never knew this, but the entire historical purpose of television has been to attract a worldwide audience for the eventual syndication of Baywatch. And how does it accomplish this global distribution? Via satellite - from heaven to the Earth.

Rev 13:15 And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed. How does television work? By giving life unto Hasselhoff's image. I'm pretty sure the second part hasn't happened yet.

Lifeguards: Denizens of the Underworld

These biblical revelations will show that the lifeguards on Baywatch are foretold as servants of the Devil. (Need I say who that is again?)
Rev 20:11And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them

Rev 20:13And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them...
Doesn't this sound like an exact description of what the lifeguards on Baywatch do? They sit on their big white wooden throne, and watch out over the sea -- waiting for a dying person to get cast up. Rev 9:6 And in those days shall men seek to find death, and shall not find it; and shall desire to die, and death shall flee from them.

One word: CPR
Rev 10:2 And he had in his hand a little book open: and he set his right foot upon the sea, and his left foot on the earth, Sounds like a lifeguard, eh? Standing on the beach reading a paperback?

Rev 17:3-5 ...and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns. And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication: And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.

and if that wasn't enough, try Ezekiel 23:17 And the Babylonians came to her into the bed of love, and they defiled her with their whoredom, and she was polluted with them, and her mind was alienated from them.

The fabled "Whore of Babylon." Well, people have been calling Hollywood "Babylon" since long before I was making web pages. And of all the women in Hollywood, whose wedding night video is the most popular? Hmmm.... Did someone say "Barb Wire?"
Rev 18:11 And the merchants of the earth shall weep and mourn over her; for no man buyeth their merchandise any more Do you know any merchants who invested heavily in the acting career of this "whore of Babylon?" I've seen that "VIP" show of hers, and I'd be weeping if I had spent money on the merchandising rights.
Rev. 18:21 ... a mighty angel took up a stone like a great millstone, and cast it into the sea,...

Speaking of lifeguards chucking rocks at innocent people, listen to this excerpt from a recent lawsuit against his Hasselness: "while Plaintiff was in the audience of the Rosie O'Donnell Show, Defendandt DAVID HASSELHOFF came on stage and threw a stack of cards depicting himself into the audience, striking Plaintiff in the eye. . . [he] should have known that throwing cards into an audience could cause injury to the audience."
Rev 18:14 And the fruits that thy soul lusted after are departed from thee, and all things which were dainty and goodly are departed from thee, and thou shalt find them no more at all. He stands to lose money in this lawsuit -- or maybe even all those dainty and goodly things he bought.

The Number of the Beast
The Bible shows us another way to prove a person is the AntiChrist, namely through numerology. Rev 13:18 says: "Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six."

That's a bit cryptic, to be sure. One score is twenty, so threescore is 60, the number of the beast is 666.

Now, the way biblical scholars and numerologists usually convert the names of men into their numbers is through a simple numerical code. Let's assign the 26 letters of the alphabet the numbers 1 through 26. It looks like this:

a 1 i 9 q 17 y 25

b 2 j 10 r 18 z 26

c 3 k 11 s 19

d 4 l 12 t 20

e 5 m 13 u 21

f 6 n 14 v 22

g 7 o 15 w 23

h 8 p 16 x 24

Now, we take the letters from Mr. Hasselhoff's name, assign numbers to them, and calculate his number.

D A V I D H A S S E L H O F F

4 1 22 9 4 8 1 19 19 5 12 8 15 6 6

Now, since thirteen is such a fitting number for evil, let's multiply the first 13 numbers together. The total (65,874,124,800) is approximately 6.6 billion. Tack on the remaining 6's from the end of his name, and you've got yourself the mark of the beast.

Another tactic you could use would be to add the letters in "David" (I think you should get 40) and the letters in Hasselhoff (99) and then multiply them together. 40 x 99 = 3960. Now, 3960 is 660 x 6. And of course, 660 plus 6 is -- again -- the mark of the beast.

Not enough proof for you? Well, let's see what else the winning combination of the Bible and numerology have in store for David.....

As he explains it in his interview, David Hasselhoff first decided to act at the age of 7 when he saw a local production of Rumplestiltskin. His acting debut was in Peter Pan. Knight Rider ended its run in 1986, when Hasselhoff was 32. Baywatch debuted in 1989, when Hasselhoff was 35. His first televised role was as Snapper Foster on the Young and the Restless at the age of 19. If we look at the 37th chapter of the 19th book of the Bible (Psalms) -- at verses 32 and 35, we notice an interesting phenomenon. Take a look:

32. The wicked watcheth the righteous, and seeketh to slay him.
35. I have seen the wicked in great power, and spreading himself like a green bay tree.

Viewers of Baywatch may have thought they were watching the good leader Mitch Buchannon -- whose main job as head lifeguard is to watch over the righteous babes at the beach, and save them. According to the Bible, he is really trying to slay them. But can we be sure that the show in question is actually Baywatch? Well, count the number of letters in Rumplestiltskin and Peter Pan. 15 and 8, right? Now look at those bible verses again. Find the 15th word of verse 35 - and the 8th word from the end of verse 32. Put them together. 35. I have seen the wicked in great power, and spreading himself like a green bay tree. 32. The wicked watcheth the righteous, and seeketh to slay him.

4th? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16871654)

So who is the fourth horseman of the apocalypse?

Typical Slashdot (0, Flamebait)

Volcane (27387) | more than 7 years ago | (#16871776)

How typical of slashdot to not mention that Microsoft is also involved in the site.

That's only because (1)

harrythefish (1028136) | more than 7 years ago | (#16871912)

Microsoft are evil and they suck.

Over compilicated!!! (2, Insightful)

hey (83763) | more than 7 years ago | (#16871822)

Why not just have a link from your main page to an HTML sitemap that links to all pages on your site.
Nice and easy. And usable by people and crawlers.

Re:Over compilicated!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16877298)

You don't manage a big site, do you.

what about robots? (1)

archen (447353) | more than 7 years ago | (#16871858)

Lets say I have robots.txt set to deny everything, but I submit some pages to this thing for indexing. Does the spider obey robots.txt or what was submitted? Actually I'd find it handy to keep the spiders the hell off of my site but just submit a couple pages, but I don't see how that system could be trustworthy at all. Is it just me or is this just another form of meta tags?

Re:what about robots? (1)

Wesley Felter (138342) | more than 7 years ago | (#16878912)

When robots.txt and the sitemap conflict, robots.txt takes precedence. This is because robots.txt is a hard restriction and sitemaps are just a hint.

Subjective... (2, Interesting)

scombs (1012701) | more than 7 years ago | (#16871860)

Example Code from: http://www.sitemaps.org/protocol.html/ [sitemaps.org]
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<urlset xmlns="http://www.sitemaps.org/schemas/sitemap/0.9 ">
<url>
<loc>http://www.example.com/</loc>
<lastmod>2005-01-01</lastmod>
<changefreq>monthly</changefreq>
<priority>0.8</priority>
</urlset>
Is it just me, or does the priority tag seem really objective and arbitrary? One webmaster's .5 could be another's .8...

Re:Subjective... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16871936)

Is it just me, or is the tag lacking its closing tag (or alternatively declaration of content-less)? They're even too stupid to check their very own samples against their very own DTDs!

Re:Subjective... (4, Informative)

LanMan04 (790429) | more than 7 years ago | (#16872004)

That's exactly right. The priority tag only applies to pages on your site, and is a relative measure. So (I would assume) that assigning a priority range of 0 to 0.5 would be the same to the search engine as a range of 0.5 to 1.

In other words, assigning a priority of 1 to all your pages will not affect their ranking vs. *other* sites that appear in the search results, only vs. other pages on your site. And if they're all 1, then you're telling the crawler that they're all equally important, just as if you had assigned them all a value of .5 (or anything else).

Re:Subjective... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16874444)

The priority tag only applies to pages on your site, and is a relative measure. So (I would assume) that assigning a priority range of 0 to 0.5 would be the same to the search engine as a range of 0.5 to 1.

OK, but what if I go to 1000? 10000? 100000000000000000000000?
I think I see a business opportunity here.

Re:Subjective... (2, Funny)

Pollardito (781263) | more than 7 years ago | (#16874638)

You see, most blokes, you know, will be marking all their pages at ten. You're on ten here, all the way up, all the way up, all the way up, you're on ten on your priority. Where can you go from there? Where?

I don't know.

Nowhere. Exactly. What we do is, if we need that extra push over the cliff, you know what we do?

Put it up to eleven.

Eleven. Exactly. One higher.

Re:Subjective... (2, Interesting)

Jeff Molby (906283) | more than 7 years ago | (#16876060)

In other words, assigning a priority of 1 to all your pages will not affect their ranking vs. *other* sites that appear in the search results

Are you sure?

If two pages from different site are determined to be of approximately equal relevance to the search, couldn't a search engine pick a favorite by using the internal priority ranking?

Wouldn't a page on widgets be more relevant coming from a widget-maker (who would give it a higer internal priority than his gadget pages) than a similar page coming from a gadget-maker (who would give it a lower internal priority than his gadget pages)?

I'm not saying this is necessarily a bad thing. It would probably yield better search results. But if things do go that way, I bet you'll find that content makers will quickly abandon the use of internal priorities.

Sorry, LanMan04 (1)

Jeff Molby (906283) | more than 7 years ago | (#16876598)

I misread your post; I'm off-topic. Still, I can't imagine why a content provider would use different priorities. It could only hurt the rankings of some of the low-priority pages. Unless, of course, the search engines gave your high-priority pages an equivalent boost.

Re:Subjective... (1)

Zarniwoop_Editor (791568) | more than 7 years ago | (#16872052)

It is only a priority relative to your own pages.
So I guess you could say it is very arbitrary but it is only used as a hint to show how the site owner would prefer his content to be spidered. If you had 10 million pages on your website but there were a few hundred you really wanted the spiders to be interested in then you would assign them a higher priority in your sitemap. It is relative to your own site only so it's ok that it works that way I think.

Re:Subjective... (1)

EqualSlash (690076) | more than 7 years ago | (#16872100)

How could this be XML when they left out the closing tag?

Re:Subjective... (1)

scombs (1012701) | more than 7 years ago | (#16872110)

Wow, I'm awesome. The broken link is my own 1337 skills. Let's try this again: http://www.sitemaps.org/protocol.html [sitemaps.org] Mmm, closing tags.

Re:Subjective... (1)

8-bitDesigner (980672) | more than 7 years ago | (#16873032)

Actually, I believe that's priority within the site. So, for example, your homepage might have a "0.8" your "Contact Us" page, might have a "0.5", your "News" section might be a straight "1.0", and your privacy policy a "0.2".

Invalid XML (1)

rHBa (976986) | more than 7 years ago | (#16874548)

As an XML specification that is likely to be used by people who aren't experts don't you think it would have been a good idea to used *valid* XML in the example usage?

GooHoo! (Since GooTube isn't YouGoo) (1)

Tigwyk (855379) | more than 7 years ago | (#16871920)

I'm for once interested in a joint project between search engines. If Google and Yahoo! can play nice, and Microsoft is mentioned as being part of this Web 2.0 menage-a-trois, perhaps something interesting will come of this. But right now it does just look like they want to make it easier to index pages. I've been attempting to submit my sitemaps to google for ages and have yet to see my sites listed when searching for my keywords, but perhaps that'll change in the future if this works out. Guess I'll keep my eyes and ears open.

Text Browsers (2, Interesting)

poindextrose (640377) | more than 7 years ago | (#16871950)

It's too bad that the specification only covers information relevant to search engines.

How about a <description> tag? I would take great interest in a sitemap specification that gives me enough information to navigate major parts of a site with a viewer plugin (of some sort) in a web browser.

There's nothing worse than fumbling around navigating page after page when the web server is slow, the pages are image- or ad-heavy, or the navigation on the page just plain sucks.

Don't be lazy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16872260)

Write (or snag [google.co.uk] ) some generic xsl and use wget and xsltproc. All my sites have used xltproc via cron to regenerate a html sitemap from the google sitemap xml since the sitemap thing was launched.

If you're using a text mode browser, this should be obvious...

Re:Text Browsers (1)

dsaraujo (798502) | more than 7 years ago | (#16878570)

You just wrote the principles of meta tags in web pages. They didn't work.

Re:Text Browsers (1)

poindextrose (640377) | more than 7 years ago | (#16885006)

The difference here being that this would be the equivilant of consolodating that information into one file for all the major sections of your site, permitting easy navigation with a small download.

How do I submit a sitemap to Yahoo/Microsoft? (2, Interesting)

lanfor (644610) | more than 7 years ago | (#16872374)

So how can I submit my sitemap to Yahoo! and Microsoft/search.live.com? FAQ says something about sending a HTTP request to <searchengine_URL>/ping?sitemap=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.y oursite.com%2Fsitemap.xml, but it doesn't say what are searchengine-specific urls to use.

Lukasz
Hikipedia - free database of hiking trails [hikipedia.com]

Re:How do I submit a sitemap to Yahoo/Microsoft? (1)

FooAtWFU (699187) | more than 7 years ago | (#16872412)

For Google, at least, there is this Google Sitemaps [google.com] program which seems to predate this particular endeavour (I've been using it for months now). Yahoo... I dunno.

Re:How do I submit a sitemap to Yahoo/Microsoft? (1)

imroy (755) | more than 7 years ago | (#16874006)

Good question. I've been using Google's webmaster tools for a little while now, generating my own sitemap. Even though I have a pretty small site, the information is still interesting and useful. I tried the /ping URL on search.yahoo.com and got redirected (assuming a bad URL). I just tried it with search.live.com and got a 200 response but the text says 'Bad format while processing ping.' (Trust Microsoft to fuck up the HTTP standard). So I don't know what to do. Hopefully the FAQ will be updated to be more specific. So far it looks like it's mostly PR and little substance.

Re:How do I submit a sitemap to Yahoo/Microsoft? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16895296)

I am confused about which URL to use, too. They (G, Y, MS) should make clear which URL to use on their own web sites.

But as for the FAQ on www.sitemaps.org, I guess they are trying to make www.sitemaps.org neutral and open to any other search engines. In addition, I guess if they include their URLs there, some people will shout at Slastdot.org, "This is an unfair advertisement of the three major search engines in disguise of a new open standard!"

Re:How do I submit a sitemap to Yahoo/Microsoft? (1)

blacksmith_tb (855386) | more than 7 years ago | (#16886262)

Worked for me by using
and
Though I have no idea if they're actually going to process it...

I for one... (1)

icedcool (446975) | more than 7 years ago | (#16872430)

Google is going to take over the world... and if there company record is any indication of their rule, I for one welcome our new advanced search indexing overlords.

Parse error in example? (1)

caluml (551744) | more than 7 years ago | (#16872686)

From the site:
Sample XML Sitemap

The following example shows a Sitemap that contains just one URL and uses all optional tags. The optional tags are in italics.

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<urlset xmlns="http://www.sitemaps.org/schemas/sitemap/0.9 ">
<url>
<loc>http://www.example.com/</loc>
<lastmod>2005-01-01</lastmod>
<changefreq>monthly</changefreq>
<priority>0.8</priority>
</urlset>
Are they missing a <url>

Why is this more than what robots.txt can do? (1)

Conficio (832978) | more than 7 years ago | (#16872884)

Many here ask why this is more than robots.txt. For one it offers to add URLs that are driven by databases and parameters. Thing that the SEs do not index too well. It also adds last updated stamps and priority for re-visit.

Why is that important? So if I have one page where I always post the latest news, I can have the spider revisit every hour, so it get indexed ASAP. However the spider can go easy on the rest of my site otherwise. I also can train that spider for a burst, if I have for example an ongoing live event and post results ASAP.

Google was on to this already for a while. however Yahoo's facilities where not so comprehensive and MSN was missing altogether. Now we get a chance to create one single format and have all (big) SEs read it and may be the secondary spiders will catch on too.

I find it only said that they did not incorporate the ROR Resources of Resources [wikipedia.org] RDF framework. I'm also missing a discovery mechanism, such as an extension to the robots.txt or a meta tag (or link rel="...") in the home page of a site.

Another use of this would be to download a full site, as you now know where is starts and what belongs to it.

Overall this is a good thing, where I come from.

This is New? Django has supported this for a while (1)

Derivin (635919) | more than 7 years ago | (#16873254)

The Django web framework added support for 'google sitemaps' over a month ago. Google anounced the details of sitemaps over 3 months ago. Django Sitemaps: http://www.djangoproject.com/documentation/sitemap s/ [djangoproject.com]

Re:This is New? Django has supported this for a wh (1)

deryckh (1028256) | more than 7 years ago | (#16874150)

While it's true that Django has support for the sitemaps protocol and sitemaps are nothing new for Google, Yahoo and MSN's support of the protocol is new.

Not Valid XML! (1)

rHBa (976986) | more than 7 years ago | (#16874440)

Call me an XML nazi but the example usage has unclosed tags:

http://www.sitemaps.org/protocol.html [sitemaps.org]

Re:Not Valid XML! (1)

insanecarbonbasedlif (623558) | more than 7 years ago | (#16877566)

Really? It looks like it's all there (and in all the other examples they have posted):

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<urlset xmlns="http://www.sitemaps.org/schemas/sitemap/0.9 ">
      <url>
            <loc>http://www.example.com/</loc>
            <lastmod>2005-01-01</lastmod>
            <changefreq>monthly</changefreq>
            <priority>0.8</priority>
</urlset>

Re:Not Valid XML! (1)

rHBa (976986) | more than 7 years ago | (#16880570)

The tag is left unclosed.

Re:Not Valid XML! (1)

rHBa (976986) | more than 7 years ago | (#16880574)

Damn, that should read "The <url> tag is unclosed"

Google Sitemaps (1)

Supersonic1425 (903823) | more than 7 years ago | (#16875002)

Google has had this for a while now [google.com] . I had noticed that development has been healthy recently. whereas before it was a relatively unnecessary tool, now it's actually useful.

if it's as useful as Google Sitemaps, then I'm happy with today's news. the protocol does look pretty similar (and by pretty similar, I mean the XML structure is virtually identical). I'm guessing porting Google Sitemaps over to this new one will be painless.

PHP Class for Generating SiteMaps (1)

reifman (786887) | more than 7 years ago | (#16875106)

This fall, I released free source code for people to use a PHP Class to generate SiteMaps for Google - and it seems like the standards group adapted Google's format. The code is perfect for dynamic database driven sites that can't readily use perl-scripts that sometimes perform this task. http://www.idealog.us/2006/09/google_sitemap_.html [idealog.us]

How much is enough? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16875308)

Geez. First, there were meta tags. Then robots.txt. Then this. Plus proprietary indexing-control tags. Plus ridiculous weight factors (like, for example, giving "title" huge weight index). Plus citation index. How much is enough?

What's the problem? Well, let's see. Most of these things have nothing to do with the actual content of the website. Hence, creating bot-friendly website is not directly related to creating user-friendly website anymore. In fact, this two factors often conflict.

Where's theirs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16875624)

They're trying to sell the sitemap.xml idea, yet they themselves have no sitemap.xml [sitemaps.org] file.

Re:Where's theirs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16895268)

Note that the file is not necessarily named as "sitemap.xml".

This may help AJAX apps to be more search-friendly (1)

piprog (933048) | more than 7 years ago | (#16875812)

I just mused [pannonrex.com] about the search-unfriendliness of AJAX apps yesterday and how that could be solved and today the big three are banging (almost) the same door. What do you think how could we go about solving the issue?

I wish a more "open" protocol (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16895730)

Ok, I welcome the new standard to improve search (crawling) quality without increasing (possibly reducing) load on web servers.

However, with the current protocol, a site owner can only send pings to the search engines she knows. Probably Google, Yahoo! Search and Live Search will cover more than 99% now (I am not sure), but it is not very satisfactory since it would block out other minor (or new) engines. (I am the same Coward as #16895296 [slashdot.org] .)

I hope "Sitemap protocol 0.91" will include two additional features:
1. Autodiscovery (like feeds)
2. Some way for a search engine to "subscribe" the sitemap (like mailing lists, not like USENET groups; I am new to feeds and I do not know whether "subscription" of feeds has the same meaning as "subscription" of mailing lists).
Check for New 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...