__/ On Friday 26 August 2005 09:27, [John Bokma] wrote : \__
> Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> ___/ On Friday 26 August 2005 08:53, [Mikkel Møldrup-Lakjer] wrote :
>>> "Roy Schestowitz" <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> skrev i en meddelelse
>>>> It sure gets copied rather quickly. Here is an example I found by
>>>> doing some
>>> At least the first one mentions its sources, something which seems to
>>> have been left out on the other two. I think most pages that use the
>>> Factbook don't like to mention their source. Now why would that be?
>> An agent would come home and they would... *ahem*.. 'disappear'. I bet
>> you were referring to the lack of reliability though... not to mention
>> lack of intellect or creativity.
>> This shows the need for penalty on duplicates. But how can this be
>> done automatically if the copier does not even acknowledge (link) to
>> the source?!?!?! It's a hit-or-miss situation.
> Nah, I am sure there are ways to see of a (part) of page A is also on page
Sorry, but I must disagree. Let us say that T is the original page and F
(false) is the copy.
If F = T + A where A is some extra content, then you have problems
If T = F + A then your assumption is correct
If T = F you can rely on links (acknowledgements)
What would you do when:
F = T1 + A + T2 + B + T3
Or even worse:
F = T1/2 + A + T2/2 + B
To a black hat SEO it would be no problem to automate this and deceive the
search engines. it is much easier to carry out a robbery than it is for the
police to spot the crook in a town of millions.
Roy S. Schestowitz Y |-(1^2)|^(1/2)+1 K