Google is a deaf user that loves reading metadata
Going through my aggregator, I saw Marc crying out for any sort of structured information, any sort of meta-data:
What's your excuse why you'd flow structured data through RSS 2.0 and lose it's structure? I gotta understand why that is a good thing?
Marc's Voice: But WAIT! I am NOT an rdf Zealot
And then I read that Google is deaf:
What if a deaf user sees a topic that interests him or her, and wants to know what these subject-matter experts have to say about it? Should he or she go without simply because the moderator thinks it would disrupt the natural feel found in the panel’s voices?
bestkungfu: Google is a deaf user
Too true. The best way to design sites is to think of search engines as one of your primary visitors. A visitor that can't see graphics, can't hear podcasts, and doesn't know what to do with a bunch of Javascript.
And as Marc says, let's not get mired down in format wars, or stop implementing and innovating because of format wars. Agree on open standards and APIs, stick more data in there, and wait for "cool stuff" to happen.
Similar
Comments
Great Idea - Could you develop it a little further?
Thats a great point of view Boris. Could you give some examples on what to do and what not to do? Perhaps you could do some consulting for Health Canada. I'm sure they have lots of data that needs to be accessible through a search engine.
Check out the voodoo
Matt, I've written up a few items under the title Search Engine Voodoo. Plus, you can read all the posts in the search engine voodoo category.
Health Canada -- or any entity that stores a lot of data -- only cares about this if they want people to find their information ahead of other information out there on the Internet. The "deep web" is a name for all the data that is locked up in large databases that aren't "open" to search engines. I wrote about the deep web a little while ago: search engines are starting to make deals with different places to get access to that stuff.