|
|
Posted by dorayme on 06/07/07 22:04
In article <m2myzcryyz.fsf@local.wv-www.com>,
Sherm Pendley <spamtrap@dot-app.org> wrote:
> dorayme <doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au> writes:
>
> >
> > It was that I thought it odd to suppose the point was to use meta
> > tags as a spellcheck.
>
> It wasn't "the" point, but it certainly was *a* point.
>
> In the absense of Google's spellchecking, and assuming that meta elements
> were used, then it's quite reasonable to include popular misspellings in
> the meta elements so that one's pages could be found by searching for the
> misspelled terms. It was a very popular use of meta elements, back when
> Google et al actually cared about them to begin with.
>
> As I said though, it's moot now, because Google's spell check addresses the
> problem of incorrectly-spelled search terms by correcting them at the source.
> That makes such a workaround unnecessary.
OK, sherm, it seems I missed your real point.
Yes, sure, but not all search engines do the "Did you mean..."
thingy. I notice Ansearch simply corrects some mistakes without
asking. When I tried "poligrayph", however, it did not find
anything full stop. Google, was smart enough to ask did I mean
"polygraph".
My point here is that while your point about mootness is
interesting and fair enough, it is a moot point how moot it is.
--
dorayme
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|