Keywords

[mottershead]

Kai, sometimes some of the keywords will be turned into sponsored links. But this is not always done. I know the list of words that the ad network in question is looking for, but it doesn't always make even those words hot. I haven't figured out what heuristic is being used. Also, I've noticed that the browser-side Javascript script that does it does not work on all browsers.

 

At some point in the future, I might make some of the keywords hot myself and have them link to articles, etc, on the site.

[guy_p]

Alterations to the TOU could be described as 'putting the matter beyond doubt' - no biggie.

 

Linking posts to other posts or articles is a fantastic idea. The current Google search-within-photonet is not great but better than nothing.

 

Michael Freeman's suggestions of yesterday re non-paying participant's rights were spot on, IMO.

[grahams]

I am sure that there are many contributors who would join me in congratulating and thanking you for finding a compromise solution to the hot link objections. I personally have no problem with the new boxed links. In an ideal world, where no such advertising revenue was needed, it would be wonderful if such links pointed to entries in a database of articles, specifications, techniques or even a glossary of terms.

 

I still believe, however, that PN has sufficient "circulation" (page hits per day) and prestige to attract advertising sponsorship directly from the big players in the photographic industry. How about permanent links to manufacturers sites embedded in the pages of the various camera specific forums?

[jonathan_stark]

Hey, Brian,

 

"Actually, I didn't consider that I was changing the Terms of Use, although we certainly can do that. I thought of it mainly as clarifying the existing TOU."

 

I find your attitude incredibly arrogant. I now severely regret having spent money to renew my membership for 2005-06. I'm generally one of the most mild reacting people, not a rabble rouser. I think you really need to do a self-check, buddy. I'm outta here.

 

Jonathan Stark

Lumberton, NJ

[i want my photo.net histor]

What annoys me the most is that these keywords are not just applied to new posts. They go back into the old ones too.

 

I could understand if someone objects strongly that they have the ultimate sanction of leaving this site.

 

But to apply it to the old posts is just plain wrong.

[i want my photo.net histor]

See how wonderfully useful they are....

 

Quote from http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00D7Ao

 

joe fanning , aug 05, 2005; 03:07 a.m.

I haven't used B&W film since the 1970s. What is good nowadays? I'm using an old rangefinder with a fixed lens.

 

 

The following keywords and/or sponsored links have been extracted automatically from the posts in this thread: film, lens, Ilford, Kodak, Tri-X, Fuji, photoshop, FUJI, TRI-X, Internet, processing, camera, shutter speed, cameras, filters, 35mm, Plus-X, Tri-x, Photo, Film, Processing, photography

[mottershead]

Why is it wrong to extract keywords from any posts? Don't you realize that is what all search engines are doing. Every time you use Google, you are using indexes of terms extracted from posts. What is wrong about it?

[mottershead]

Jonathan, why do you find changing the Terms of Use to be arrogant? Do you think we don't have the right to change the Terms of Use, or is it the particular change that you find arrogant?

[davecollopy]

Brian, if you are writing all this code yourself I have to say I am impressed. In the short time I have been here you have created solutions for some extremely difficult socio-politico-ethical dilimmas. And in my opinion your solutions have succeeded. But in this particular case I would remind you as a code writer that there are solutions. And then there are also elegant solutions.