Re: [xml-dev] Re: Abuse of this list

["bryan rasmussen" <rasmussen.bryan@gmail.com>]

Well, as a general rule I think spam sites are built because they want
to game the search engines. The search engines should be allowed to
remove sites from their index that attempt to game them.

Cheers,
Bryan Rasmussen

On 6/20/07, Len Bullard <cbullard@hiwaay.net> wrote:
> That would be asymmetric force and one approach.  Not a bad way to pit one
> requirement against another.  It depends on their need for Google.  That
> makes me queasy.  Google is beginning to look more and more like a bad
> steward of the information it uses freely commercially.  Something
> fundamental is beginning to rot in the wide open web infrastructure.
>
> My problem with the copyright approach is 1) that while legally apt, it
> requires serious investment to unless the infringer is polite, 2) it
> establishes the practice that until notified, infringement is acceptable.
> So far, that is how it actually works and I do wonder what the legal beagles
> say about that.  Somewhat like the spyTrux, the game is now to build up an
> otherwise unacceptable basis for a business to a point that the law has to
> change to fit the profits possible.  Dangerous turn in the web's evolution,
> I'd say.
>
> The outcome is the same in this as it is in Declan's (See CNet) problem with
> the WWW closing the doors on a meeting advertised as public:  the tendency
> of open systems to spawn gated subsystems in the face of increasing
> inspection.  It is an intellectually interesting phenomenon.
>
> len
>
> From: bryan rasmussen [mailto:rasmussen.bryan@gmail.com]
>
> Not what I'm getting at. The site seems very close to a Spam blog. The
> bad thing of a spam blog is it makes for bad content and screws up the
> search index rankings of good content.
> How so? Because it drives search results and users to the site when
> what they actually want is to be go somewhere else. This would not be
> a problem if the addition to the content by Stylus increased the
> 'intelligence' of the content, but it lowers it (maybe that should be
> 'intelligibility' of the content). An example of heightening the
> intelligence of content would be Google's own Groups service.
>
> google has a policy against allowing this kind of content into their
> index IIRC. Therefore the solution may not be to use the law but to
> report to google. If google deindexes the site they will probably
> discontinue their practice in order to get back.
>
> Cheers,
> Bryan Rasmussen
>
>
>
>