I'm afraid it's been a busy week and I'm a bit short of material for a lighten-up
section today -- but the search engine
Google.com has come to
Up until early this morning, searching for one particular offensive phrase
produced a rather strange, and seemingly unrelated response with a certain
If you promise not to be offended by bad language then you can
(or, if it's been fixed, click here)
to see what is/was happening.
This kind of hiccup raises an interesting question -- could Google be sued
for defamation by effectively implying a connection between the search term
and the results displayed? Would any lawyer reading this care to tender
a (free) opinion perhaps?
Even more interestingly, the highlighting of this anomalous search result has
unveiled a little more of the secrecy surrounding the way that google ranks
It's well known that it tends to rank highly those sites which have lots of
links from other pages on the Web. I guess the rationale here being that
if other people think it's worth linking to then it's probably good and
However, it has been explained that in the George W. Bush example, the offensive
phrase produces the result it does is because that term was used by another
site as the link text to the page concerned.
So, it seems that google not only indexes your page by the text on it, but also
by the text that other sites use when referring to it. I guess this opens the
door to all manner of new "tactics" from people looking to boost their search
engine rankings. For example, if you have multiple websites, it would make
a lot of sense to cross-link the them using links that have relevant keywords --
it will probably give your ranking a lift and may even allow the use of new
keywords without dilution of the existing ones.
Microsoft's Woes Sound An Important Warning
Quite frankly, I'm getting a little tired of talking about Microsoft -- but,
given their importance to both the software and Internet industries it
can't be avoided.
The fact that MS has now entered the third day of problems with access
to its own websites is extremely disturbing -- and should be ringing
warning bells for all companies who do rely heavily on the Net.
Despite claims that the Internet was designed to be "robust", and
to retain communications even when parts of the network went down -- it really
is quite fragile. One of the culprits in creating this fragility is the
DNS (domain name service) -- sometimes referred to as the Net's "Archilles heel."
Imagine how useless the phone system would be if, overnight, all the phone
numbers were changed and there were no phone books to allow you to look up
the people you wanted to call -- that's the effect of a DNS failure.
Although the (IP) numbers don't change, nobody that I know ever accesses their
favourite websites or email addresses using the raw number (although it can
be done) -- they all rely on the DNS to look up the site's name and automatically
get that critical IP number.
Given the amount of effort and money that has been invested in adding new
top-level domains to the domain name system, why on earth isn't someone
addressing the technical shortcomings of this weak link in the fabric of the
The Weekly Trickles Out
If you haven't received your Aardvark Weekly by email, you can
download it here.
As always, your feedback is welcomed.
Did you tell someone else about Aardvark today? If not then do it