Big Bill wrote:
> I agree with Dave about the old domains thing, he'll need to be buying
> domains that were already associated with the subject he intends to
> fill them with though, dunno if he realises that but he probably does
> and should have mentioned. And I agree with what he says about sub
> domains. It should be born in mind though, that when you or I say we
> added new content to a site we generally mean a few pages of original
> content here and there. Dave reproduces public domain content
> thousands of pages at a time, hence the large number of visitors he
> gets. So if you or I add a few original pages to our little site about
> our Aunt Petunia's pressed flower collection, as is our wont, we can't
> expect the same kind of visitor figures. Which you might notice he
> entirely fails to mention.
I have learned to accept Dave's conduct over time. There is no harm if the
content is public -- something _which I failed to grasp at first_. I think
he is doing a fine job delivering people what they search for, however at
the expense of smaller sites whose owners are the _authors_, who will get
greater gratification from visits. When I published a modified version of a
GPL'd (General Public Licence) project that I had hacked on, I had some
unjustified feelings of guilt. If not _all_ the code is genuinely mine, I
think the other authors must be credited (in terms of stats), which is not
possible. That's what the GPL is all about though.
Getting back on topic, I have seen some sites that got acquired by different
owners but stuck to related topics (often restricted by the domain name,
e.g. palmnews.com will not become a family page).
I wonder if pages that have _existed_ for many years are merited? I know
that a long-term registration entails an advantage.
Roy S. Schestowitz