Forum Moderators: open
sorry to step back in time but i wanted to respond to David Brandt's comments about google. this message is in response to the material at the follwoing urls:
[geek.com...]
[salon.com...]
I don't think that Daniel Brandt is causing a fuss about not being ranked high on Google's results. People have not really understood what he is trying to say. This whole thread has missed any of the good stuff that can come out of a discussion like this.
The issues (now obviously subtle ones as no one has picked them up!), that Daniel raises are 2-5 years before their time->that is where the problem is.
Dont' get me wrong, without google's speed and COMPARITIVELY good accuracy I (along with 1000s of others) have been able to locate a wealth of information which I has been of great use.
Over the next decade the world will adopt more and more network technology (not all countries have the resources that the US has and not everyone lives in the US->this might surprise some of you!). As more people go online and more people search the web, the way in which we access information will be paramount to how we function as a society. The access to information which we all use in our day-to-day lives will have an impact on society....obvioulsy! But this impact is not tangible and at the same time is extremely important in the evolution of ideas in the future.
It will impact how CEOs, managers, assistants, researchers etc etc make DECISIONS, and these decisions are what will shape our future as a human race, looking at it on a higher level of abstraction.
Therefore we must start initiating debate amoungst the web community and raise issues like Daniel has. We have an opportunity to work things out globally in the future, together! So why don't we stop cutting people down and respect their opinion.
It has been shown in the past that there is a fine line between earning profits, keeping a sustainable competitive advantage and at the same time ensuring that the gloabl community benefits from information sharing.........I mean look at the Murdoch family, do we really want our search engines to turn into a media monster?
This probably won't happen but what i am trying to say is that if the processes are NOT transparent and we did not erradicate anything that compromised the web community's security against this from happening then everything that you searched for would have no credibility at all, everything would seem fake and real stimulating, important, unique, innovative information would become unaccessible or tainted and this would result in the ultimate failure of The Internet's objectives: sharing knowledge, information, experience and culture.
Perl
-PEACE-NOT-WAR- :)
The Internet doesn't have objectives, the people who use it do. Some of those people may have the objective of sharing knowledge, information, experience and culture, others may have the objective of making money.
Ultimately I believe people vote with their feet. For as long as Google provides the majority with what is requires, whether infromational or commercial, it will be successful.
If Google take any action that upsets large number of users, Google will pay the price by losing those users.
I see this as an Internet form of democracy, or you could say capitolists forces at work. Either way, as long as there are competitors to Google, Google will be wary of doing anything to upset its own market position.
I say a big thanks to Microsoft and Inktomi for ensuring Google remains the best engine on the net. Of course the same thanks could be returned in reverse in the future;)
Objectivity, perspective. No more crusades.
charis humin kai eirene
