johnpinochet - 1:25 am on Dec 23, 2004 (gmt 0)

Akogo said:
"Isn't Google a "collection of links" and "ads"?"

When you get right down to it, that is all it really is, albeit with a powerful algorithm, brilliant employees, and other products.

ownerrim said:
"directories that blend adsense panels with listed sites to the extent that the user is made to think that the ads are actually listings in the directory."

Bottom line this is against the TOS. If a directory isn't doing this how can we fault them?

Macro said:
"No it isn't. It's a massive collection of data, frequently updated on a gigantic scale, which uses a constantly tweaked algorithm to attempt to serve people with the most relevant results for their searches. It will stop listing me if I so desire, it obeys robots.txt, and it does all kinds of other polite things.

Comparing Google to scraper scum is hilarious."

Great definition. I think both Akogo and you are correct. Upfront it is a "collection of links" and "ads". Behind the scenes it is what you said. I re-read his post several times and can't find that he compared Google to scraper scum. If you would kindly pull out the sentence that refers to this, that would be great.

In any event, to all, I'm still confused about what constitutes a site that is pi**ing off so many people. Google's dmoz clone is in the results. Yahoo's directory is in the results. Dmoz is in the results. And yes there are a few dmoz clones in the results. To be honest, quite a few of the dmoz clones have done the original one better, i.e. faster loads, easier on the eyes, etc. So are some of these sites the culprits? If so why? If not, how about a reference link where we can see some of these sites?

In any event, I personally like seeing directories in the results. I would love to see more expert bookmarks in the results, i.e. John Hopkins Public Health doctor lists his Public Health bookmarks, etc.

Perhaps a "no directories" button, much like an "adult content off" button would make people happy?