On 7/7/2015 5:43 PM, Lyndon Nerenberg wrote:
On Jul 7, 2015, at 3:43 PM, jwsmobile <j...@jwsss.com> wrote:
If there were a technical reason to keep it in a simple format that would be
fine, but as Al K pointed out quite some time ago, Google already indexes all
of this quite fine as it and most search engines do, so the list is text
searchable.
There are (at least) two fallacies here:
1) The entire planet has 24x7 ubiquitous and effectively free internet
connectivity, and
2) All the visually impaired have software that can cleanly, accurately, and
efficiently scrape the browser results these various web search pages display,
and can articulate them clearly in an alternate format. This also goes for
figuring out how to use the search pages to begin with.
--lyndon
Not sure what fallacy you see here. The list goes to a location online
that is searchable. Search engines index the information from there.
Near as I can tell Jay plans on it being online 24/7 and there are no
blocks to search engines reading the information and including it in
their indexes.
Nothing about html format prevents search engines from capturing the
information as accurately as text formatting. My point is, that keeping
it in text format is not a requirement to make put it in a form that it
can be indexed.
And I pointed out that some people had warned that all of our
discussions were being included in search engines <Google>, as a
possible source of objection. I only included that point because the
same people lobbying for text form may also be the ones who may not want
list traffic in search engines, and I conceded that is a separate
point. Apologies to Al for dragging his name into the thread.
Not sure where your 2 points came from.
thanks
Jim
