Perrie Juran Posted March 17, 2013 Share Posted March 17, 2013 Phil Deakins wrote: I'm sorry, Perrie, but that guy lost his credibility as far as I'm concerned, very early on - with the misinformation (propaganda) about Google. Personalising things on the web is a huge plus, and not a negative thing at all. Personalising can be a plus. As long as people understand what's going on. Otherwise I don't think it's hyperbole to say its 1984 out there. You control people by controlling the information they are getting. I have a friend who is a staunch Republican. I'm a mixed breed when it comes to politics. I've been through this with him when doing searches on current issues. He does not get the same results I do searching the same topics. There are pros and cons to this. The con for him is that he has wound up on a few occasions wearing egg on his face because of information his search results failed to give him. He has learned from me to dig deeper before opening his mouth. As far as the ads go, yes I had showed an interest in lenses. Now it is a presumption that I am still interested. I'm not. Maybe I should do some searches for sex toys so they'll change. Bottom line, and I am not saying it's automatically a bad thing. I never said that. But the ads are customized to separate me and my money. That is their primary purpose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Deakins Posted March 17, 2013 Share Posted March 17, 2013 Of course ads are intended to seperate you from your money. That goes without saying One of the points I made is that you'll get ads anyway, unless you do something to block them. So as long as you are getting ads, and not blocking them, it's better for you if they are about something you are interested in. The fact that you were no longer interested in lenses didn't make any difference to you because you were going to get ads anyway. You didn't get extra ads because of looking up a lens. You got the same number as you would have got if you hadn't looked up that lens. If you'd got extras because of personalising, then I'd be right with you in making objections to them. Just out of interest... You decided against the lens because of its price. What would you have thought if the resulting personalised ads pointed you to an equivalent lens at the right price? Would you have started to think that a personalised web has some merit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dillon Levenque Posted March 17, 2013 Share Posted March 17, 2013 Phil Deakins wrote: It's a good and positive thing for users too, Dillon. It helps to personalise your web experieence. You bookstore analogy doesn't work because the person at the door is interupting what you're doing. On the web you don't get interupted at all. You're going to get ads anyway and, if they are personalised, you'll get ads about things that may interest you. You won't get any fewer ads by protecting your privacy. Not unless you use an ad blocker, of course, but then the question wouldn't arise in the first place. See, that's the thing. I don't WANT my web experience personalized. I do understand that might make me unusual and I'm okay with that. But I only want personal responses from people I personally know. That's why I don't shop at RL stores that have 'greeters'. I think that started with Walmart but I could be wrong. Maybe you're lucky and they don't have these in the UK, but a greeter is someone who stands inside the entrance doors and says, "Hey, how ya doin'?" as if he recognizes you. I assume it is supposed to be a sort of Disneyland fake for the days when people used to go to the same downtown stores all the time and actually DID know the staff there from seeing them so often. It absolutely creeps me out. The web doesn't know me either. I don't want its personal take on me. My bookstore analogy works for me. As I noted in my comments I approach all shopping that way—if I'm not asking for suggestions I want it assumed I don't need any. If that makes me odd, I'm okay with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perrie Juran Posted March 18, 2013 Share Posted March 18, 2013 Phil Deakins wrote: Of course ads are intended to seperate you from your money. That goes without saying I worked in Sales for many years. Sometimes the way I phrase it is that I can smell one of my own kind coming a mile away. There is just a certain odor about us. I have been stopped by customers in stores whil ei was out shopping for myself and asked for help. I have even walked into some smaller stores while shopping and had the person behind the counter look up at me and say before I got my first word out, "Sorry the owner isn't in right now." I guess I must have stank really bad at one time. It makes this ex-hippie shudder now sometimes. Because of the Salesmen who would sell a tooth brush to a toothless person, we have kind of got a bad name. Me, I would sell them dentures first. Then I could justify the toothbrush. Some Salespeople I know would sell the toothbrush first and then sell the guy dentures so he could use his toothbrush. Successful sales is based on either meeting an existing need or creating a need that didn't exist and then meeting it. But before I wander too far off topic and get thrown out of the Salesperson's Club for revealing too many of our secrets, I simply spoke the obvious, this little fact that everyone is trying to pretend doesn't exist by refusing to say it openly and out loud. As a Salesperson, I am here to liberate your money from your wallet. Phil Deakins wrote: Just out of interest... You decided against the lens because of its price. What would you have thought if the resulting personalised ads pointed you to an equivalent lens at the right price? Would you have started to think that a personalised web has some merit? I never said that a personalized web had no benefits. What I said is that we need to be wary or cautious about it. That we need to keep our eyes open and be aware of what is going on. I believe that it was Sam Walton who coined the word 'retailtainment.' We are actually beginning to see a society where people choose shopping as an entertainment experience. I'm not saying that window shopping can't be a fun thing to do. But when it becomes a primary entertainment choice I begin to wonder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
161488303349 Posted March 18, 2013 Share Posted March 18, 2013 i agree about not getting suggestions google bing etc are tools for me. i use them to find out stuff i don't know about. like doing research in a library. or a reading a catalogue what i want when i do this is filters. that allow me to easy find stuff i don't know = the biggest problem i have these days with online search engines is that they return me heaps of links with info that i already know about ike it remembers what i already know and gives them back to me. and then suggests other stuff i already know. like hey! heres some other stuff same as the first + i don't what this. i want links to info about the topic that i don't know about already when i am researching. bc when i find something i do want to remember then i bookmark it can be quite frustrating helpy things sometimes. like they get over helpful quite often these days on the search engines. is a little bit annoying sometimes when that happens Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Deakins Posted March 18, 2013 Share Posted March 18, 2013 16 wrote: i agree about not getting suggestions google bing etc are tools for me. i use them to find out stuff i don't know about. like doing research in a library. or a reading a catalogue what i want when i do this is filters. that allow me to easy find stuff i don't know = the biggest problem i have these days with online search engines is that they return me heaps of links with info that i already know about ike it remembers what i already know and gives them back to me. and then suggests other stuff i already know. like hey! heres some other stuff same as the first + i don't what this. i want links to info about the topic that i don't know about already when i am researching. bc when i find something i do want to remember then i bookmark it can be quite frustrating helpy things sometimes. like they get over helpful quite often these days on the search engines. is a little bit annoying sometimes when that happens I haven't noticed any personalisation in search results, but I haven't compared my results with other people's results. I'm not suggesting that it doesn't happen. I use Google all the time, mainly because I'm used to it, and not because I'm a fan of Google - I'm quite the opposite. So the engine should know what I click on when I search and may well be personalising the results I receive. I can say that the results are always very good for me. I do know that it doesn't always place results that I've clicked on previously at the top because I've sometimes not found pages that I want when I've gone back some days later. So it doesn't regurgitate results that I've liked just because I've liked on them. (I use the word 'liked' to mean that I've clicked on a result and stayed in the page - not returned to the results soon afterwards). If the top results are not just what you want, look further down. It's always been necessary to do that. An engine will only bias the results for you by giving a little boost to pages that it thinks you'll be interested in. It won't filter out those that it thinks you're not interested in. Give them some credit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Deakins Posted March 18, 2013 Share Posted March 18, 2013 Dillon Levenque wrote: Phil Deakins wrote: It's a good and positive thing for users too, Dillon. It helps to personalise your web experieence. You bookstore analogy doesn't work because the person at the door is interupting what you're doing. On the web you don't get interupted at all. You're going to get ads anyway and, if they are personalised, you'll get ads about things that may interest you. You won't get any fewer ads by protecting your privacy. Not unless you use an ad blocker, of course, but then the question wouldn't arise in the first place. See, that's the thing. I don't WANT my web experience personalized. I do understand that might make me unusual and I'm okay with that. But I only want personal responses from people I personally know. That's why I don't shop at RL stores that have 'greeters'. I think that started with Walmart but I could be wrong. Maybe you're lucky and they don't have these in the UK, but a greeter is someone who stands inside the entrance doors and says, "Hey, how ya doin'?" as if he recognizes you. I assume it is supposed to be a sort of Disneyland fake for the days when people used to go to the same downtown stores all the time and actually DID know the staff there from seeing them so often. It absolutely creeps me out. The web doesn't know me either. I don't want its personal take on me. My bookstore analogy works for me. As I noted in my comments I approach all shopping that way—if I'm not asking for suggestions I want it assumed I don't need any. If that makes me odd, I'm okay with that. I think you are probably a lttle unusual then, Dillon. I don't think RL store greeters would creep most people out. We don't have them here but I'd guess that most people who don't want them would say, "No thankyou" when approached and just walk on. That's what I'd do. I certainly wouldn't get into even a short discussion with them if I really didn't want to. I still disagree with your bookstore analogy, for the reason that I previously gave. A bookstore greeter interupts your progress, and you have to deal with it, but an ad on a webpage doesn't interupt you at all, and you don't have to do anything because of it. The two are so dissimilar that the bookstore greeter is not an analogy for ads on the web. If you don't use an ad blocker, you see ads everywhere you go on the web. I assume they don't creep you out in any way, and I have to assume that you wouldn't feel creeped out in any way if one or more of those ads just happened to be advertising something that you are, or have been, interested in. You probably wouldn't even notice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Deakins Posted March 18, 2013 Share Posted March 18, 2013 Perrie Juran wrote: I believe that it was Sam Walton who coined the word 'retailtainment.' We are actually beginning to see a society where people choose shopping as an entertainment experience. I'm not saying that window shopping can't be a fun thing to do. But when it becomes a primary entertainment choice I begin to wonder. He may have been in SL then, because, for many people, shopping is a major part of the fun. It's entertainment Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
161488303349 Posted March 18, 2013 Share Posted March 18, 2013 Phil Deakins wrote: If the top results are not just what you want, look further down. It's always been necessary to do that. An engine will only bias the results for you by giving a little boost to pages that it thinks you'll be interested in. It won't filter out those that it thinks you're interested in. Give them some credit this is why I am moaning (: bc they don't do this. the filtering algos are used to boost what it thinks I might be interested in receiving. which is more of the same stuff that I already know is not completely the fault of the search engine makers this. it also the fault of the browser makers. but ! in both Microsoft and Googles case then is both their fault. bc they make both. their own search engine and their own browsers + i give example of what I mean by filtering out stuff I already know about in my browser is a history of webpages that they know I looked at using a keyword. they know about the pages and the keyword already what I want is the ability to use the same keyword and get a list of all the webpages not in my history and not on my bookmarks i would like to have this in my browser. would be the most useful thing ever for me. it should be doable this bc they make both search website and the browser application + i use Chrome and Google together. with IE I use Bing. I got my homepages set to each search engine main page respectively in each browser. like do my hotmails thru IE. gmails and youtubes in Chrome. is habit now for me this way. bc of the other apps I suppose Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Deakins Posted March 18, 2013 Share Posted March 18, 2013 Yes, it's doable, but I wouldn't think it's big on their list of things to do. I doubt that it's on their list at all. To be perfectly honest, I think that it's comparitively rare for people to make use of the browsing history. It's rare for me, anyway. Finding a previously visited webpage that is linked to in the History but not in the Favoutires, is so much easier and quicker to just do the search again and click on the link to the page in the results. That's what I do when I want to get a page that I've had before. It may still be in my History but it takes time finding the right one there. For me, finding a page in my History is a last resort because it takes time to find the page. Filtering out pages that are in your Favourites is sensible, but filtering out pages that are in your History is not, imo. The search results are not personalised in such a way that, on subsequent searches using the same searchterm, the engine gives you more of the same stuff than it did the last time. Not only that, but personalised results do not just give you stuff that the engine thinks you are interested in. It gives you the normal results but with a bias. You may simply have to look a bit further down, that's all. Without any personalisation, you still have to look further down for different results to those you looked at last time, so personalisation makes very little difference to you. The small difference it does make is give a boost to some results that it thinks you will find interesting. You can see it for yourself. Do a search on any searchterm and you'll get results that may be attrributed to personalisation and results that can't be so attributed. And most of the results will be the latter. What you've written almost suggests that you want a different selection of results for each subsequent search on the same searchterm, but no engine is going to do that. Not yet, anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
161488303349 Posted March 18, 2013 Share Posted March 18, 2013 Phil Deakins wrote: What you've written almost suggests that you want a different selection of results for each subsequent search on the same searchterm, but no engine is going to do that. Not yet, anyway. yes that's right. I would like that capability as a option. as a research aid that would be pretty good Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Deakins Posted March 18, 2013 Share Posted March 18, 2013 It would be a nice option, but imagine how much memory it would need for a search engine to store the results of every search that every person does, and how much time would be added to a search in order to find results that a person hasn't received before for a particular searchterm. There is another way, though, that doesn't require a huge amount of memory for storage... Scroll down the pages of results. There are 1000 results to go through, and you'll very quickly find results that you haven't previously checked out. It's nice to have a significant difference of opinion with you, 16. It makes a change but it doesn't diminish my love for you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
161488303349 Posted March 18, 2013 Share Posted March 18, 2013 am going to say but now but! (: it already knows what ones I have looked at. the blue links I have not looked at yet. the purple ones I have. the purple ones are the ones in my history I just want the browser to not list the purple links as an option. bc can sometimes be pages and pages of purple ones. and I have to go manually thru all the pages to find the blue links each time browser already filtering the return data against my history to change the link color to purple. I just want it to not display them either. the purple ones. when I choose that option Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Deakins Posted March 18, 2013 Share Posted March 18, 2013 The purple (visited) colour is created by your browser, and not by the search engine. Your browser could have an option not to display them, but it couldn't get more results to take their places. Well it could but it would be idiotic. It would need the browser to decide that you need, say, 6 replacements, so it fetches the next page of results from the engine. Then it finds that there are only 4 of those that you haven't already visited and you are still 2 short, so it gets yet another page of results from the engine, and so on until it has 10 results that you haven't visited. And suppose you want to visit one of the results you'd previously and is in your History. The browser would never display it for you, so you have to spend time finding it in your History. That's nowhere near as convenient as the way things are now. Compare that rigmarole with this other method. Accept the page of results that the engine sends you and ignore the purple links. That sounds like a much better method to me It effectively amounts to the same thing and it's a heck of a lot quicker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Deakins Posted March 18, 2013 Share Posted March 18, 2013 I just received the IE10 upgrade and there's a new feature in it that is directly related to the topic of this and other recent threads. It's a Do Not Track feature than can be turned on or off. This is what MS says about it:- Internet Explorer 10 introduces a new privacy feature that can send a Do Not Track request to the websites you visit. You can turn this request on or off to express your preference about tracking at any time. When you visit a website in any browser, you automatically share information with that site, such as cookies, your IP address, and other standard computer information. If the site contains content provided by a third–party website (for example a map, advertisement, or web measurement tools such as a web beacon or scripts) some information about your browser might be automatically sent to the content provider. This type of arrangement has several benefits: For example, you can access third-party content conveniently, the advertising that you see might be more relevant and interesting to you, and the presence of advertising on a site you're visiting might let the site provide access to premium content at no charge. There can, however, be an impact to your privacy as a result, because it is possible for the content providers to track you across multiple sites where they might be providing content. When the Do Not Track feature in Internet Explorer is turned on, Internet Explorer will send a Do Not Track request to the sites you visit and to the third parties whose content is hosted on those sites. Sites might respect the signal or might continue to engage in activities you might view as tracking even though you have expressed this preference, depending on the sites' privacy practices. It doesn't sound like it's an agreed protocol across the web but it could become one. However, since Google are probably the biggest trackers of all, and Google does exactly what Google wants to do, I think it's unlikely to become an agreed protocol if it isn't one already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
161488303349 Posted March 18, 2013 Share Posted March 18, 2013 you making it more complicated than it needs to be + I go thru it ok. like how I use it now. and how I would like it lets say I set to display 20 results per page I get indicator is 200 links. ok so I know is 10 pages of returns available in my history I already look at say 60 of them. is 40 more I haven't seen I know is going to be 10 pages I have to open + but if I can see only blue on all those 10 pages when I open them. or blank even. then I can find the info I want faster as opposed to how it is now. 10 pages with 20 links on each. some purple. some blue. and I have to filter them with my eyes it don't make the search engine go faster this. it helps me go faster to find what I want to know about what I don't yet know about is about research this for me. I want to know what I don't know as quickly as is possible Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
161488303349 Posted March 18, 2013 Share Posted March 18, 2013 Microsoft take it to the next level already in IE10 they made a google blocking Tracking Protection list which you can add in to IE10. is optional and you have to get off the Tracking Protection webpage yourself they name the list: Stop Google Tracking that's pretty clear lol (: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Deakins Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 2013 16 wrote: you making it more complicated than it needs to be + I go thru it ok. like how I use it now. and how I would like it lets say I set to display 20 results per page I get indicator is 200 links. ok so I know is 10 pages of returns available in my history I already look at say 60 of them. is 40 more I haven't seen I know is going to be 10 pages I have to open + but if I can see only blue on all those 10 pages when I open them. or blank even. then I can find the info I want faster as opposed to how it is now. 10 pages with 20 links on each. some purple. some blue. and I have to filter them with my eyes it don't make the search engine go faster this. it helps me go faster to find what I want to know about what I don't yet know about is about research this for me. I want to know what I don't know as quickly as is possible Ok, so the first results page is blank and you have to click to the next page, which is also blank. You have to keep clicking to the next page until you get one or more results. Or you browser does it for you (the search engine won't do it for you because the cost would be too prohibitive). I'm sorry, 16, but the idea is a non-starter, imo. Eyes are quick and they do an extremely good job of looking only at blue links. Are you winding me up? I'm treating this discussion seriously, but it's so unrealistic that I'm now wondering if you are winding me up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
161488303349 Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 2013 Phil Deakins wrote: 16 wrote: you making it more complicated than it needs to be + I go thru it ok. like how I use it now. and how I would like it lets say I set to display 20 results per page I get indicator is 200 links. ok so I know is 10 pages of returns available in my history I already look at say 60 of them. is 40 more I haven't seen I know is going to be 10 pages I have to open + but if I can see only blue on all those 10 pages when I open them. or blank even. then I can find the info I want faster as opposed to how it is now. 10 pages with 20 links on each. some purple. some blue. and I have to filter them with my eyes it don't make the search engine go faster this. it helps me go faster to find what I want to know about what I don't yet know about is about research this for me. I want to know what I don't know as quickly as is possible Ok, so the first results page is blank and you have to click to the next page, which is also blank. You have to keep clicking to the next page until you get one or more results. Or you browser does it for you (the search engine won't do it for you because the cost would be too prohibitive). I'm sorry, 16, but the idea is a non-starter, imo. Eyes are quick and they do an extremely good job of looking only at blue links. Are you winding me up? I'm treating this discussion seriously, but it's so unrealistic that I'm now wondering if you are winding me up. no I am not. I just start off with what I wanted. then you say cant do it bc to complicated to filter history then I say it do that already. and so it could just not show the ones I have already seen. as an option then I give the simplest example of how can maybe do this. then you raise another objection about what about all the empty pages. is waste of time and is quite useless that way and I be better off to just see all. but I already said why I not be better off. and you just seems to write this off as unimportant bc you not see any value if it for you so ok. that ok for you. that is unimportant. same way you said you don't use history. but I do use history bc as a research tool is an invaluable aid + so ok more. if was to make a solution for what I want then what is next logical step for browser programmer making the solution? don't show the empty pages/linksets. skip to the next page that has blue linkset on it is still not perfect this but I would take if if that's all I could I have + but clever browser programmer making this solution would think about that more. and consider how the search server engine works. the way it goes is: - enter keyword and submit to search engine - engine return a dataset count of all links indexed to that keyword. returns the first 20 links as a linkset (or however many user asks for) and browser displays - if user keeps pressing next page next page then it returns the next linksets in the dataset until end. so the engine knows which links user has already been given from the dataset and don't send any of the previous links/records. unless the link has been indexed by the spiders more that once against different sources so browser programmer can make so can lookahead/buffer the linksets and filter. to get the perfect display for their users. 20 blue links onscreen or however many + is now a smart browser as well as a smart search engine. not everyone will use this option if was made available. same how not everyone uses history or bookmarks. but as an option would be very useful to those who do. like researchers + when the web was first invented it was designed to be a research tool. a repository of indexed documents. that could be searched and info relevant to the researcher could be located then it changed into a consumer tool. the emphasis changed. driven by the commercial demands of the search engine makers. the emphasis is now on promotion. and this ok bc they and the staff have to get paid. but it don't mean that researchers and their needs are now unimportant and not worth bothering about Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Deakins Posted March 20, 2013 Share Posted March 20, 2013 I'm sorry, 16, but what you want won't be done. You still seem to think that the search engine do it, but it can't because the search engine would have to keep a record of every result that every user goes to from its results from every search each user makes, and, because of the incredible amount of storage that that would need, it's just not going to happen. After I dismissed the engine doing it for you, I suggested that the browser could do it, and it can, because it has your History stored - your recent history, anyway. But you won't get what you want (a page full of blue links) from it. I previously explained why that won't happen, so I won't repeat it. The best you can hope for is what I described earlier. The browser can get the first page of results and, after checking through your History, only display links that you haven't visited. And that's it. If you want any more results, you'd have to click to get the next page of them, and so on. No browser will ever keep getting page after page of results from the engine until is has 20 (or whatever) unvisited ones. It's not going to happen. They way it works now is very suitable for you because all unvisited links are displayed in blue, so it's very quick and very easy to simply ignore any that are not in blue. It may not be absolute perfection for you, but it is very suitable for you. I haven't seen anything that you've written that suggests that the current way is doesn't work well enough for you. I'm absolutely astonished that you are keeping on with this. Incidentally, when the web work first invented, it wasn't invented to be what you described. The internet was a load of connected computers that contained documents. To access a document on another computer, the user had to know and enter the computer's address on the network and path to the required document. It was long-winded. The web was simply the invention of the hyperlink. With the hyperlink, the user did not need to know and enter the other computer's address and path to the document. What you described was already there when the 'web' was invented. The web merely gave easier access to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
161488303349 Posted March 20, 2013 Share Posted March 20, 2013 Phil Deakins wrote: Incidentally, when the web work first invented, it wasn't invented to be what you described. The internet was a load of connected computers that contained documents. To access a document on another computer, the user had to know and enter the computer's address on the network and path to the required document. It was long-winded. The web was simply the invention of the hyperlink. With the hyperlink, the user did not need to know and enter the other computer's address and path to the document. What you described was already there when the 'web' was invented. The web merely gave easier access to it. i said: "when the web was first invented it was designed to be a research tool". i not say the internet the web hyperlink was invented/designed by researchers primarily for their own use in the first iteration. while also knowing that it might be of some use in other kinds of fields the internet wasn't invented to enable the web. it was invented to allow persistent connections to be maintained/routed in the event of hardware failures. like for military use in that first iteration Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
161488303349 Posted March 20, 2013 Share Posted March 20, 2013 Phil Deakins wrote: You still seem to think that the search engine do it, but it can't because the search engine would have to keep a record of every result that every user goes to from its results from every search each user makes, and, because of the incredible amount of storage that that would need, it's just not going to happen. After I dismissed the engine doing it for you, I suggested that the browser could do it, and it can, because it has your History stored - your recent history, anyway. But you won't get what you want (a page full of blue links) from it. I previously explained why that won't happen, so I won't repeat it. a search engine is a database underneath. a big one true. but is still a database and that's all when run a search engine query then it returns a dataset in a session. the dataset don't change until the session ends. is why the search engine server can serve up pages/linksets from within the dataset without repeating itself when click next page next page. if it didn't then would never reach the end bc this is true then can download the entire dataset for that session just by clicking More/next button/link at the bottom of the page when you make a new keyword or use same keyword and press Search button then it creates another new session and creates another dataset the dataset is filtered client side to tag the links by color. bc the filtering is the same mechanic then instead of tag purple. don't display it + am not sure why you think that to enable this then it has to be done server side. doing it server side don't add anything bc the dataset remain constant until the session ends edit: like add anything capability that cant be done client side already Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dillon Levenque Posted March 20, 2013 Share Posted March 20, 2013 16 wrote: Phil Deakins wrote: Incidentally, when the web work first invented, it wasn't invented to be what you described. The internet was a load of connected computers that contained documents. To access a document on another computer, the user had to know and enter the computer's address on the network and path to the required document. It was long-winded. The web was simply the invention of the hyperlink. With the hyperlink, the user did not need to know and enter the other computer's address and path to the document. What you described was already there when the 'web' was invented. The web merely gave easier access to it. the internet wasn't invented to enable the web. it was invented to allow persistent connections to be maintained/routed in the event of hardware failures. like for military use in that first iteration It wasn't invented to take care of things 'like for military use' but precisely for that purpose. That was what drove the whole idea: find a way for a place in Denver to talk to a place in Addis Ababa without using easily interecepted radio signals but also without being dependent upon straight through point to point switching, as in POTS. The starting point was the assumption that enemy activity would destroy switching centers and the military wanted a way around that. That's what TCP/IP, routing, and the whole concept of mulitple paths that created the internet is all about. I was going to post something like this earlier when you were talking about the web and research but it didn't really apply. The world wide web and all that we now take advantage of came about because a lot of smart people realized what an incredibly useful communication medium the internet could be. The existence of the internet itself is the result of a need for a defensible communication method, to wit: ARPANET Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Deakins Posted March 20, 2013 Share Posted March 20, 2013 16 wrote: i said: "when the web was first invented it was designed to be a research tool". i not say the internet the web hyperlink was invented/designed by researchers primarily for their own use in the first iteration. while also knowing that it might be of some use in other kinds of fields the internet wasn't invented to enable the web. it was invented to allow persistent connections to be maintained/routed in the event of hardware failures. like for military use in that first iteration I wrote about the web, not the internet. I mentioned that the internet already existed when the web was invented. You actually wrote "when the web was first invented it was designed to be a research tool. a repository of indexed documents. that could be searched and info relevant to the researcher could be located. then it changed into a consumer tool"". I wrote that the web wasn't designed to be a repository of indexed documents. The repository, if you could call it that, already existed in the computers connected to the internet. The web was invented to give easier access to those documents via the hyperlink. The hyperlink was the start of the web. It merely made it easier to fetch a document without the person who wants it knowing where it is on the global network of computers (the internet).. The creation of the internet wasn't to maintain persistent connections. Perhaps you meant that it allowed connections to be made between 2 computers via many different routes. Or perhaps you were referring to the hard wiring between computers as persistent connections. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ansariel Hiller Posted March 20, 2013 Share Posted March 20, 2013 Your are still discussing? LOL! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Facebook
Instagram
Twitter
YouTube
Flickr
Recommended Posts
Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now