It's quite funny, in the sense of "Caveat venditor": all the people who lost loads of money by selling the stock in the hope that they could sell before the buyer became aware of the business failing have lost loadsamoney. Big Greed=Big Loss. For those who didn't sell, the price will recover, of course.
And for those who got "dumped on" they will make a killing. You've got to love the Free Market! 2008/9/11 Sam Mbale <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > I just stumbled across this article that explains what may have actually > happened, > When Algorithms Attack: How Googlebot And Tribune (And Some Idiot) Killed > United Airlines > Stock<http://www.alleyinsider.com/2008/9/when-algorithms-attack-how-googlebot-and-tribune-and-some-idiot-killed-united-air-lines-stock> > > > > On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 11:38 AM, Sam Mbale <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> "the hard part is getting the people who write the >> requirements to understand why they should care...." >> I would like to think they care, it may just be the case of being caught >> off guard. >> I have search marketing experience and I know that these vulnerabilities >> can be exploited >> if you can ignore ethics. Even though Google does not condone >> googlebombing the practice is still >> widespread. You may recall the case of the Daily Mail columnist Julie >> Moult <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/08/28/julie_moult_googlebomb/> >> . >> If you Google Julie Moult a site very critical of her is still NO.1. This >> is not exactly Googlebombing, >> but shows how search results can be influenced by individuals. >> >> >> >> On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 10:53 AM, Peter Bowyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> 2008/9/11 Christopher Woods <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >>> >> I'm currently trying to ensure that my current client >>> >> builds suitable safeguards into a similar feature they're >>> >> proposing to deliver. >>> > >>> > >>> > Well surely it can't take much; something like SELECT * FROM >>> > 'active_news_articles' where 'published_date' => date(today)-90days? >>> > >>> > >>> > (I know that's a horrible mangling of SQL syntax, but you get the idea >>> :P ) >>> > As far as safeguards go, it can't be that much more difficult at the >>> > simplest level to filter out the old stories. Nobody cares whether a >>> really >>> > old story is popular or not... because it's old. ;) >>> >>> I'm sure the technical implementation will end up looking very much >>> like that. The hard part is getting the people who write the >>> requirements to understand why they should care.... >>> >>> Peter >>> -- >>> Peter Bowyer >>> Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> Follow me on Twitter: twitter.com/peeebeee >>> - >>> Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, >>> please visit >>> http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. >>> Unofficial list archive: >>> http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Sam Mbale >> Mpelembe Network >> http://www.mpelembe.net >> >> Follow me on http://twitter.com/mpelembe >> >> > > > -- > Sam Mbale > Mpelembe Network > http://www.mpelembe.net > > Follow me on http://twitter.com/mpelembe > > -- Brian Butterworth http://www.ukfree.tv - independent digital television and switchover advice, since 2002
