Of all the Google searches that bring people to this page, by far the commonest is "anagram rats".
I would've thought that most people would be capable of working those out for themselves - it's only four letters, after all.
Truly, there is no such thing as an upper limit to human laziness.
Showing posts with label google. Show all posts
Showing posts with label google. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
"Do cats have nose hair?"
There's a truly weird site that you've probably seen, if you've Googled a lot of random trivia, but I for one have seldom dwelt on. It's called "WikiAnswers". The idea is that you can log on and type in any question you like, and take a chance that some random J Bloggs, somewhere on the Internet, will take the time to answer it just for the sheer joy of showing off their knowledge.
Or maybe that they'll make up something entertaining enough to be worth sharing with your friends.
It's amazingly popular. In a random 60 second period this afternoon, 20 new questions got posted:
Or maybe they're just craving acknowledgment and validation, the (extremely indirect) human contact of some faceless, random stranger picking out and taking the time to answer their question.
So if you happen to know the answer to any of these, feel free to head over and show off. Make someone's day. But no-one will thank you.
Or maybe that they'll make up something entertaining enough to be worth sharing with your friends.
It's amazingly popular. In a random 60 second period this afternoon, 20 new questions got posted:
- What is the name of the group made from former klymaxx members?
- Bobs discount furniture?
- Do apples brown faster in the fridge or on the counter?
- How are the functions of connective tissues reflected in its structure?
- What is the gvwr of a 1981 toyota 2wd pickup?
- What is broken down by cells to produce energy?
- In ancient china what did they use money for?
- Where is the high speed relay located on a 1983 chevy el camino?
- Is Nomex windproof?
- Outline the role of condensation and hydrolysis?
- What was the significance of the fall of fort sumter?
- How many syllables has the word house how many syllables has the wordcurtain?
- Ancient method to predict the future?
- Do cats have nose hair?
- What are the areas that border mexico?
- California's largest county?
- I had sex 3 days in a row alot of times he finished each time my period came the next day its a week early could you still get pregnant?
- Full faith in credit clause example?
- Is there a scary movie 5 comming out soon?
- Why are the dim lights on a is300 blue but the bright lights and running lights are white Can i make them all blue?
Or maybe they're just craving acknowledgment and validation, the (extremely indirect) human contact of some faceless, random stranger picking out and taking the time to answer their question.
So if you happen to know the answer to any of these, feel free to head over and show off. Make someone's day. But no-one will thank you.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Thank you, Google
The latest visitor to be drawn here by a Google search was a reader in Barnsley, who was searching for "whores bradford".
I hope he (I'm guessing it was a he) found what he was looking for.
Just when I'm getting used to the idea of Google as the new evil empire, they go and illustrate just how much sheer free entertainment they're still willing to provide, and I find myself warming to them again. Just a little bit.
I hope he (I'm guessing it was a he) found what he was looking for.
Just when I'm getting used to the idea of Google as the new evil empire, they go and illustrate just how much sheer free entertainment they're still willing to provide, and I find myself warming to them again. Just a little bit.
Monday, April 27, 2009
Darth Google
A few of weeks ago now, I installed a new widget on this page that records where (it thinks) my readers are located, where they come from, and what links they click when they're here.
It's fascinating reading, although slightly dispiriting that I don't get visited nearly as often as I should. But among other things, it lets me see what people were searching Google for when my blog popped up.
An uncommon lot of people - well, half a dozen at least - seem to have been drawn here by the picture included in my unflattering review of Watchmen. I wonder if they were disappointed when they didn't find a full online version of the comic. (If so, tough. I don't support digital piracy.)
Recently there was some poor sap from Miami searching for "the science of karma", and they were apparently so disappointed that they must've complained to Google, because my post of that name currently doesn't show up at all in a search for that phrase.
Then last week there was someone searching for "Mr Darcy is all politeness" (without quotes). I wonder what they were looking for.
I know what they found, though. Apparently, if you Google for a random text from Pride & Prejudice, the number one result you get is the "Google Books" edition of the text.
I don't know if you're familiar with Google Books. It's a stupid idea, the misbegotten offspring of an idiot's compromise between Google and the major publishers whereby Google gets to "publish books" online. By way of throwing a bone to the copyright Gestapo, Google agreed to leave out some pages in these works, the theory being that people should be allowed to search the text online but not able to read it. The choice of pages omitted depends on what you searched for. (It also, I've discovered in the course of researching this, varies from one day to the next. Last week I could page all the way through the book, with some random omissions such as p.145; this week, it's skipping directly from p.60 to the back cover.)
The irony being, of course, that Pride & Prejudice is not a copyright work. Not unless Jane Austen lived to be 200 years old, anyway. Anyone can reproduce this text as many times as they like; rewrite, repackage, adapt, perform, distribute, sell, loan or hire it, or any original work they may derive from it, completely at will. That's how Wordsworth Classics (Google's edition) were entitled to publish it in the first place; for them now to assert copyright over the text is indefensible, and should be illegal if it's not already.
But I digress. My real point here is that no human being in their senses would search for the Google Books edition of this work, because it's fecking useless. Instead, they could look for the Gutenberg version, which is easier to read, easier to search, and complete. And one hundred per cent legal to distribute in every country I know of, unless of course it meets someone's idea of obscenity...
And yet that page doesn't show up at all in the first page of Google results when searching for the text.
Ten years ago, Google became famous for its motto: "Don't be evil". "Evil" was always somewhat nebulously defined, but it was commonly understood as contrasting with Microsoft's standard operating practice of abusing every part of its business to give various (arguably) unfair advantages to every other part, generally at the expense of its own users. But it's hard to see the above Google result in any other light. The top result for the search is the one that's least useful for the user, and most profitable for Google.
It's fascinating reading, although slightly dispiriting that I don't get visited nearly as often as I should. But among other things, it lets me see what people were searching Google for when my blog popped up.
An uncommon lot of people - well, half a dozen at least - seem to have been drawn here by the picture included in my unflattering review of Watchmen. I wonder if they were disappointed when they didn't find a full online version of the comic. (If so, tough. I don't support digital piracy.)
Recently there was some poor sap from Miami searching for "the science of karma", and they were apparently so disappointed that they must've complained to Google, because my post of that name currently doesn't show up at all in a search for that phrase.
Then last week there was someone searching for "Mr Darcy is all politeness" (without quotes). I wonder what they were looking for.
I know what they found, though. Apparently, if you Google for a random text from Pride & Prejudice, the number one result you get is the "Google Books" edition of the text.
I don't know if you're familiar with Google Books. It's a stupid idea, the misbegotten offspring of an idiot's compromise between Google and the major publishers whereby Google gets to "publish books" online. By way of throwing a bone to the copyright Gestapo, Google agreed to leave out some pages in these works, the theory being that people should be allowed to search the text online but not able to read it. The choice of pages omitted depends on what you searched for. (It also, I've discovered in the course of researching this, varies from one day to the next. Last week I could page all the way through the book, with some random omissions such as p.145; this week, it's skipping directly from p.60 to the back cover.)
The irony being, of course, that Pride & Prejudice is not a copyright work. Not unless Jane Austen lived to be 200 years old, anyway. Anyone can reproduce this text as many times as they like; rewrite, repackage, adapt, perform, distribute, sell, loan or hire it, or any original work they may derive from it, completely at will. That's how Wordsworth Classics (Google's edition) were entitled to publish it in the first place; for them now to assert copyright over the text is indefensible, and should be illegal if it's not already.
But I digress. My real point here is that no human being in their senses would search for the Google Books edition of this work, because it's fecking useless. Instead, they could look for the Gutenberg version, which is easier to read, easier to search, and complete. And one hundred per cent legal to distribute in every country I know of, unless of course it meets someone's idea of obscenity...
And yet that page doesn't show up at all in the first page of Google results when searching for the text.
Ten years ago, Google became famous for its motto: "Don't be evil". "Evil" was always somewhat nebulously defined, but it was commonly understood as contrasting with Microsoft's standard operating practice of abusing every part of its business to give various (arguably) unfair advantages to every other part, generally at the expense of its own users. But it's hard to see the above Google result in any other light. The top result for the search is the one that's least useful for the user, and most profitable for Google.
Labels:
copyright,
evil,
experience,
google,
literature,
microsoft,
publishers,
software
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)