Comments on: Comments on 3492

Post number 3492

Mick — Mon, 02 Oct 2000 09:37:15 -0800

Democrat election site spamming search engines? What does Al Gore have to do with MP3's? Did he take the initiative in inventing them too?

By: aladfar

aladfar — Mon, 02 Oct 2000 09:48:25 -0800

As for the MP3 files, there happen to be several such files on the site. Mentioning them in the MetaTags is standard practice. Indeed, there's nothing even the slightest bit controversial about it. The Gore website most certainly isn't 'spamming' anything. Further, the evolt thread you linked to goes on to make an issue of 'hidden messages' within the source code: "We also find that he's embedding hidden messages into the code - I wonder what happens if you play the following backwards . . . " These 'hidden messages' are often referred to as 'comments' - perhaps you knew that. In any case, the comments in the source code are entirely benign. Personally, I think it's pretty darn cool that someone at the Gore campaign had the foresight and knowledge to add a few interesting tidbits for geeks that like to look at source code. Next time, do a little research for yourself - evolt isn't gospel.

By: bryanboyer

bryanboyer — Mon, 02 Oct 2000 10:07:51 -0800

By: jamescblack

jamescblack — Mon, 02 Oct 2000 10:16:25 -0800

As for the MP3 files, there happen to be several such files on the site. Give me a break, aladfar. There are also quicktime, realvideo, and windows media files and links on the Gore2000 site and there I don't see anything about those in the metatags.

By: djc

djc — Mon, 02 Oct 2000 10:25:01 -0800

aladfar - I think the obviously sarcastic comment about the 'backwards comments' wasn't so obvious to you.. Thanks for the technical definition of comments btw. This isn't a heavy handed critism of Gore's site, its just an observation of what is going on within the source code, behind the scenes.. As for putting MP3's in the meta tags, don't try to kid yourself into believing that the Gore site developers did it because they have 'several' MP3 files on the site.. Thats akin to saying its Ok for me to put 'gif, jpeg, flash, webpage, html' in my metatags because I have each of those files somewhere within my site. If those developers were serious about using the MP3 keyword to draw searchers their way, perhaps they should have described the content of the speaches(or whatever it was they had on MP3) instead of a file format. That *is* what meta tags are for, right? Describing content??

By: ethmar

ethmar — Mon, 02 Oct 2000 11:32:03 -0800

Actually, META tags are a clever tool for redirecting seekers of specific content to "adult" sites. Case in point, I did a search at HotBot for "Visual Basic" and came up with a bunch* of adult-oriented sites. Exact phrase, english. * Bet you thought I was gonna say "buttload" didn't ya?

By: ethmar

ethmar — Mon, 02 Oct 2000 11:47:29 -0800

Even if the inclusion of "MP3" wasn't valid, or had any relevance to the Gore site, I still think it's cool. It will mess with the search engines and it will attract a few visitors who probably clicked there on accident, but really there are worse things that one could happen upon. Anything to get one more person in America that much closer to voting is a good thing, in my opinion. Actually, I disagree with the "coolness" of deliberately fudging your META tags just to get hits. Take MetaFilter for example. In reading the "about" section, I see that MF is "ad free". So really, what is MetaFilter's motivation for oulling in mucho traffic, other than the feeling that they're providing a service and that the postings here deserve to be read? So yeah, you can put all kinds of crazy stuff in your META tages but by and large, I believe it serves to irritate your audience if you put "Osterizer" in your META tags, thereby getting some of that Osterizer market, thereby wasting surfer's time by diverting them to a site that contains no such content. Curious indeed then, that Al Gore and Company would single out "MP3" for their META tags but not QuickTime, RealAudio, etc.

By: Mick

Mick — Mon, 02 Oct 2000 11:53:03 -0800

No need to do research when I have the '(on)Crack MeFi Research Team' to do it for me ;P I think it's a blatant case or positioning going on here. As for the 'hidden messages,' it is silly; that's why I didn't mention it.

By: terrapin

terrapin — Mon, 02 Oct 2000 12:00:46 -0800

I can't say for sure, but I would venture to guess that "mp3" is in the meta tags because mp3s—and the distribution/trading of them—/is/ an issue that some people (including many young voters) find important. Afterall, the Vice President did recently appear on MTV. The other words mentioned in this thread (.gif, quicktime, etc) are not issues, only formats.

By: ethmar

ethmar — Mon, 02 Oct 2000 12:16:36 -0800

The other words mentioned in this thread (.gif, quicktime, etc) are not issues, only formats. What, .gif files aren't an issue? I highly doubt that "MP3" would be in the META tags because it's a voter issue. I haven't gone to the site myself (which makes me singularly qualified to voice opinions about it), but based on that statement, surely other META tags must include "abortion", "taxes", "Globalization", and "Bush makes off-color remarks about reporter at Illinois rally". Or not.

By: ethmar

ethmar — Mon, 02 Oct 2000 12:26:46 -0800

OK, I've been to the Al Gore site, and I come bearing the infamous META tag: CONTENT="al gore, gore, algore, gore2000, al gore campaign, gore 2000, joe lieberman, tipper gore, hadassah lieberman, president, presidential candidate, democrat, campaign, election, 2000, vote, MP3 files, family, education, health care, social security, medicare, environment, liveable communities, crime, technology, science" Shows what I know. Under scrutiny, however, it is kinda silly. If I wanted to do a search on "technology", I sure wouldn't want to be directed to a political candidate's site. Of course, I'd probably try to make my search as specific as possible to separate as much wheat from chaff as possible. So I personally wouldn't merely search for "technology". But hey, speaking of content, lack therof, and squidgy META tags, how come Google has 280,000 sites devoted to "bullshit" but only 102 devoted (poorly) to Leonard Pinth-Garnell??