Jeff,
> The downside I find for "Clever" is that it leads people doing
> net searches to those sites that are accessed "Hit" the most
> dubbing them the most "Authoritative", which is pure YADDA. For
> instance, I am quite sure that is some doctor is looking for
> research on Cancer, they would find the National Cancer research
> center as the most accessed or "Hit" site on that search query
> word. Yet that is likely not even in the top ten most current
> Cancer research sites on the net, but IS the most frequently "Hit"
> site. Hardly "Authoritative", especially in all areas of Cancer
> research. This would tend to attempt to relegate other "More
> Authoritative" research centers on Cancer to a second class position
> if one is using "Clever" as their primary search engine.
The orignal train of thought was alternatives to dependence on
domain names as 'authoritative,' but in any case, its well known
that people doing net searches dub as most "Authoritative" the
sites that are *listed* first, regardless of the site's basis (or bias).
Thus, for a start, *serious searchers use more than one engine - so
anything that offers diversity in the way listings are organized is a
Good Think in my book.
The Clever advantage is that it gets away from 'most accessed' to
at least an approximation of what *others in the field* think are
most worthwhile pointing to. In this sense, it's simply building on
the recognition that a site's 'favorites' are not just randomly
'interesting' but quite likely to be relevant.
==
Btw, re my query
> Does anybody get on the net expecting privacy anymore,
> anyhow?
see
http://www.telepolis.de/tp/english/inhalt/co/2839/1.html
Felix Stalder, "The End of Privacy as the Triumph of
Neoliberalism," 12 May 99
kerry
