Hi List, Here are the three points I was making:--
(1) Point-1 @Neha: >Also, thanks for that twitter/tinyurl explanation. It didn't make >any sense >at all. :-) > (and I am explicitly verbalizing this point-- because I feel it would help you think-- in terms of designing solutions to problems-- I had assumed that you/list would see the point and find it interesting-- just as I guess Narendra must have subconsciously put together a chain of logic before using tiny-url) My poor-jokes apart; my point being-- (a) Beyond allowing for shorter URLs; even if the tiny-URL takes the same or more characters; Tiny URL gives a layer of abstraction allowing a user to create a reference to a URL. (b) using tiny-url, a user can share a url-reference-- which can be optionally de-referenced-- instead of sharing the actual URL. (c) Given points (a) and (b)--- one can visualize a large number of situations-- infact a entire category of situations--- both humorous and practical-- where a user can benefit from sharing a reference to a URL instead of the actual URL. Narendra's answer--- share references to eduvid in his mail signature, so that his mail-signatures are not indexed by google- and hence not mailed to him in google-alerts--- is a example of a practical situation falling in the above category (since google's crawler-bot index content as-is instead of de-referencing tiny-urls before indexing them). (2) Point-2 About search being different-- whether a user is logged-on OR not-- my comments were based on much publicized interviews on google's strategy towards personalized search-- by Google's vice-president of search products. The person who first asked/mentioned this-- based their question on actual observation of search results being different whether logged on or not. (3) Point-3-- chrome versus others. I would say- opinions of all of us on this are pure speculation-- but I would deem my own views as a qualified opinion, rather than a random guess. On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 5:23 AM, Kamal <kmli...@eficacy.com> wrote: > Nalin Savara wrote: > > snip... > >> About browser specific searches; I beg to differ with Neha; it's very >> much possible and definitely google would want chrome to have a >> advantage--- >> > > Having an "advantage" that it hides from browsers other than chrome is > pretty counter-intuitive for Google's business. Also, if their disclosures > and > public announcements (and i would want to add philosophy) can be > believed, the first phrase that comes to mind is "Do no evil"! > > That's one way of saying it. Another way of saying it is-- "a experimental public trial of a slightly improved version of personalized search". Anyways. I shared a opinion-- based on what I have seen, working in the IT industry-- I am not going to argue further. --- Best Wishes and Regards, NS _______________________________________________ ilugd mailinglist -- ilugd@lists.linux-delhi.org http://frodo.hserus.net/mailman/listinfo/ilugd Archives at: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.user-groups.linux.delhi http://www.mail-archive.com/ilugd@lists.linux-delhi.org/
