Posted on 05/16/2006 4:30:51 AM PDT by mkjessup
Let's all learn to say, "GOOGLE" in Chinese. I'll bet they've let the Chinese tap into what we do searches on, and that would allow a re-routing, to whatever they'd like us to see...
If I used your suggestion (which is an excellent suggestion, by the way), he would probably respond by asking, "Where?" And then I would be forced to elaborate on the intransitive verb of "search" with a specific name of a search engine, such as Google, Yahoo, or All the Web, which may lead me into a conversation I didn't have time for at that particular moment. And knowing my luck, by the time I briefly explained the advantages and disadvantages of various and sundry search engines to the first person, someone else in the room would invariably walk up and ask, "Search fer whut?"
At this point, I would either have to say, "Mind your own da*n business" and walk off, or I would have to answer the second person's question by replacing the object of the preposition in the original answer -- the word "it" -- by repeating myself all over again.
Which, as you've likely concluded by now, would lead me right back to my dilemma at the beginning of my conversation with the first person -- how to answer sufficiently a valid question without wasting time by using unnecessary verbiage.
All this could be avoided by answering in the first place: "Why don'cha Google it?"
;-)
It makes for a good pick-up line if you're ever in a bar, though. ;-)
Yeah, it's not ABC simple. But nothing is. It's not hard to put it in quotes. It's simple enough so that everyone can understand. Yes they could and ,I guess, should make it simpler, but most people shouldn't need that.
Just because something needs a very small amount of knowledge dosn't mean that it is messed up. Just some really simple fiddling around with words and you can find pretty much anything you want. Google is simpler than most other computer stuff.
Until the Big Daddy update, Google was that simple.
It's simple enough so that everyone can understand. Yes they could and ,I guess, should make it simpler, but most people shouldn't need that.
And that attitude is why many others failed where Google succeeded.
Just some really simple fiddling around with words and you can find pretty much anything you want.
The same goes for spelling errors, but Google helps the user correct spelling mistakes. I've seen activity logs for search engines without spelling correction. It isn't pretty. The searcher fiddles around with words and often gives up, rather than finding what they wanted.
Anyway, please tell me, what is the appropriate response to a query for privacy service (without quotes). Is it a collection of privacy policies (Google's current behavior), or is it links to various privacy services (Google's previous behavior, and the suggestion of the article)? Which provides the user with what they were looking for? Is the appropriate response to provide the user with what they were looking for?
You guys are either not bothering to read what I wrote carefully or do not understand it.
In the case I mentioned a search on peoplescube or thepeoplesbcube or peoples (and) cube or thepeoplescube.com did not return hits, yet a search on "thepeoplescube.com", did.
I repeat, a search on thepeoplescube.com did not return hits. A search "thepeoplescube.com" did. I am fully aware of the value of using quotes to limit search results to a specific order of the words in the search. That is not what was happening in that case and may also apply to this one.
I have not and have no plans to use Google. I'm a creature of habit- started with Yahoo years ago- still use it. I've tried others- but always come back to Yahoo.
Here's what I found when I typed in thepeoplescube.com at Yahoo: I did not use " "
The People's Cube - Correct Opinions for Progressive Liberals - Political Humor & Satire
... your letters to Ahmadinejad here: redsquare@thepeoplescube.com ... The People's Cube" (ThePeoplesCube.com) was purged from Google ... one from Google to ThePeoplesCube.com. We tried American ...www.thepeoplescube.com - 282k - Cached - More from this site - Save
The People's Cube - Progressive Truth Generator(TM)
For people's activists: a brainstorming tool that will boost your creativity and hopefully result in a surge of extremely useful and vibrant organizations, groups, fronts, initiatives, leagues, unions, centers, and movements. Unite! Organize! ...www.thepeoplescube.com/Rhetoric/index.php - 6k - Cached - More from this site - Save
Groupthink :: Cafepress.com Censors The People's Cube
... See more on this in the People's Blog: http://www.thepeoplescube.com/red/viewtopic.php?t=313 ... http://www.thepeoplescube.com/red/viewtopic.php?t=309 ... and I will now ...www.thepeoplescube.com/red/viewtopic.php?t=309 - 260k - Cached - More from this site - Save
That is now. My comments on thepeoplescube.com referred to an old thread.
Actually, I don't think you wrote it all that carefully in the first place.
In the case I mentioned a search on peoplescube or thepeoplesbcube or peoples (and) cube or thepeoplescube.com did not return hits, yet a search on "thepeoplescube.com", did.
None of this information was in your previous post. It's rather unfair for you to expect other members of FR to read your mind when you mention (but do not provide a link to): "...a similar thread regarding http://thepeoplescube.com/ several months ago."
Google this: "Anal retentive"
Hmm... I only get one hit: Northern Alliance
You know, I kind of thought something had changed too - but back maybe 2 months ago or so.
Of course absent hard facts, it could just be all in my mind.
What's scary about Google is their immense power to skew information in one direction or another.
I guess I'll agree to disagree. I personally find it easy enough to enter "the People's Cube". I ran that and found it at 1st. I'll try to find that other thread. Hope I didn't misunderstand again.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.