 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Mudcat in the top 50 Thousand
|
|
|
Subject: BS: Mudcat in the top 50 Thousand From: Devilmaster Date: 07 Jan 04 - 10:47 AM 47,528 to be exact. http://ranking.websearch.com/SiteInfo.aspx?url=mudcat.org Steve |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat in the top 50 Thousand From: GUEST,MMario Date: 07 Jan 04 - 10:58 AM note the disclaimer: Disclaimers Traffic data is based on the Internet browsing behavior of WebSearch Toolbar users, which may not be a representative sample of the global Internet population. Known biases include (but are likely not limited to) the following: The WebSearch Toolbar works only with the Internet Explorer browser. Sites frequented mainly by users of other browsers will be undercounted. For example, the AOL/Netscape browser is not supported, which means that we collects little data from AOL users, and our traffic to aol.com is likely lower than it would be for a more representative sample. The WebSearch Toolbar works only on Windows operating systems. Although a large majority of the Internet population currently uses Windows, traffic to any sites which are disproportionately visited by users of other operating systems will be undercounted. In some cases traffic data may also be adversely affected by our "site" definitions. With tens of millions of hosts on the Internet, our automated procedures for determining which hosts are serving the "same" content may be incorrect and/or out-of-date. Similarly, the determinations of domains and home pages may not always be accurate. When these determinations change (as they do periodically), there may be sudden artificial changes in our traffic rankings for some sites as a consequence. The WebSearch Toolbar turns itself off on secure pages (https:) for privacy/security reasons. Sites with more secure page views will be under-represented in our traffic stats |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat in the top 50 Thousand From: Rapparee Date: 07 Jan 04 - 11:10 AM So when I, who uses Netscape 7.1 both at work and at home, clock into MC, it ain't counted. So anyone using Opera ain't counted. So the count is actually higher than what is reported, correct? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat in the top 50 Thousand From: GUEST Date: 07 Jan 04 - 11:19 AM They probably use fudge factors - but essentially - yes. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat in the top 50 Thousand From: JohnInKansas Date: 07 Jan 04 - 11:30 AM Frankly, I'm amazed that there is such a high percentage of persons with the necessary intelligence, grace, dignity, and thoughtful nature required for participation on this splendid site. We must get a lot of tourists - who just look once and go away. Even if more search engines were included, it likely wouldn't do much to raise the percentages in this report. The majority of search engines don't consider anything with a .org name a site worth searching/compiling. Few of the search engines will find the 'cat unless a link to mudcat shows up in a post somewhere on a .com. Does anyone know of a search engine that hits .org and .edu sites with any real frequency? John |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat in the top 50 Thousand From: Rapparee Date: 07 Jan 04 - 11:52 AM Google, Metacrawler, and Altavista. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat in the top 50 Thousand From: Amos Date: 07 Jan 04 - 11:59 AM I only use IE/Windows from the office which is much less than I use OS X and Apple's browser. So my bulk of hits have never been counted. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat in the top 50 Thousand From: Bill D Date: 07 Jan 04 - 02:26 PM remember...this also probably counts hits to the database by folks who never even read the threads.. (and yeah...I NEVER use IE here, so it would be in the top 100 if...*grin*) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat in the top 50 Thousand From: Cluin Date: 07 Jan 04 - 02:31 PM So, in essence... big deal, eh? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat in the top 50 Thousand From: Cluin Date: 07 Jan 04 - 02:39 PM A Google search for "folk music lyrics" produces Mudcat 2nd from the top, after www.contemplator.com. I'll bet the DT gets a lot more traffic than the forum too. I'd been using that for years before I ever made a post here. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat in the top 50 Thousand From: JohnInKansas Date: 07 Jan 04 - 02:40 PM Rapaire - Are you intending to say that the search engines you listed do search .org and .edu? If so, better re-read the policy statements (and maybe I should too). Google, at least, was quite open about their policy of not searching those sites on any regular basis the last time I looked. They do pull up .gov fairly often, but for the most part they only go where there's commercial interests or advertising involved one way or another. John |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat in the top 50 Thousand From: Uncle_DaveO Date: 07 Jan 04 - 03:59 PM Rapaire said: So when I, who uses Netscape 7.1 both at work and at home, clock into MC, it ain't counted. So anyone using Opera ain't counted. So the count is actually higher than what is reported, correct?So when I, who uses Netscape 7.1 both at work and at home, clock into MC, it ain't counted. So anyone using Opera ain't counted. So the count is actually higher than what is reported, correct? The absolute count would be higher, but the relative position to other sites could go in any direction. Dave Oesterreich |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat in the top 50 Thousand From: Peace Date: 07 Jan 04 - 04:03 PM Mudcat is NUMERO UNO with me. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat in the top 50 Thousand From: kendall Date: 07 Jan 04 - 04:06 PM I expect it is with all of us. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat in the top 50 Thousand From: catspaw49 Date: 07 Jan 04 - 06:56 PM HEY DEVILMASTER!! Since Max is obviously doing so well now in the Top 50,000, maybe he can throw in with Gentilozzi and Kalkoven with the OWRS thing since Kalkoven and PG are having some difference of opinion at the moment with KK hanging out with Bernie Ecclestone and PG making more merger sounds with "the dreaded TG." Forscythe doesn't seem to have much to say so you could replace him. Things may be clearer after the 28th but I still have a Yogi feeling that it won't be over til it's over. So maybe Max could swing his weight somewhere and let you handle the whole thing as his proxy. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat in the top 50 Thousand From: Emma B Date: 07 Jan 04 - 07:09 PM One of the things that seriously pisses me off is announcements that so and so is the second largest floating Chinese restaurant etc... without ever telling you what (or where) the first is. So come on now; what are the other 47,527? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat in the top 50 Thousand From: RichM Date: 08 Jan 04 - 05:30 AM There's a button on the page that will send you to the top 500 list |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat in the top 50 Thousand From: Peter T. Date: 08 Jan 04 - 08:19 AM Since I use nothing but Macs, nothing I put in is counted (sob)(time well spent). yours, Peter T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat in the top 50 Thousand From: Bee-dubya-ell Date: 08 Jan 04 - 10:11 AM I took a quick look through the top 500 list and it's loaded with sites for pop-up hosts, spyware, hijackware, counters etc. Nobody goes to those sites intentionally, but their hits get counted just the same as those of intentionally visited sites. I question the validity of any ranking that doesn't discount such sites. Including them is like tracking television viewership and giving advertisements the same value as regular programs. Using those criteria, the latest Budweiser ad would be the most popular thing on TV, wouldn't it? Bruce |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat in the top 50 Thousand From: Amos Date: 08 Jan 04 - 10:22 AM I just went over to google to try this out. Searching on "folk music", Mudcat didn't list in the first two pages of hits. Searching on "blues and folk music" it listed as #1. Go figger! A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat in the top 50 Thousand From: Peg Date: 08 Jan 04 - 10:29 AM I am not about to place a lot of faith in a website that has a big misspelling front and center... "Picture comming soon" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat in the top 50 Thousand From: JohnInKansas Date: 08 Jan 04 - 11:28 AM Amos - My impression is that Google, and most other search engines, do include commercial/sponsored chat groups. If someone in one of those posted a link to the 'cat in a discussion, they'd find and incorporate it. It's the other world appearance of something on the 'cat that gets posted. I occasionally use Google image search to look for art work, and very rarely find a link to one of the numerous .org sites, but only if one of the "poster sellers" has linked it on their commercial site. If it's printed in the "news" by a magazine, newspaper, or tv channel/program site, it gets listed. NONE of the available search engines I've found will consistently tell you if some university network has that ancient text on "blowby leakage in manufactured hydraulic seals" ... so important to the serious researcher... It's easy to forget that only the "pop culture" is indexed. And tough to decide which is the real world. John |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat in the top 50 Thousand From: Nigel Parsons Date: 08 Jan 04 - 12:22 PM Someone in work mentioned "Google bombs" and the 'ego bomb' that makes people search for their own name. Apparently, if I was the top listing for 'Nigel' that would be great, and if the top for 'Nigel Parsons' that would be almost as good (if your name is 'Lobachevsky' you're likely to rank highly (behind the Tom Lehrer song)) So I checked my full name, surprise surprise, I get in ahead of a photographer & a private dick! Cheers Nigel |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat in the top 50 Thousand From: Rapparee Date: 08 Jan 04 - 01:35 PM Pulled these up with a Google search: http://hacks.mit.edu/ (search word "hacks") http://www.stjoemanchester.org/ (search terms "blood donations") http://www.museumtrail.org/SpanishIndianRoom.asp (Search terms "indian rugs museum") any number of .org, .gov, and .edu come up with "George Washington" The search terms above were sort of pulled out of the air, and were entered without quotation marks. I've never had problems with .org, .edu, and so on. Found Mudcat that way, in fact. I do not, however, use only one search engine. I use those I mentioned the most, but I also use Ask Jeeves, Dogpile, Lycos, and many others. Depends on what I'm looking for and how badly I want to find it. I find that Altavista is best for images, for instance. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat in the top 50 Thousand From: JohnInKansas Date: 08 Jan 04 - 02:11 PM Rapaire - The hits you found are all ones likely to be "second hand" links from posts in open forums. The MIT hacks thing is widely known because of the books (3 of them recently) on Amazon, which is one of the "commercial" sources where links may have been picked up. Most universities, libraries, and museums seem to have closed systems, requiring memberships or other credentials for access. It probably wouldn't do much good for the search engines to give you links to places you can't go, so their policies are mostly understandable. Most also have a few "public pages" that may show up in searches if someone talked about them elsewhere. The point is that, if you're searching for information the search engines aren't really that inclusive. If what you want is "news" they're excellent. There are a number of .org sites, like mudcat, that are "open to all" and that, like mudcat, don't often come up in the searches. You have to find them by other means - or just remember where they are when you get that random hit. Add to your list of engines (if you have any interest) Art Cyclopedia, a .com that does pull up a lot of .orgs, in a somewhat narrow search category. Smaller engines like it would be of some interest, maybe, to some 'catters; and I'm sure some 'catters have others I don't know about. John (cursing fumblefingers softly) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat in the top 50 Thousand From: Amos Date: 08 Jan 04 - 04:49 PM John: Here ya go! A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat in the top 50 Thousand From: Rapparee Date: 08 Jan 04 - 06:26 PM JIK, most libraries I know of only stop you from going to places that are subscription-based, such as Ebsco or Proquest. And if you are registered with that library, you can access there as well. This will continue, I think, until the pay basis for these sites (population, # of registered patrons, or whatever they use) changes. Nowhere do I know of a library that doesn't let you check its online catalog. Because I know that search engines differ, sometimes significantly, I use several. I think that they offset each other's faults. Usually what I'm looking for is quick information, not in-depth research. Doing REAL research requires a whole new kit of tools, and includes print materials. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat in the top 50 Thousand From: JohnInKansas Date: 08 Jan 04 - 08:33 PM Amos - I think I've seen those guys before, but didn't bookmark them before. I'll have to backthread and see how much they've got. Doesn't raise a lot of hopes describing the Aeroquip 3200 as "a newer...." since it's been around since the 1970's, but thanks. I'll look more into it. And that probably is an example of the sort of "specialty search engine" I had in mind. Rapaire - I think the thing is that the major search engines "don't intrude" into sites that are intended for a more or less closed group of users, or that might contain proprietary stuff. The fact(?) is though, that as a matter of policy most of them don't send their crawlers into .org sites. While you may be able to access the card file at a library, it's unlikely that one of the search engines is going to send you to that card file. It's not intended as any criticism of the popular search engines; just as a reminder that they don't necessarily search everywhere, for those times when you don't quite find what you're looking for. Sometimes, you still have to pull your pants up and actually visit a real library to find the goodies. John |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat in the top 50 Thousand From: GUEST,.gargoyle Date: 08 Jan 04 - 08:59 PM Good way to cut through the crap!
Just tried it out. Popped in some of my favorites.
WOW! Great resource....of particular, personal value to me is the listing of most accessed URLs at the location....it gives an "inside view" of where "those in the know go." Many universities (as JohnInKansas notes) have "shielded" their library resources...this site helps you cut to the chase.
THANK YOU. DevilMaster!!! A good tool to get to the "good stuff" at a particular site.
Sincerely, |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat in the top 50 Thousand From: JohnInKansas Date: 08 Jan 04 - 10:17 PM And the 'cat is up to ~46,000th place today, while my "other favorite" site is at a lowly 52,000+. Well worth a bookmark. John |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat in the top 50 Thousand From: Rapparee Date: 08 Jan 04 - 10:51 PM I dunno, JIK, I just did a Google search for the terms "library catalog" (no ""s) and hit Hytelnet, the Library of Congress's Z39.50 gateway, and a TON of other such sites. All of them directed me to a library catalog or list of catalogs (catalography?). But as a librarian, I agree: ya gotta git out and go to where the info is. The WWW is a great tool, but it, like so many other things, is not a solution per se. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat in the top 50 Thousand From: JohnInKansas Date: 09 Jan 04 - 07:42 AM It's really tough to tell what it's telling you when you get a hit with one of the search engines. There have been some previous threads in which "Why doesn't mudcat show up more?" was discussed. The explanation given by the experts then was the same as what I've related above: most of the search engines ignore .org and .edu, and will normally only show them if a link to them is posted on a .com or one of the other "commercial" sites. Some of the places like the LOC are so frequently referenced that it's reasonable that they could be found entirely based on posted citations. It's also possible that there are "exceptions to the rule," and that some very popular reference sources are searched. The policy statement that I read some time ago when I was considering installing the Google Toolbar did state that as a general practice, .org and .edu sites are not 'searched.' The ArtCyclopedia site I linked above is a "semi-commercial" site, and could well be registered as a non-profit, since it's original purpose was to index art museums on the web, as a more or less public service; but I'm told (sources of unknown reliability) they took a .com license in part in order to "be searched." Since they are a .com, they can, and do, sell ad space, which probably makes supporting the site a little easier. They do continue to do a good job of keeping the "commercial" sites separate from the non-profits when they display search results. I do use Google image search a fair amount, and have almost never gotten a result from anything other than the "po$ter $eller$," and a lot of bad snapshots posted on personal sites and chat rooms. You occasionally get a dot-edu hit, but it's nearly always some profs "class notes" - something that might have been announced in published news media, or discussed by students in chat. Very specifically, searching for known named art works, I've never been referred to ArtRenewal.org (25,000+ images), WebGallery (8,000 or so images, I think), The Louvre, The Hermitage, or even the Zorn Museum. It was speculated in a previous thread that the 'cat would likely get a surge of visitors if someone posted a few links in strategic "public" places; but I think the consensus was that's a bad idea - too likely to only bring trolls and idle tourists with no appropriate interest. People with suitable interests will get here by hearing from others in our little world, or from those who know about the 'cat because of their own interests. A quick glance at the "top 500" on the subject site looks like the first 100 or so are all spyware (adclick, doubleclick, etc.) with a sprinkling of download services and tech support sites. The first recognizable "somebody" comes at about number 139, our good friends at WallyWorld, with J.C.Penney at about 260. I don't see any reason why the 'cat should want to move up much in that group. John |
