If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
What's a good free Windows video editor that crops out data inthe MP4 video frame? [OT]
On 1-10-2017 1:22, nospam wrote:
In article , s|b wrote: then startpage connects to google for the user. no point in that. either way, users are connecting to google, directly or indirectly. might as well connect to google directly and skip the middleman. You're missing the point. Go to https://www.startpage.com/ and click on the circle below 'How we protect you'. they don't do anything that users can't do on their own. there's also a downside, because targeted search results are often what the user wants. why sift thru dozens or even hundreds of irrelevant links when what the user actually wants to see can be at top of the list? for example, if a farmer and a technologist search for 'apple', the results should be weighted differently. startpage won't know what to do, so both will have to deal with irrelevant crap. If i search for `apple` i get a full page of a ****ty computer firm. Appel gives me info about a healthy fruit, what i wanted in the first place........ |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
What's a good free Windows video editor that crops out data in the MP4 video frame? [OT]
In article , Sjouke Burry
wrote: On 1-10-2017 1:22, nospam wrote: then startpage connects to google for the user. no point in that. either way, users are connecting to google, directly or indirectly. might as well connect to google directly and skip the middleman. You're missing the point. Go to https://www.startpage.com/ and click on the circle below 'How we protect you'. they don't do anything that users can't do on their own. there's also a downside, because targeted search results are often what the user wants. why sift thru dozens or even hundreds of irrelevant links when what the user actually wants to see can be at top of the list? for example, if a farmer and a technologist search for 'apple', the results should be weighted differently. startpage won't know what to do, so both will have to deal with irrelevant crap. If i search for `apple` i get a full page of a ****ty computer firm. dell shows up? Appel gives me info about a healthy fruit, what i wanted in the first place........ that's nice. |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
What's a good free Windows video editor that crops out data inthe MP4 video frame? [OT]
On 09/30/2017 07:22 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , s|b wrote: then startpage connects to google for the user. no point in that. either way, users are connecting to google, directly or indirectly. might as well connect to google directly and skip the middleman. You're missing the point. Go to https://www.startpage.com/ and click on the circle below 'How we protect you'. they don't do anything that users can't do on their own. there's also a downside, because targeted search results are often what the user wants. why sift thru dozens or even hundreds of irrelevant links when what the user actually wants to see can be at top of the list? for example, if a farmer and a technologist search for 'apple', the results should be weighted differently. startpage won't know what to do, so both will have to deal with irrelevant crap. You are assuming that the farmer will ALWAYS be searching for 'apple' in the context of agriculture, and the technologist will ALWAYS be searching in the context of technology. What if the farmer is looking for a new computer, and the technologist wants to bake a pie? The weighted results will be irrelevant to both. This is a common error for you. You consistently assume that what works for you will work for everyone else. You assume that your way is the only way. Maybe the Google user wants to see results that might be inconsistent with his previous searches. Maybe the Google user wants to make his own decisions about what is relevant for him. In that case, Google's 'filtering' is a disservice. -- Ken Hart |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
What's a good free Windows video editor that crops out data inthe MP4 video frame? [OT]
On 09/30/2017 05:20 PM, s|b wrote:
On Sat, 30 Sep 2017 16:38:56 -0400, nospam wrote: then startpage connects to google for the user. no point in that. either way, users are connecting to google, directly or indirectly. might as well connect to google directly and skip the middleman. You're missing the point. Go to https://www.startpage.com/ and click on the circle below 'How we protect you'. Sponsored links are left out if I'm not mistaken. i'm not talking about those, plus, it's much better for the user to decide whether they're relevant and whether or not to ignore them. sometimes they're useful, sometimes not. same as any other search query. I could be wrong, but sponsored links are also part of the results, but not always on top. While I am not thrilled about Google using my searches monetarily, someone has to pay for that 'secret location' server farm. So startpage doesn't have the expense of doing the searches, they do have some expenses. Who is paying them? Follow the money. -- Ken Hart |
#75
|
|||
|
|||
What's a good free Windows video editor that crops out data in the MP4 video frame? [OT]
In article , Ken Hart
wrote: then startpage connects to google for the user. no point in that. either way, users are connecting to google, directly or indirectly. might as well connect to google directly and skip the middleman. You're missing the point. Go to https://www.startpage.com/ and click on the circle below 'How we protect you'. they don't do anything that users can't do on their own. there's also a downside, because targeted search results are often what the user wants. why sift thru dozens or even hundreds of irrelevant links when what the user actually wants to see can be at top of the list? for example, if a farmer and a technologist search for 'apple', the results should be weighted differently. startpage won't know what to do, so both will have to deal with irrelevant crap. You are assuming that the farmer will ALWAYS be searching for 'apple' in the context of agriculture, and the technologist will ALWAYS be searching in the context of technology. i'm not assuming anything. i'm explaining an algorithm, one which is apparently well over your head. What if the farmer is looking for a new computer, and the technologist wants to bake a pie? The weighted results will be irrelevant to both. learn what weighting means. also learn what hypothetical example means. This is a common error for you. You consistently assume that what works for you will work for everyone else. You assume that your way is the only way. wrong on that too. this has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with me or anyone else. it's an algorithm. Maybe the Google user wants to see results that might be inconsistent with his previous searches. Maybe the Google user wants to make his own decisions about what is relevant for him. In that case, Google's 'filtering' is a disservice. the point you fail to grasp is that google gets it right far more often than it gets it wrong. nothing is perfect, and the user *always* makes the final decision. |
#76
|
|||
|
|||
Google etc. (was: What's a good free Windows video editor that crops out data in the MP4 video frame? [OT])
In message , s|b
writes: [] I could be wrong, but sponsored links are also part of the results, but not always on top. I think there are at least two forms of what might be called sponsored links: 1. The sort that have a little "[Ad]" box. These I don't _really_ mind, as I presume they go towards funding the service, and are honest about it. I've seen them both at the top and the bottom, though not sure if both at once or both on the same system (i. e. settings - including cookies - may affect where they appear). They _do_ seem to have a poorer matching algorithm than the non-[Ad] search results, i. e. they pop up where they're not only not wanted but not relevant, but I tolerate that. 2. The more insidious ways, which we can only surmise, by which companies (etc.) get their sites to come higher in the (non-[Ad]) rankings. This _could_ just be clever (and evil) scripting and the like, or could - depending on the thickness of the tinfoil in your hat - be related to other payments to Google. (E. g. for tracking services.) -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf Thay have a saying for it: /Geiz ist geil/, which roughly translates as, "It's sexy to be stingly". - Joe Fattorini, RT insert 2016/9/10-16 |
#77
|
|||
|
|||
Google etc. (was: What's a good free Windows video editor that crops out data in the MP4 video frame? [OT])
In article , J. P. Gilliver
(John) wrote: I think there are at least two forms of what might be called sponsored links: 1. The sort that have a little "[Ad]" box. These I don't _really_ mind, as I presume they go towards funding the service, and are honest about it. I've seen them both at the top and the bottom, though not sure if both at once or both on the same system (i. e. settings - including cookies - may affect where they appear). They _do_ seem to have a poorer matching algorithm than the non-[Ad] search results, i. e. they pop up where they're not only not wanted but not relevant, but I tolerate that. those are easy to see and optionally block. 2. The more insidious ways, which we can only surmise, by which companies (etc.) get their sites to come higher in the (non-[Ad]) rankings. This _could_ just be clever (and evil) scripting and the like, it's called seo, and if it's too evil, google will derank it. or could - depending on the thickness of the tinfoil in your hat - be related to other payments to Google. (E. g. for tracking services.) it isn't. |
#78
|
|||
|
|||
Google etc. (was: What's a good free Windows video editor that crops out data in the MP4 video frame? [OT])
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote
| I think there are at least two forms of what might be called sponsored | links: | | 1. The sort that have a little "[Ad]" box. These I don't _really_ mind, | as I presume they go towards funding the service, and are honest about | it. Those are kind of sleazy in that the search engines usually try to make the distinction as slight as possible, clearly hoping that people won't notice it's an ad. Though Google seems to be going the other way. I rarely use Google, but if I try it now I find the ad is on the right side, like the old style. *That* I don't mind. It's clearly an ad. While DDG still tries to make the ads look like listings. | They _do_ seem to have a poorer | matching algorithm than the non-[Ad] search results, i. e. they pop up | where they're not only not wanted but not relevant, but I tolerate that. | 2. The more insidious ways, which we can only surmise, by which | companies (etc.) get their sites to come higher in the (non-[Ad]) | rankings. This _could_ just be clever (and evil) scripting and the like, | or could - depending on the thickness of the tinfoil in your hat - be | related to other payments to Google. (E. g. for tracking services.) A good example of sleazy SEO was the eplastics.com site I mentioned earlier: http://www.eplastics.com/Where-to-buy-Plexiglass That page is scam SEO. It's just a long list of keywords pretending to be a store locations page. Since the site is online-only there's no excuse for a store locations page in the first place. (At one time the SEs cracked down on the exact same thing done in text to match the background. That is, lists of keywords would be on the page white-on-white. The page linked above is no different. They just didn't hide the list and ironically that helps to avoid a demerit.) That site also had an ad on the search page and showed up twice, something like 5th and 17th, despite being largely irrelevant to my search terms. Accident? Highly unlikely. I think it would be naive to think Google advertisers don't get an extra kick. But it could be *seemingly* innocent. For instance, buying an ad when someone searches for "lexan" may be counted as the site being relevant to a "lexan" search. Seems logical. Games the system from the inside in a way that can be defended. Another problem that gets past the SEs is nonsense, computer-generated text that appears to be coherent at a casual glance. People create those sites as a frame to hang ads on. They're cheating advertisers but also adding to bad search results. Procter and Gamble recently decided to cut back on online ads in general after finding they seem to have no effect! https://www.wsj.com/articles/p-g-cut...ads-1501191104 With SEO, I don't think there's any way to entirely protect from cheating. And dishonest vs honest is a hard line to draw. I used to go to a dentist who had paid for a website. His pages had giant META tags that listed all of the cities and towns within 20 miles. That was kind of dumb SEO. It provides no real benefit and could cause a demerit with Google. But the idea was OK. Listing relevant search terms in META tags is valid. SEO in general is a valid way to try to get the SEs to notice a site. I think that actually a lot of the dishonesty is on the part of SEO sellers. They make it sound like your business depends on their secret formulae. But they're just not that powerful. I find the whole thing seems to be spotty. On my own site Google lists some things with a high rating and doesn't notice others. Also, it's not very intelligent. Someone who searches for "tea pot" may never find "tea kettle", and vice versa. That kind of thing is harder to deal with these days as a web designer or SEO seller because the search terms are only sent to the landing page in rare circumstances. I generally no longer know how people arrived. And Google values a number of factors that don't always apply. For example, frequent updates and incoming links are both valued highly. That means Home Depot gets a high rating while a chemist, working alone, giving away a formula to live for 200 years, will never be discovered. No one is linking to him and he doesn't rewrite his page daily, so google judges him to be irrelevant. It's heavily skewed commercially. That in itself is a distortion, arguably cheating. Would Google only value commercial sites if they didn't make all their money on targetted ads? Finally, Google have shown themselves to be thoroughly dishonest any number of times. One glaring example was that they lied "through their teeth" about collecting data from unprotected wifi with their streetview vehicles, claiming it was an accident -- until the actual software to do the job turned up. And if you search for "google settles with EU" you'll find an almost yearly case of Google being fined and/or settling in some way with charges of cheating. Just last week Google announced changes to comply with the EU, after being charged a $2.8 billion fine. The fact they're paying fines like that seems to show that Google make *a lot* of money by cheating. I guess they're hungry. They made billions back when they just had pplain text ads on the right with no spyware or data collection. They demonstrated that the privacy intrusion of targetted ads is not necessary. But billions wasn't enough for them. It's become like a shopping guide in a shopping mall. They might refer you to a store outside the mall, but that's really not the purpose of the guide. I doubt the Googlites even see themselves as a search engine at this point. They're just the grease of online commerce. |
#79
|
|||
|
|||
Google etc.
Mayayana wrote:
Procter and Gamble recently decided to cut back on online ads in general after finding they seem to have no effect! https://www.wsj.com/articles/p-g-cut...ads-1501191104 It's amazing how much coverage there is of that. http://adage.com/article/cmo-strateg...slashe/309936/ "Procter & Gamble's concerns about where its ads were showing up online contributed to a $140 million cutback P&G didn't call out YouTube, the subject of many marketers' ire earlier this year, in its fiscal fourth-quarter earnings release, but did say digital ad spending fell because of choices to "temporarily restrict spending in digital forums where our ads were not being placed according to our standards and specifications." " Rather than being largely ineffective, they were worried about some questionable Youtube video content, have their advert for "Flounce" show up in the middle of it. I guess the two effects cancel out. The reason I was looking for additional articles, was to see whether they used lab rats to measure their advert effectiveness. It doesn't look like that kind of decision. Paul |
#80
|
|||
|
|||
Google etc.
"Paul" wrote
| Rather than being largely ineffective, they were worried | about some questionable Youtube video content It seems to be both. They cut back at Facebook because they didn't see profits: https://www.wsj.com/articles/p-g-to-...ads-1470760949 They cut back at Youtube because of the concerns you mention, but then found that not running those ads didn't seem to affect profits. From general hearsay I've had the sense that small companies who ship products often do well with Google ads, but I don't have any stats. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Biggest worldwide free Entertainment multi language Video web , Travel, Sports, Health , Racing cars , Massages techniques, Games , Fashions, Jokes , Top models , Free online IT learning , 5000 links, 250 free online TV , 50000 music video, n | [email protected] | 35mm Photo Equipment | 0 | August 22nd 07 08:30 PM |
EXIF data in video files? | [email protected] | Digital Photography | 2 | February 11th 05 12:50 PM |
Video Editor | !p^&c88%B! | Digital Photography | 7 | December 9th 04 05:41 PM |
Live Video/Data Capture? | Jorge Prediguez | Digital Photography | 1 | July 1st 04 02:04 AM |
Live Video/Data Capture? | Jorge Prediguez | 35mm Photo Equipment | 1 | July 1st 04 02:04 AM |