Posted by Steve on 01/29/08 20:03

"Animesh K" <animesh1978@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:fnnvtr$10l8$1@agate.berkeley.edu...
> Steve wrote:
>> "Animesh K" <animesh1978@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:fnlvv0$cj6$4@agate.berkeley.edu...
>>> Steve wrote:
>>>
>>>> all hits indicate are the 'path most travelled'. as more than half the
>>>> internet users can't tell their ass from a hat, i think taking the
>>>> 'lowest views/responses' would be a clear indication that i'm on the
>>>> *right* path.
>>>>
>>>> :)
>>> By that logic, you must be visiting sites which are least popular. bye
>>> bye Nytimes, google, microsoft.com, yahoo, amazon, youtube, digg,
>>> facebook, etc.
>>
>> uhm, the new york times is never worth reading, google, yahoo, and digg
>> are not end-point but entry points - matches are by relevance. microsoft
>> is by relevance, youtube is by download not by visit, and i've no idea
>> what facebook is...so, it must not be too important.
>>
>> now of any of those, where does an ordinary counter mechanism fall into
>> the picture?
>
> You were telling that 'path least travelled' was the right path. I gave a
> few examples of path most travelled, but you seem to visit them.

i followed no path to them. i go to them first, then other places later via
them. that's why i called them *entry* points, numbnutz.

> Microsoft becomes relevant to you

christ almighty! 'relevancy' has to do with the *materials* ms has that is
most *appropriate* to what i'm searching for. not only is this personalize
and very specific to me and my keywords/phrases, the results can be *ranked*
as to whether or not the result(s) were *relevant* and to what extent. NONE
of that machinery has ANY counter mechanism to it...AT ALL.

> google becomes an entry point ---

google, for the vast majority of the billion or so internet users, is
*always* an entry point.

> just to prove that your wrong argument is right.

you aren't a native english speaker, are you. well, regardless of what that
sentence is supposed to say or mean, your other statements don't prove
anything...outside of you not knowing page counters or how *any* of the
sites you listed operate, which is *devoid* of counters.

[Back to original message]