Kerry and all,
Kerry Miller wrote:
> 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).
Very true, and really part of my point. However the "Clever"
search engine from IBM does not view searches in that manner.
Hence my follow-up point which I expanded upon slightly.
>
> 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.
Oh, not doubt you are likely correct to a point here Kerry. However
to market it as some sort of panacea, as now IBM is doing given the
CNN article and now Television plug, is another thing entirely.
>
>
> 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.
This begs the question, "Relevant compared to what"? Or,
"what is 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
I read this article with great interest. Thank you for pointing it out,
it was quite interesting indeed. I have allot of experience with privacy
issues in my own personal experiences. I have had several court battles
in this regard (I won all of them BTW >;) ). Privacy is for the most part,
up to the individual, as it should be. One should not be discriminated,
as industry does in many types of situations. I have found it to be
very dangerous is some cases to provide too much information as once
you have done so you as an individual have little idea as to where that
information may wind up or be "Modified" and than be passed on in
an inaccurate manner to some other organization.
SO in conclusion, I partly agree with the theme of this article, but only
to a degree. One can protect ones privacy to a great degree and win
the war on an individual basis if one is persistent. If one is not, and
also
not aware of the attempts to gain personal information, one could be
greatly damaged and not even know it. This is why I agree with the
EU's decision on this issue. It is a good big step.
>
>
> kerry
Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact Number: 972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
