Random Thoughts

[Merry Prankster]

The correct answer is:  The Civil War.

The Prankster is in a magnanimous mood so any answer which mentioned The Civil War (a war which was anything but civil) shall be considered correct.  So......

bacali:    Prairie Dawn:    Ponytail:      Sheesh! It reminds the Prankster of the days when he as known as the BKB (Blowing Kiss Bandit).

[ponytail]

   Right back atcha, MP.

[bacali]

                     Aw... Thanks, MP.

[Merry Prankster]

You're welcome.  No more blown kisses for a while from the Prankster.  He blew out his blower and it's in the shop for repairs.  Because the Prankster's brain is crammed with useless trivia, here's another trivial question:

What percentage of web content is accessed by conventional search engines, e.g., Google, Bing?

[ponytail]

Now this will be a guess out of the blue....95%


enlighten me someone!

[Prairie Dawn]

You're welcome.  No more blown kisses for a while from the Prankster.  He blew out his blower and it's in the shop for repairs.  Because the Prankster's brain is crammed with useless trivia, here's another trivial question:

What percentage of web content is accessed by conventional search engines, e.g., Google, Bing?

MP, I need some clarification! What percent IS or CAN be accessed by conventional search engines? I am assuming IS, so I will guess about 80-85 percent.

[Merry Prankster]

You're welcome.  No more blown kisses for a while from the Prankster.  He blew out his blower and it's in the shop for repairs.  Because the Prankster's brain is crammed with useless trivia, here's another trivial question:

What percentage of web content is accessed by conventional search engines, e.g., Google, Bing?

MP, I need some clarification! What percent IS or CAN be accessed by conventional search engines? I am assuming IS, so I will guess about 80-85 percent.

PD, is your real-world moniker Wilhelmina Clinton?  (what do you mean by "is"?) (Just kidding PD!  You know what the Prankster thinks of you!)

Whether the Prankster used "can" or "is" does not matter.  But you are on to something.  The word you might dispute is "content".  How does one define "content"?  For purposes of this answer, he will employ two conventional measures.

If one measures web content by total volume of data (bits and bytes) or number of documents, conventional search engines access 1% or less of total web content.

[Prairie Dawn]

You're welcome.  No more blown kisses for a while from the Prankster.  He blew out his blower and it's in the shop for repairs.  Because the Prankster's brain is crammed with useless trivia, here's another trivial question:

What percentage of web content is accessed by conventional search engines, e.g., Google, Bing?

MP, I need some clarification! What percent IS or CAN be accessed by conventional search engines? I am assuming IS, so I will guess about 80-85 percent.

PD, is your real-world moniker Wilhelmina Clinton?  (what do you mean by "is"?) (Just kidding PD!  You know what the Prankster thinks of you!)

Whether the Prankster used "can" or "is" does not matter.  But you are on to something.  The word you might dispute is "content".  How does one define "content"?  For purposes of this answer, he will employ two conventional measures.

If one measures web content by total volume of data (bits and bytes) or number of documents, conventional search engines access 1% or less of total web content.

Thank you, Lord of the Gauntlets.     I will keep my guess.

[Merry Prankster]

Quoting Prairie Dawn:  Thank you, Lord of the Gauntlets.     I will keep my guess.:   

Prairie Dawn:  I am very upset with myself.  In a pathetic attempt at good-natured humor, I crossed the line and did something thoughtless and stupid.  I understand why you are offended and I am very sorry.  Sometimes, I really bollix up things.  I hope you know that I think the world of you and would never want to do anything to hurt or offend you.  But I have.

I wish I could take it back but I can't.  So, all I can do is this:

Prairie Dawn, I am truly sorry and I sincerely apologize and hope you will forgive me.  Will you?   Please?

P.S.  As part of my penance I agree to accept 20 lashes from a dragon's tail that has been used in gunkholing for 20 years.

Regarding my answer, I understand your skepticism.  Next week I will post a piece on this with evidence in support of my answer.  In the interim, for anyone who is a semi-dork (like me) I posted a link below which has some relevant overview information.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Web

[Prairie Dawn]

MP! I am not offended at all! 

[ponytail]

WOW! That storm was one for the books.

[Merry Prankster]

WOW! That storm was one for the books.

I hope you and yours are OK.  Please let us know.

The Prankster will make his last post on conventional search engines (CSEs), e.g., Google, Bing, Yahoo, and their limitations in searching the web……..(Why the applause?  Sheesh!)

Many researchers in this area divide the World Wide Web into two parts:  The portion of the web which is accessible to CSEs (“Surface” Web) and the portion of the web which is not (“Deep” or “Invisible” Web).  Why can’t CSEs access the Deep Web?  There are several reasons.  A primary one is because most of Deep Web content is stored in databases which require specialized search capabilities CSEs lack.

The relative size of the Surface Web vs. the Deep Web?  There is a consensus that the Deep Web is many, many times larger than the Surface Web but estimates vary.  The Prankster quotes two sources:

“…top university researchers say the Web you know---Facebook, Wikipedia, news---makes up less than 1% of the entire World Wide Web.”  (first link below)

“In fact, typical search engines like Google, Yahoo, or Bing actually access only a tiny fraction----estimated at .03%--of the internet.”  (second link below)

The Prankster includes three links to sources with good information on the Deep Web.  The first two articles are not long, easy to read and provide a decent overview of the Deep Web.  The third, a white paper, is a bit dated and more daunting but it has a lot of interesting information on the Deep Web and is still cited as an authoritative source.   To all geeks and semi-geeks (like me)---enjoy!

http://money.cnn.com/2014/03/10/technology/deep-web/

http://oedb.org/ilibrarian/invisible-web/

http://quod.lib.umich.edu/j/jep/3336451.0007.104?view=text;rgn=main

[Prairie Dawn]

Sorry, I feel the need to rant.  I do not mean to offend.....

DESERTER



ASSHAT



THERE ARE NO WORDS

[Merry Prankster]

I'm with you PD, but it's hard for me to get worked up about a man for whom I have no respect.  He's a big brain in an empty suit and more and more Americans are starting to see that the Emperor has no clothes.  His foreign policy (assuming one can be found) has done enormous damage to this country and we will feel the effects in ways we can't even imagine for years to come .

Regarding Bergdahl (sp?), I don't know what to make of it at this point.  I'm withholding judgment until I see more but one thing is clear---the way the administration has handled this matter so far is an absolute disgrace and an affront and insult to all of the brave men and women in uniform who HAVE SERVED THIS COUNTRY WITH HONOR AND DISTINCTION.

[Prairie Dawn]

I'm with you PD, but it's hard for me to get worked up about a man for whom I have no respect.  He's a big brain in an empty suit and more and more Americans are starting to see that the Emperor has no clothes.  His foreign policy (assuming one can be found) has done enormous damage to this country and we will feel the effects in ways we can't even imagine for years to come .

Regarding Bergdahl (sp?), I don't know what to make of it at this point.  I'm withholding judgment until I see more but one thing is clear---the way the administration has handled this matter so far is an absolute disgrace and an affront and insult to all of the brave men and women in uniform who HAVE SERVED THIS COUNTRY WITH HONOR AND DISTINCTION.

I could not agree more.