___/ On Sat 21 Oct 2006 22:58:25 BST, [ Charles ] wrote : \___
Nabble's use of content is not much different from Google's
exploitation of UseNet.
Google Groups is just a web interface/gateway to Usenet.
Would anyone reply to messags from the 80's? The raison detre of
Google was to provide access to content, maybe provide some tools
(e.g. Google Video, Goo-Tube, Web authoring, blog hosting), but not to
become a repository.
Is Nabble scraping content from Google Groups, or from the list directly?
The list, in the form of E-mail input. In any case, the archives are
static. With an Alexa rank of ~8000, however gross and inaccurate
these things may be, it's nothing to sneeze at. Lastly, it uses a
viral marketing technique to spread itself.
Then again, many so-called 'forums' use the same techniques to absorb
'Googlejuice'. The problematic ones are those who claim or/and pretend
to have content ownership. One such example would be JLA forums who
scrape our Linux advocacy forum. And all that said, I concur with CG
who said that proliferation of the content may serve our interests as
well. It's not backed by advertisements and no knowledge is being
traded /per se/.
Best wishes,
Roy
--
Roy S. Schestowitz, Ph.D. Candidate in Medical Biophysics
http://Schestowitz.com | GNU/Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
http://othellomaster.com - GPL'd 3-D Othello
http://iuron.com - proposing a non-profit search engine
|
|
