[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Pure sophism:
> >First, Google is not mandated as central by any standards body. There
> >is no "uddi.org" that decides who gets into the search engine game or
> >not.
That's like saying that Windows development is not centralized because
anyone can write an operating system. Technically untrue, and
irrelevant besides.
> >Second, Google has no information about a site (except synthesized
> >data like PageRank) that you cannot get from the site itself.
This is patently false. Google adds tremendous value as an
"introduction broker" by tracking information from users of the "google
toolbar", random clickthrough statistics, and all sorts of text analysis
(not just links) of cached copies of the data. None of that information
is "free" or "open" by any stretch of the imagination.
> >Therefore, once Google does the introduction, you do not ever need to
> >use them again. If you want to tell Google about your site you give
it
You don't even need to use them at all to *do* the introduction. This
argument is irrelevant.
> >Third, as a consequence of the second point, Google has no
information
> >(except ... PageRank) about a site that is not equally available to
This is a lie, as I pointed out above.
> >Fourth, Google's way of addressing resources is by their URIs. That
> >means that once I get an introduction through Google, I can introduce
> >a third party without going through Google again. UDDI uses UUIDs and
> >those UUIDs are specific to some particular registry.
Wrong about UDDI, and irrelevant because it's the "introduction broker"
or directory services that we're talking about, not the actual visit
once the introduction is brokered.
It defies reason that we would even be having a disagreement about
something so absurd, and a waste of time to try wading through such
specious logic, so this is my last post on the topic.
|
