ArticleBot Broohaha

April 26, 2005 11:35 PM

I clicked this link todaywhile perusing this MSNBC blog (which is occasionally amusing). It seems that ArticleBot's hackles have been raised, and they are on the defensive against mainstream media (aka MSM). I'm not exactly sure what their point is, but I really hate it when people "overuse" the "quotation" marks in their "unique content". I would have totally left it alone if they had not called attention to themselves by responding in this manner. Plus the assistance they are offering reminds me a little of these MIT geniuses (previously discussed on MeFi here and here) except designed to spider search engines. I'm sure it's completely legal, but the ethics are questionable to say the least.
posted by shoppingforsanity (89 comments total)

Yeah, but what do you think about other things? Like breakfast cerial. What are your favorites?
posted by squirrel at 12:02 AM on April 27, 2005

Fruity Pebbles all the way.

(and I apologize for getting carried away with the opinions in the FPP - so sue me, I'm still studying the way of the MeFite)
posted by shoppingforsanity at 12:38 AM on April 27, 2005

Previous discussion of (the employment of) such technology.

also... two lines below the Article Bot mention:

By the way, Matt Haughey also found this really interesting video of a media practice drill for a serious terror attack. I couldn't watch too much, my freakout factor is pretty low.
posted by mek at 1:52 AM on April 27, 2005

It sounds as if Article Bot is just a text editor. Note that they imply but do not state the thing actually generates sentences.
posted by orthogonality at 5:40 AM on April 27, 2005

From the sidebar of linked page: Wouldn't you like to be able to get that kind of clear, human-looking, content?

...woulda made a great MeFi tagline to add to the collection.

The testimonials for ArticleBot crack me up, too...

-It's the neatest thing since I discovered how good peanuts were in a bottle of Coca-Cola when I was a kid.

-I should have went with my gut feeling ... would have saved a lot of time and heartache ... [y]ou put a new meaning to the word unique!

-...I can already see that your tool will allow me to do just that.
posted by thatweirdguy2 at 6:16 AM on April 27, 2005

Overlords pepsi blue vibrates... profit?
(this comment generated with Commentbot 1.0)
posted by klangklangston at 6:19 AM on April 27, 2005

MetaFilter: clear, human-looking, content
posted by warbaby at 7:17 AM on April 27, 2005

Thanks mek - I was trying to find that discussion and was having no luck at 2 AM :)
posted by shoppingforsanity at 8:53 AM on April 27, 2005

You mention that, "...ArticleBot's hackles have been raised..." That is not a correct assumption. We find it more funny than maddening, and more sad than ironic, when the "MSM" makes the uneducated, witless comments they make sometimes about Article Bot. You also decry the testimonials from Article Bot users. Well, your ignorance about the uses for Article Bot is not an excuse for your belittling of their heart-felt comments. The most telling thing that you say is that, "I'm not sure what their point is..." You should have spent more time on becoming "sure" of our point and less time making fun of what we do and represent. It's painfully easy to write whatever you want but with that ability comes a smidgen of responsibility. You have the former mastered - now focus on the latter. If you've read this far, let me address the only portion of your statement that I'm truly interested in: The question of "ethics" and computer-generated, or computer-aided content. If you would like to have a serious discussion of that issue, I will gladly enter into a dialogue. My fear is that your post about Article Bot is a rhetorical space-filler and not a call for true, meangingful discussion. I admit that my fear on this matter is akin to your assumptive comments about Article Bot - I could be as wrong about you as you were about Article Bot in the first place.
posted by articlebot at 9:13 AM on April 27, 2005

/me grabs popcorn and settles in for the trainwreck.
posted by signal at 9:53 AM on April 27, 2005

Evidently this thread has gone all PepsiBlue(tm). One should wonder whether those "heart-felt testimonials" were produced by some kind of "testimonialbot".
posted by clevershark at 9:54 AM on April 27, 2005

I find it quite telling that the "articlebot" feels the need to write "ethics" in scarequotes.
posted by signal at 9:55 AM on April 27, 2005

articlebot's twisted prose looks more like a North Korean News Agency press release than anything I'd put on my web site.
posted by clevershark at 9:57 AM on April 27, 2005

Clevershark: That's actually pretty funny. You'll appreciate this link, then - http://www.articlebot.com/demo/
posted by articlebot at 10:45 AM on April 27, 2005

signal - what is "telling" is that so many of "you" are upset (or other unnecessary emotional response) by my correct usage of quotation marks.
posted by articlebot at 10:48 AM on April 27, 2005

clevershark: Is your web site owned and operated by the South Korean News Agency? If not, maybe you should look into that. They could probably use some of your witty banter.
posted by articlebot at 10:51 AM on April 27, 2005

Correct usage? That's rich, Mr. Bot.
posted by Four Flavors at 11:03 AM on April 27, 2005

Four Flavors: Yes. Correct usage. As in, "to attribute to another", or "as said by another". Or, as "this is what someone wants you to believe they mean, but I do not ascribe to that opinion, therefore I set their comments apart from mine. Thanks for asking, though, Mr. (Mrs.?) (Ms.?) Four Flavors. It's always nice to be able to help others with basic grammar rules.
posted by articlebot at 11:21 AM on April 27, 2005

Dearest "Mr". "Bot": "you" "are" "correct", "of" "course", "silly" "me" "for" "not" "noticing" "your" "unique" "correctness", "assumptive ", more funny than maddening, and more sad than ironic,".
"yours",

signalbot
posted by signal at 11:25 AM on April 27, 2005

signalbot: Your vitriol-fueled jabs are odd. You don't know me. You don't understand what our software does or why. Yet, you find pleasure in attacking that which you do not know or understand. I'm happy to discuss Article Bot or the ethics of computer-generated content. Yet, this thread is all about (you) wasting finger-strokes on a keyboard in an attempt to belittle things you are completely unprepared to make intelligent commentary on. Why is that? How does it profit you or others to make the uneducated, uninformed, and angst-ridden remarks you've made thus far?
posted by articlebot at 11:32 AM on April 27, 2005

What you fail to understand, "articlebot", is that your bombastic and overdramatic use of english does not bode well for the quality of your product. After all the proverbial apple cannot fall all THAT far from the tree.
posted by clevershark at 11:56 AM on April 27, 2005

Well, I have in fact reviewed your demo, and I'm none too impressed. The user testimonial, which seems to be the one thing generated by a bot, doesn't cut it -- it's awkward, and its strict use of capitalization makes it obvious that it's a sort of "form letter" with the name of the article inserted in as a variable.

Let's face it, the majority of the text on the page seems to be lifted straight from other sources, in this case Yahoo, Kodak, and Cameraworld (although this latter has an HTML error in it).

All in all, not impressed. I suppose it could be said to be good enough to generate some link farms, but I don't see much of a use beyond that.
posted by clevershark at 12:09 PM on April 27, 2005

clevershark: What YOU fail to understand is that your OPINION does not equate to FACT. What you call "bombastic" or "overdramatic" use of english is (believe it or not) how I speak. I cannot help the fact that I find specific words to say specific things. My verbosity is not indicative of anything more than an attempt to communicate clearly. Your assumption about Article Bot, though ("the proverbial apple") is lazy on your part. If you spent some time finding out what Article Bot does you'd find that your comments thus far should embarass you (at worst) or give you pause before you send another insult our way. I don't know you therefore I will not make a comment about you other than: You should stop with the time-wasting jabs and begin to understand Article Bot's purpose. Hey, if you don't care, though, that's cool. But, then again, if you don't care, WHY throw in your opinion in the first place?
posted by articlebot at 12:12 PM on April 27, 2005

OK, now I’m intrigued. WTF is ArticleBot? It seems to be a subscription service for producing crap web pages – if the examples are actually what people use this for.

I think it’s something like a travesty generator that works by swiping big hunks of code from existing web pages. The claim of high PageRank suggests you pick some search terms, they Google up some pages and then steal content from them and scramble it together into something that looks like a web page.

Whether it’s actually being done by a bot or a bunch of people living in a cargo container in Belize is beside the point.

Since it’s a subscription service, people will have to want what ArticleBot delivers or it’s all just going to go pffft. It reminds me of classiccar.com which was just a penny stock pump and dump scam. Maybe this is the same sort of thing. Or maybe this is the future of the web – in which case I think I’ll cancel my ISP accuount.

Maybe I don't get it at all. I mean, who the hell would brag about producing a web page offering a service that nobody can figure out what it is?
posted by warbaby at 12:15 PM on April 27, 2005

Way to lower the S/N ratio, articlebot!
posted by sonofsamiam at 12:16 PM on April 27, 2005

clevershark: Here's what you miss: What you see is what *I* did with Article Bot. What YOU could do is another issue. I am a bad html scripter. But, on the other hand, Article Bot's purpose is to re-write text. As such, it can re-write HTML, "articles", or whatever you want. If you understand the power of re-writing you understand the power of Article Bot. If you look at a site I make and say, "it looks bad", then you miss the point. Article Bot did not make that site. It made a site that *I* asked it to. My abilities are not in the web design arena (obviously). My abilities are in the "idea" realm. As such, Article Bot is an amazing idea that is garnering more and more attention. Article Bot can make ANY look, ANY feel, ANY content. It may be that our site needs a "facelift" to explain more about what Article Bot does, but the premise you should understand is that Article Bot can re-write anything, and as many times or ways as you'd like.
posted by articlebot at 12:19 PM on April 27, 2005

Is it just me or is this starting to sound sort of time-cube-esque?

If you understand the power of re-writing you understand the power of Article Bot.

You do realize anything you (or anybody else) say here can and will be used against you in a court of google, a.b.?
posted by signal at 12:23 PM on April 27, 2005

Warbaby: Your comments will certainly illicit a large amount of "yeah! Right on!" replies. However, you are way off base. Article Bot does not "grab" stuff from the web. Well, it COULD if you wanted. But, it can be used in MANY ways that you would find "valid". For example, you could create 1 paragraph of advertising copy. Then, you could use Article Bot to re-write that copy 100 times. At your site you could display this re-written copy and test conversions on each one. In the past, that was called "split testing" and you'd pay someone to do the re-writing. With Article Bot you can re-write what took weeks in the past in minutes. This is only ONE way to use Article Bot. I mean, the tone of your comments are that Article Bot "is" something, but you are incorrect about what you think it "is". Article Bot is simply a tool to re-write TEXT. One type of text to re-write is HTML. The web is html-based, so we have examples of re-written html. Look at this example:

*** Out there on planet Earth, Captain Kirk, are jillions of cubic feet that lay undiscovered of natural gas deposits in areas without a market to use them. Call them isolated and stranded, jumbo fields in remote areas like the Far-East or the frozen tundra of Siberia where they are being burned-off, vented, and even spent to the tune of around a billion cubic feet annually. The sum amount of the remote reserves is about 2500 trillion cubic feet.

Anyway, there is a new procedure that changes natural gas into a sulfur-free, highly-efficient, environmentally-friendly liquid fuel. The business that is responsible for this process is, Syntroleum (NASDAQ:SYNM). Keep in mind the possibility that this might easily become the most newsworthy "environmental" story in our lifetime, but, let’s not get ahead of ourselves else some environmentalist whacko fouls your spectacles. ***

That is a re-write of an original piece of content. The original was badly written, in my opinion, but I used that seed to get the above content anyway. Here is another version of the above:

*** In every corner of the earth, Mr. Chekov, it turns out that there are trillions of cubic feet available of natural gas deposits in areas without a marketplace that can do anything with it. Think about them as stranded or isolated, jumbo fields in remote places like Peru and the frozen tundra of Siberia where you'll find them often burnt up, spent, or burned-off to the tune of nearly a billion cubic feet annually. The sum quantity of these marooned reserves is easily over 2500 TCF.

In any case, there's a new procedure that converts gas into a super-clean-burning, synthetic, highly-efficient liquid fuel. The corporation that created this process is, Syntroleum (NASDAQ:SYNM). Keep in mind the fact that this might easily be the most Prominent "eco-friendly" story of the millennium, on the other hand, let’s move on lest a group of "Green Peace" activists gets you off track. ***

The uses of re-written content go far beyond just "web pages". The original intent of Article Bot was more philosophical than capitalist, but that's another story, I suppose.
posted by articlebot at 12:30 PM on April 27, 2005

signal: Your post about google is one reason more people are turning towards computer-generated content. The power that google has (some say "ill gotten") is (in my opinion) bad for the free flow of information. When robots control what is considered valid content you'll need robots on your side, too.
posted by articlebot at 12:38 PM on April 27, 2005

sonofsamiam: What does, "Way to lower the S/N ratio, articlebot!" mean?
posted by articlebot at 12:39 PM on April 27, 2005

This reminds me of that scene in "Roxanne" where Steve Martin buys a USA Today from a coinbox. He takes one good look at the front page, starts screaming, runs back to the coin box, digs in his pocket for change, opens the box and stuffs the paper back inside.

I am deeply, deeply sorry I ever saw any of this.

*goes to scrub mind out with Lysol*
posted by warbaby at 12:51 PM on April 27, 2005

What does, "Way to lower the S/N ratio, articlebot!" mean?

It means "way to lower the signal-to-noise ratio." In other words, robot generated text that doesn't make any sense adds noise. Noise is bad.

I still fail to see what "ARTICLEBOT" is for besides trying to scam google adsense bucks from a website full of junk robot text pulled from other sources.

"ARTICLEBOT" please enlighten us to the many uses.
posted by mathowie at 12:52 PM on April 27, 2005

It looks like some search engine are on to Don (a.k.a. ArticleBot) Harrold. It also seems that Don spends some time pimping/defending his creation in public forums.
posted by signal at 1:07 PM on April 27, 2005

What you call "bombastic" or "overdramatic" use of english is (believe it or not) how I speak.

Well then, you're a pompous and self-important person.
posted by clevershark at 1:08 PM on April 27, 2005

articlebot, could your technology be adapted to automatically summarize and synthesize news reports? It seems like it could, if it works as well as you say. That would be a much more useful application, but your business model as it stands will have the effect of degrading search results for all internet users.
However, combining an RSS reader with a good summarizer would be a pretty cool app that I think would have real commercial viability.
Just a friendly (but serious) suggestion.
posted by sonofsamiam at 1:17 PM on April 27, 2005

clevershark: Here's what you miss: What you see is what *I* did with Article Bot. What YOU could do is another issue. I am a bad html scripter. But, on the other hand, Article Bot's purpose is to re-write text.

But it's not re-writing text. You're just lying to us. The so-called "testimonial" on your demo page is made up (as I said, a "form letter" with the brand and genericized name of the product slipped in), and the "text" in the yahoo articles is copied word-for-word.

Now, you obviously have nothing better to do with your time than to keep up the al-Sayeed-like criticism on this board, but based on your demo there is actually much less to your product than meets the eye. I'd recommend that you at least set up a better demo, because the one you have really fails to highlight what you claim the strengths of your product are.
posted by clevershark at 1:17 PM on April 27, 2005

This is cool. Remember that crazy couple that named their daughter "Aryan Nation" or whatever the heck it was and then the webmaster from the baby picture hosting site paid his five bucks to join MeTa and comment? Then it happened again just yesterday or the day before. Now we've got "articlebot" joining. "Schweet!" Oh, sorry, got "carried away" with the quotation marks.
posted by fixedgear at 1:31 PM on April 27, 2005

clevershark: As Bill Hicks once said, "You're proving my point."

Your name-calling is the trademark of a sad individual with nothing to say.

Good riddance.
posted by articlebot at 1:37 PM on April 27, 2005

Looking at the tutorial page, what it appears to be doing is replacing user-selected words and phrases from a database.

For instance, if the source text is "The cat sat on the mat", I'd tag "cat", "sat" and "mat", populate a database with synonyms for each, then ArticleBot would churn out variants like "The feline sat on the mat", "The moggy sat on the rug", "The feline put its ass on the carpet", etc.

Notice how none of the demos and proofs show what the source text is; that'd dispel the mystery by showing that it's basically automated search-and-replace.
posted by raygirvan at 1:38 PM on April 27, 2005

sonofsamiam: There are many uses of Article Bot. Your suggestion relating to news is a good one. I've spoken with radio executives at a local station who want to use Article Bot's technology to re-write news stories so that each time the news is read it will be "new". Speech-writing is another avenue for Article Bot use. In any case, your suggestion is a good one.
posted by articlebot at 1:40 PM on April 27, 2005

raygirvan: The demo sites don't show any "source" because that is the POINT. The point is to show a RESULT. And, your boiling Article Bot down to "find and replace" is not accurate. Article Bot uses many logic tools to achieve its end results. This logic goes beyond "find and replace". "Find and replace" would give gibberish at the end of the process. For example, "find and replace" would see "New York City" as three words. So, you could end up with "Fresh Pudding Town" for a "replacement". That's not how Article Bot works. Also, you don't see the other components of Article Bot, or the uses that go beyond the "demo" pages. You'll need to think past "find and replace" to get to the unlimited uses of Article Bot's technology.
posted by articlebot at 1:45 PM on April 27, 2005

fixedgear: This thread was begun when (I assume) Matt ([e-mail]) took a verbal swipe at Article Bot. In an increasingly-popular manner, he spent no time discussing Article Bot with us (the creators) or our customers. He(?) chose to use his blog as a way to disemminate an uneducated opinion which was aimed at discrediting our business.

That sort of irresponsible writing deserves a reasoned reply, in my opinion.
posted by articlebot at 1:48 PM on April 27, 2005

The point is to show a RESULT

Of course!

"Russian President Boris Yeltsin underwent heart bypass surgery Tuesday after transferring his powers to Prime Minister Viktor Chernomyrdin, the Kremlin said".

That's the output from my Russian-to-English translation program I wrote yesterday. I don't need to show you the Russian source. The point is to show a RESULT.

So, you could end up with "Fresh Pudding Town" for a "replacement". That's not how Article Bot works.

I didn't say it was. I was citing your own tutorial page, which makes it clear that the replacement only happens on words that the user has tagged and created a synonym list for.
posted by raygirvan at 2:10 PM on April 27, 2005

"articlebot" I ([e-mail]) did not make the post here. Look at the little "posted by ..." line up at the top of this page for the "answer" to who "posted" it.

a reasoned reply

Still waiting for an answer to my question above (the one that says "posted by mathowie")
posted by mathowie at 2:13 PM on April 27, 2005

he spent no time discussing Article Bot with us (the creators) or our customers. He(?) chose to use his blog as a way to disemminate an uneducated opinion which was aimed at discrediting our business.

You don't understand how blogs work, do you? Or interpersonal communication, for that matter?

People see something weird, they go "huh, that's odd." They chose to make a post here about it, as lots of interesting and odd things get posted here.

If I want to tell my wife that I don't care for Jiffy Peanut Butter, should I contact the corporation first and interview a few dozen happy customers before I can write "I don't like Jiffy Peanut Butter" on a website?
posted by mathowie at 2:15 PM on April 27, 2005

BTW, a.b., repeatedly calling everybody who disagrees with you "uneducated" and "uninformed", doesn't make you seem more "educated" or "informed". Quite the opposite, in fact.
posted by signal at 2:28 PM on April 27, 2005

raygirvan: I don't understand your point. However, on a different note, Article Bot does NOT "Find and Replace" words. It manipulates TEXT in a number of ways. Some random, some not random, some user-defined, some program-defined. If Article Bot was just "find and replace", the output would be jibberish. Also, you don't seem to realize (or maybe just not acknowledge) that since Article Bot manipulates TEXT it is not a word-based program. Article Bot can manipulate any HTML-based document. As such, if you cannot see the implications for web-design, I'll gladly explain more in detail.
posted by articlebot at 2:32 PM on April 27, 2005

Maybe articlebot seriously doesn't get it. MetaFilter is a 'community blog,' that is any of the 24K or so members can post a(n) (interesting) link or links and then discussion ensues. shoppingforsanity posted the link(s) inquestion. Discussion ensued. matthowie sort of owns and runs the site, but this was not his post to begin with. Matt is not using 'his' blog as a bully pulpit, but folks are asking you serious questions about your business practices.

Here is Matt's question in cased you missed it: I still fail to see what "ARTICLEBOT" is for besides trying to scam google adsense bucks from a website full of junk robot text pulled from other sources.

Please explain, and use small words 'cause some of us are sorta dumb.
posted by fixedgear at 2:34 PM on April 27, 2005

signal: No. You are wrong. I have made factual statements. Not one of you has either used Article Bot, spoken with a user, or spoken directly with the creators (us). Therefore the comments you make about ARTICLE BOT are based on ignorance and ARE uneducated.

And, my goal is not to seem ANY way. That's where you and I must differ, I suppose. I deal with reality and you deal with assumptions.
posted by articlebot at 2:39 PM on April 27, 2005

fixedgear, give up the pretext. All of these responses are autogenerated by metabot, a discussion board bot which creates discussions in order to get more google ads.

Seriously, though, I have seen the future. And it is ArticleBot!

Articlebot, is there a module for your service which will allow me to post my thoughts to this website without actually having to think them first? Maybe a plugin from the main ArticleBot service?
posted by chaz at 2:41 PM on April 27, 2005

Not one of you has either used Article Bot,

Maybe because none of us is in the business of scamming adsense?

Again, Matt's question, please answer it this time:

I still fail to see what "ARTICLEBOT" is for besides trying to scam google adsense bucks from a website full of junk robot text pulled from other sources.
posted by signal at 2:48 PM on April 27, 2005

And I doubt that ArticleBot could be very effective at parsing a sentence, for example, when its creator clearly doesn't have that ability in the first place.
posted by signal at 2:50 PM on April 27, 2005

fixedgear: Is there any way you (and others) could tone down the angst, sarcasm, and vitriol? Seriously, I don't think, nor have have stated that I believe anyone here is "sorta dumb", so please don't put those words in my mouth. I don't understand the flaming, but that's different than assuming anyone is "sorta dumb". I am also not the one here name-calling. You'll want to check clevershark's (et al) posts for that stuff.

So, if you don't mind, please quit flame-baiting.

With regard to your question, I've answered in more than one reply uses for Article Bot. The concept is re-writing text. The uses range from creating multiple versions of an OFFLINE text ad, to whole websites that pull in HUMAN-written articles on 1000s of topics. Other uses:

Headline creation...
Essay re-writing...
CSS-file generating...
Information portal generation...
Sheet music generation...
Song-writing...
Educational tools (30 different versions of a test to stop the possibility of cheating...)

The concept of re-writing with a "logic-based" AI interface goes beyond "scamming" anyone.
posted by articlebot at 2:53 PM on April 27, 2005

Wow - go to a meeting and lunch, come back and find all kinds a crazy shit has been going down on MeFi. You know, articlebot, if you could just learn to stay out of it, this thread would have just blown away in the wind... there were only like 7 comments when I last checked, and now look! It really IS a broohaha!! I think Matt hit the nail on the head:

You don't understand how blogs work, do you? Or interpersonal communication, for that matter?

This is all very entertaining and much more than I could have hoped for with my silly little FPP... again, wow.
posted by shoppingforsanity at 2:59 PM on April 27, 2005

signal: LOL - "in the business" of "scamming" google? That is funny. Google is in serious trouble now. Why? Try COPYRIGHT infringement on a scale never before seen in the history of mankind. Scamming google? Dude, you gotta be kidding. Google is a multi-billion dollar enterprise whose revenue source is derived like this:

1) They have ROBOTS that go to websites and take content.

2) Their ROBOTS decide what content is valid or not based on COMPUTER algorithms.

3) Those COMPUTER algorithms spit out "content" based on keyword searches....

4) ...around which Google sells advertisements...

5) ...that they hope (you) will purchase to advertise your products around YOUR content that they TOOK from you in the first place.

"Scam" google?

Lol.

Everyone from the French Press Agency to Porn merchants to gift shops in Texarkana are suing google. If you want to know who the real "scammers" are, just search google for "google lawsuit" and find out that there are, ahem, other opinions that are more weighty than yours on that issue.

And, please don't let the irony of Google's robots deciding what is or is not "valid" content pass you by. The entire thread here is based on the premise that computer-generated content is invalid. Well, which is more invalid: Computers that make content or computers that JUDGE content?

"Scam google"???
posted by articlebot at 3:01 PM on April 27, 2005

shoppingforsanity (and others): Yes, I understand communication. I understand blogs. Blogs ain't new, though. They used to be called "usenet". Yes, I understand how they work.

Notice that I did not say Matt posted anything. What I said, was, "This thread was begun when (I assume) Matt ([e-mail]) took a verbal swipe at Article Bot. "

My assumption was proven incorrect by Matt's next post.

However, the premise that the original post was irresponsible continues to be correct and valid.
posted by articlebot at 3:06 PM on April 27, 2005

chaz: "...without actually having to think them first?"

You seem to have that part worked out just fine.
posted by articlebot at 3:08 PM on April 27, 2005

The entire thread here is based on the premise that computer-generated content is invalid.

Actually, this entire thread is based on the premise that you (you meaning "Don", not the universal "you") write funny things when you feel attacked. And make outlandish rationalizations for your little scam, using overblown, 99%-content free rhetoric.
posted by signal at 3:09 PM on April 27, 2005

You're right articlebot, google is one giant scam that leeches money off all our hard work, with no and I mean NO useful applications.

Well, which is more invalid: Computers that make content or computers that JUDGE content?

So in your world to use your technology to generate "1000s of articles on different topics" so you can make money off this evil, scaming corporation called Google. You think two wrongs do make a right.

By the way, the answer to your question is obvious. Computers making content is invalid. Next!
posted by mathowie at 3:10 PM on April 27, 2005

matthowie: "If I want to tell my wife that I don't care for Jiffy Peanut Butter, should I contact the corporation first and interview a few dozen happy customers before I can write "I don't like Jiffy Peanut Butter" on a website?"

Your question assumes that you've either TRIED Jiffy Peanut Butter, or you have reason to "not care" for it. Also, what you say in the privacy of your home is one thing. What you post in public forums is another. That is not just my opinion. That is based on historical, legal precedence.

Besides the issue is the question of, "Why say things for which you have no basis in fact?"

I mean, yeah, I guess you can say whatever you want, but why say "dumb stuff"? Why not LEARN a bit about what you're commenting on.

That brings up another point. If you are going to talk with your wife about Jiffy Peanut Butter she may have a question for you like, "why not"? For which you may want to have an answer. If your answer is "just 'cause", that's probably not going to spark much COMMUNICATION.

Which is what this blog is about, right? Communication? So, if that's what you're after, vitriol, name-calling, and uninformed jabs may be "allowed" but they do not offer much chance for "communication".
posted by articlebot at 3:20 PM on April 27, 2005

Articlebot, way up there you say: My abilities are in the "idea" realm. As such, Article Bot is an amazing idea that is garnering more and more attention. Article Bot can make ANY look, ANY feel, ANY content. It may be that our site needs a "facelift" to explain more about what Article Bot does, but the premise you should understand is that Article Bot can re-write anything, and as many times or ways as you'd like.

What you say is true. But be that as it may, it looks to me like you are selling it as a way to get more search engine hits for sites which don't have the means (ie: originality?) to come up with their own unique content and are only trying to generate money by attracting more unique visitors, thereby attracting more advertisers, etc.... thereby replacing sites containing genuine, HUMAN DERIVED content at the top of the hit list. IMHO, this is unethical... but that's just my opinion, which I sometimes like to share with other people. I apologize for raising your hackles even more...
posted by shoppingforsanity at 3:21 PM on April 27, 2005

raygirvan: I don't understand your point.

Aak. You're right in this respect: find-and-replace isn't the term I'm looking for. But going by your own own site, my summary - the cat on the mat example - is a correct description of the basic method. In its most general sense, I take a text document: "a87ytdweuhf94f8c83hyvcr"; label a substring and list alternatives "a87ytdweuhf94f8c83hyvcr" and "waah"," heuh", "guuh", etc; and ArticleBot generates "a87ytdwaahf94f8c83hyvcr", "a87ytdheuhf94f8c83hyvcr", "a87ytdguuhf94f8c83hyvcr", etc. Yes?
posted by raygirvan at 3:28 PM on April 27, 2005

matthowie: You're right articlebot, google is one giant scam that leeches money off all our hard work, with no and I mean NO useful applications.

*** I did not say anything of the sort. You (once again) attribute something to me that is not found in my commentary. That said, there are serious ethical issues involved with Google. State and Federal and international courts are involved as we speak. The "usefulness" of google is not an issue. The legality of taking content that is not yours and making money off of that content IS an issue. Again, the courts are just starting what could be a long road of litigation with google.


Well, which is more invalid: Computers that make content or computers that JUDGE content?

So in your world to use your technology to generate "1000s of articles on different topics" so you can make money off this evil, scaming corporation called Google. You think two wrongs do make a right.

*** Do you read? I mean, honestly, DO YOU READ? Did you read the other (just a fraction of) uses for Article Bot? Gee whiz...

But, I'll take your bait...

What I believe is that technology exists which can give anyone an opportunity to produce content of all types. That content can be computer-generated, or computer-served, or both. Article Bot can do BOTH. The "why" someone wants that content is a product of their personal experience.

Finally, in regard to your "By the way, the answer to your question is obvious. Computers making content is invalid. Next!" comment:

If you don't think computer-generated content is "valid" then you must REALLY hate Google. Their entire business model is COMPUTERS taking and creating content.

Guess you must have missed that irony.
posted by articlebot at 3:46 PM on April 27, 2005

I don't KNOW which "thing" I like BETTER, THE excessive-CAPITALIZATION, "the" innapropriate USE "of scare-quotes", or the morissette-esque "grasp" of the CONCEPT of "IRONY".
posted by signal at 3:58 PM on April 27, 2005

I mean, yeah, I guess you can say whatever you want, but why say "dumb stuff"? Why not LEARN a bit about what you're commenting on.

Isn't this exactly what we are doing? How do we learn without discussion? I personally don't like to plunk down cash for any product being sold over the internets that I don't know anything about, so I would never try your product - or anyone else's - without discussing it with my peers first to gauge their take on it.

Going through the comments, I really don't see an inordinate amount of vitriol (you must take into account that this is MeFi - smart-assery abounds and must be taken with a grain of salt if one doesn't desire to go completely nuts losing sleep over what the MeFites are saying) - I DO see a lot of questioning and generally trying to understand what your product is and does and how you are marketing it online. THAT'S ALL.
posted by shoppingforsanity at 4:01 PM on April 27, 2005

shoppingforsanity:

You said: "...it looks to me like you are selling it as a way to get more search engine hits for sites which don't have the means (ie: originality?) to come up with their own unique content and are only trying to generate money by attracting more unique visitors, thereby attracting more advertisers, etc.... thereby replacing sites containing genuine, HUMAN DERIVED content at the top of the hit list. IMHO, this is unethical... but that's just my opinion, which I sometimes like to share with other people. I apologize for raising your hackles even more..."

My reply:

Let me take your last point - the "raising your hackles" part, first. I must admit that I do not understand why folks are so bent on even TRYING to do that. What is the deal? Are we so jaded and cynical as to not see that a person is on the other end of this? I mean, come on. Not one of you here even heard of Article Bot before a few hours ago, and yet the opinions of many of the folks here is just flat-out HATEFUL.

The ethics of computer-generated or computer-manipulated or computer-compiled content are fair game for discussion. My opinion is pretty simple. I believe that computers are tools. Nothing more. How they are used is a product of the USER and not the software.

Are there ways to use software for "evil"? Yes. But, before you can discuss that you have to define what "evil" is.

We have users whose finances are turning around because of Article Bot. Is that "evil"? I'm not even talking about HOW they used Article Bot. I'm only addressing the impact on their lives. The testimonials at our site are REAL, and meaningful.

Also, a point which has been overlooked in this thread is that Article Bot can use human-generated content. For example, you could place 1000 articles into Article Bot that YOU WROTE and have Article Bot simply place those HUMAN-WRITTEN articles into your site in random places.

You also don't address all the other uses for Article Bot I described. Are they all "evil"?

The way we market Article Bot is this: If you want content, and a lot of it, Article Bot can give it to you. Do I think that's "evil"? No.

Google (Yahoo, etc) does this:

1) Take content from your site.
2) Place your content on their servers.
3) Re-order and manipulate content from you to serve up as "search results".

They are the ULTIMATE computer-generator of content.

If that business model is not "evil", then what's wrong with the "little guy" having the ability to do the same?

The argument that computer-generated content is "evil" or, more correctly, that certain USES of it could be "evil", is not without merit. I agree that ANY form of technology could be used for "evil". But, when the largest internet company in the WORLD is doing something to you and me, it becomes less "evil" to simply find ways to compete on that playing field.

Finally, I would ask that if you believe computer-generated content is so invalid, why not just get rid of your computer and go back to writing on slate with chalk? I mean, seriously...

Technology is not bad. How it is used may be, though. On that point, I hope we can agree.
posted by articlebot at 4:02 PM on April 27, 2005

Also, what you say in the privacy of your home is one thing. What you post in public forums is another. That is not just my opinion. That is based on historical, legal precedence

I've heard of some legal precedence. Freedom of speech. Look it up. I think it's one of the first ones.
posted by mathowie at 4:10 PM on April 27, 2005

Blogs ain't new, though. They used to be called "usenet". Yes, I understand how they work.

No, I don't think you do. Usenet still exists, BTW. They are different animals, blogs and usenet - in the same genus, but different species.
posted by shoppingforsanity at 4:20 PM on April 27, 2005

matthowie: "Freedom of Speech" comes with responsibility. You can't scream "fire" in a crowded theater, for example.

Anyhow, I see that you are not interested in serious dialogue....

Sortof like a robot spitting out generated content.

lol
posted by articlebot at 4:22 PM on April 27, 2005

Finally, I would ask that if you believe computer-generated content is so invalid, why not just get rid of your computer and go back to writing on slate with chalk?

No one is implying that computers or technology is inherently "evil" or "bad", you're using a straw man argument here. Much of the discussion here is noting that legitimate uses of articlebot seem to skew heavily towards the unethical practice of search engine gaming. You say there are other uses, and go through quite a bit of mental gymnastics to make it sound like any and all uses of all technology can be bad or good in order to muddy the question of whether or not this product is used for search engine gaming. I don't see any demos on the website showing off other legitimate uses, it's all just web pages covered in advertising that makes the author money.

Let's look at your demo page. One paragraph of text and at least four advertising units all over it. You know how much of the demo is actual content? A whopping 11%, based on pixels. Nearly ninety percent of the page is advertising.

So people search for kodak camera information and get 11% content, the rest not so helpful. That's not good for search engines and I hope to god you're not showing up high for major keywords. That makes Google less useful while you benefit. It's a classic tragedy of the commons.


So what other seemingly legitimate uses have you offered up here? Summarizing articles for newspapers and radio stations so they can re-read the same information, but changed up? I would say that's kind of deceptive. Still keen on wondering what else this Word Auto-Summarize type app can do.
posted by mathowie at 4:25 PM on April 27, 2005

Articlebot, there is one major flaw in your reasoning.

1. yes it's true that search engines rescramble other people's content, re-order it, and profit from it.

2. So does article-bot.

3. The difference is that #1 adds something of value, which is to help me find what I am searching for. All your product does is allow me to create content, without any added value.

IF articlebot had the power to, say, take a few different content sources on a topic (say an AP article on the Pope, and an AFP article on the Pope, plus a blog posting about the Pope) and then rescramble them in a way that added value to the story, perhaps by adding links to other relevent content within the story and populating it with images and whatnot, then I could see the value.

As it stands, there is no added value, just different word order. Your product's main virtue is that it allows people to add lots of content to their website and only pay ArticleBot for the pleasure rather then paying the content creators.

I should note, however, that one of my first jobs was to take AP copy and rewrite it for the evening news. So there is a market somewhere for rewriting and reconfiguring, and technically there is no imperative that humans do this. However, in that case, we were adding value by combining the wire story with graphics, and a television presentation. We were also paying AP for the content.

So, Articlebot arguing styles aside, there is a potential for this kind of product for a lot of different applications, but currently it is close to worthless for anyone other then someone looking to make ad revenue off of easy to assemble content which adds little or no overall value to the overall internet.
posted by chaz at 4:37 PM on April 27, 2005

matthowie: Do you understand that what is at our site are DEMOS of what Article Bot CAN do???

Man.

You know, you write as if you are young. Maybe younger than high school age. The reason I say this is because I can't believe you don't get the concept of "split testing". Ad agencies do this every day. You take an one ad and re-work it. Then, you show it to different groups of people. The ads that pull the best you go with. The ones that don't, you move on.

Also, have you ever used a THESAURUS??? People use them every day to REWRITE things or find OTHER WAYS to say things.

Your obsession with computer-generated content is strange. Especially coming from a guy who runs something called a "Blog" on the "internet"...

lol

Dude, the whole world is COMPUTER RUN and content at EVERY MAJOR SITE is either COMPUTER-GENERATED, or COMPUTER-COMPILED, or COMPUTER-SERVED.

If you're so concerned with computer-generated content, you better dig a hole and live in it. 'Cause, computers ain't goin' away.

But, you're just baiting me. You know all this. I mean, you continue to ignore my comments about Google and how THEY derive their content.

I wonder why?
posted by articlebot at 4:40 PM on April 27, 2005

Why do I get the feeling that in a few days time we're gonna be using "articlebot" as a verb?
posted by signal at 4:45 PM on April 27, 2005

I don't even know where to begin to address your last comment, articlebot. So let me just point to a few things that really jump out at me:

1) I never used the word evil anywhere (and neither did anyone else that I can see).

2) This comment is ridiculous to me: But, when the largest internet company in the WORLD is doing something to you and me, it becomes less "evil" to simply find ways to compete on that playing field. So, in essence you are saying that two wrongs do, in fact, make a right? Wow, no wonder our world is going to hell in a handbag.

3) You say: Also, a point which has been overlooked in this thread is that Article Bot can use human-generated content. For example, you could place 1000 articles into Article Bot that YOU WROTE and have Article Bot simply place those HUMAN-WRITTEN articles into your site in random places. I did not overlook this use. I guess my question is - why would someone who has 1000 original articles of their own need to use your product in order to make money on the internet?

3) Technology is not bad. How it is used may be, though. On that point, I hope we can agree. You're right, we agree.

This is just turning into a big circle-jerk, so I'm going back to work now...
posted by shoppingforsanity at 4:49 PM on April 27, 2005

chaz:

>>>1. yes it's true that search engines rescramble other people's content, re-order it, and profit from it.

*** Okay, glad to hear you admit that the thing which Article Bot CAN do, the search engines actually DO.

>>>2. So does article-bot.

*** No. You are incorrect. Article Bot CAN do that. Article Bot is a TOOL, not an "end unto itself".


>>>3. The difference is that #1 adds something of value,

*** That depends on your definitions of "adds something", and "value". If by "adds something" you mean, "takes something" then, okay I buy that. If by "value", you mean, "copyright infringment is now okay, and manipulating other peoples works is okay, too", then, I see your point.

>>>which is to help me find what I am searching for.

*** You cannot STEAL from me to GIVE to someone else. No matter how "convenient" it may seem to the "end user". You are giving a pass to search engines which TAKE content and do not ADD A DARN THING. All that is added is "convenience" for someone searching. That "convenience" comes at the expense of people who've worked to create their content. These issue are being LITIGATED in State, Federal, and international courts.

Remember, Napster was shut down for EXACTLY the same thing: Sharing content that others own copyrights on. It took a while, but the courts finally ruled AGAINST the copyright-infringing of Napster.


>>> All your product does is allow me to create content, without any added value.

*** You are wrong. VERY wrong. Let me say this again: Article Bot manipulates text. It can manipulate HTML. It can be used to pull HUMAN WRITTEN CONTENT into a website. Please re-read that again. HUMAN-WRITTEN content. You know, content WRITTEN BY HUMANS. And, what if "all" Article Bot "did" was allow you to create content without "any added value"? Your values and the values of the next guy can be different. That's what is so great about Article Bot. You can use it to create what YOU WANT.


>>> IF articlebot had the power to, say, take a few different content sources on a topic (say an AP article on the Pope, and an AFP article on the Pope, plus a blog posting about the Pope) and then rescramble them in a way that added value to the story, perhaps by adding links to other relevent content within the story and populating it with images and whatnot, then I could see the value.

******* Article Bot can do that VERY easily. More easily than you can imagine. There are users of Article Bot that do JUST that. ONLY that. I have sites that do JUST THAT and ONLY that, too.

>>>As it stands, there is no added value, just different word order.

*** Wrong again. Article Bot does not just put things in "different word order". Article Bot can use, for example, php "includes" to bring in content YOU WROTE. Without re-writing the content, and only re-writing the HTML which CALLS the content.

>>> Your product's main virtue is that it allows people to add lots of content to their website and only pay ArticleBot for the pleasure rather then paying the content creators.

*** Uh, wrong once again. I can use Article Bot to create things from scratch, or create things based on things already written by ME.


>>>I should note, however, that one of my first jobs was to take AP copy and rewrite it for the evening news. So there is a market somewhere for rewriting and reconfiguring, and technically there is no imperative that humans do this. However, in that case, we were adding value by combining the wire story with graphics, and a television presentation. We were also paying AP for the content.

*** Wow, the first notice here of other uses for Article Bot. I hope you'll read this next thing I write -

Since Article Bot manipulates TEXT and not WORDS (the difference being that "words" are text but "text" may not be "words") it can manipulate the inclusion of images, audio, video, or whatever you want into a web page. PLEASE re-read that. Because that point is being missed for some reason.

>>>So, Articlebot arguing styles aside, there is a potential for this kind of product for a lot of different applications,

*** Cool. Glad to see you notice (not sarcastic here, by the way, I'm really glad you mentioned that).

>>>but currently it is close to worthless for anyone other then someone looking to make ad revenue off of easy to assemble content which adds little or no overall value to the overall internet.

*** Well, you finished up with a jab. Maybe you'll read what I've posted and see what Article Bot does. Maybe not.

Article Bot is a TEXT MANIPULATOR that *can* re-write articles or stories or whatever, but it *can* do ANY type of text manipulating. That means if you want to use it to pull in HUMAN articles you can do that. In fact, I have tutorials that show folks exactly how to do that.
posted by articlebot at 5:00 PM on April 27, 2005

ARRRG. I cannot believe I am still replying to this, but I couldn't resist...

If you're so concerned with computer-generated content, you better dig a hole and live in it. 'Cause, computers ain't goin' away.

It's not computer-generated content we are concerned with! Gosh. I am now convinced that you are being deliberately obtuse and are hell-bent on having the last word no matter how idiotic it makes you sound. (Matt sounding younger than high school age, my butt!) Fine, go for it. Weather report says 95% chance of blogstorms are likely for the area surrounding articlebot in the next 24 hours.
posted by shoppingforsanity at 5:06 PM on April 27, 2005

shoppingforsanity:

>>>1) I never used the word evil anywhere (and neither did anyone else that I can see).

*** Matt Howie first used the term "evil" this way: So in your world to use your technology to generate "1000s of articles on different topics" so you can make money off this evil, scaming corporation called Google. You think two wrongs do make a right.


>>> 2) This comment is ridiculous to me: But, when the largest internet company in the WORLD is doing something to you and me, it becomes less "evil" to simply find ways to compete on that playing field. So, in essence you are saying that two wrongs do, in fact, make a right? Wow, no wonder our world is going to hell in a handbag.

*** No. I do not say that "two wrongs" do anything. The ability to manipulate text (Article Bot) and the "alleged" copyright infringements of search engines are not the same thing. A guy using Article Bot to re-write ad-copy for his site is different than Google taking that content from his site and making money off of it. At least that's what the courts are deciding now in many (many) lawsuits.


>>> 3) I guess my question is - why would someone who has 1000 original articles of their own need to use your product in order to make money on the internet?

*** Great question. Traffic is controlled by the search engines. One thing that search engines like is "different" or "unique" content. If you can give them "different" or "unique", you will rank higher in the engines (or so the seo gurus say). Article Bot gives you the ability to control what parts of your site you want "different" or "unique". And, it goes way beyond just re-writing "articles". Also, it's just plain good sense to give visitors to your site a unique experience. Even if that's just images that change from page to page - it's all controllable by Article Bot. This obsession with "re writing" words continues to baffle me. I've spent more time explaining the other ways to use Article Bot than the "re-writing" feature, but that continues to be ignored. I guess it's just more fun to argue or something. I don't get it.

I'm glad you agree with my point on technology. I don't know if you'll ever understand Article Bot, but I've done the best job I can here.
posted by articlebot at 5:09 PM on April 27, 2005

shoppingforsanity: You seem to vacilate between "reasoned replies" and name-calling. Guess that goes with the "blog" territory.

If it's not "computer-generated content (you) are concerned with!", THEN WHAT IS IT???

Wow.

Regarding Matt's age, I qualified my comments. I (honestly) can't imagine someone old enough to be past high school who writes the things Matt writes about this topic. Hey, with all the name-calling and "opinions" I've been told to accept, y'all can't take THAT???

lol

Besides, dude, I thought you were going back to work?
posted by articlebot at 5:14 PM on April 27, 2005

You cannot STEAL from me to GIVE to someone else. No matter how "convenient" it may seem to the "end user". You are giving a pass to search engines which TAKE content and do not ADD A DARN THING. All that is added is "convenience" for someone searching. That "convenience" comes at the expense of people who've worked to create their content. These issue are being LITIGATED in State, Federal, and international courts.

So, are you prepared for ArticleBot to be LITIGATED against then? Because it seems that your software does the same thing. (yes, we know that's not ALL it does, but I'd be willing to bet that most of your users are using it for this purpose to make money on the internets)

Article Bot can do that VERY easily. More easily than you can imagine. There are users of Article Bot that do JUST that. ONLY that. I have sites that do JUST THAT and ONLY that, too.

Do you have examples?? I would be interested in seeing them...

I (and others here) have quite freely admitted that your software definitely has some uses, but I don't see them being promoted on your site... I just see comments about making money by tricking search engines all over the place. Oh, and what exactly does "Works with ANY affiliate program" mean? (taken from your ad, #8 in the list of other uses for the 'bot)

BTW, you might want to take comments like this off your site too: "this is one of the greatest opportunities we've had since we started massaging the internet to make a living" because it's really not helping your argument.
posted by shoppingforsanity at 5:26 PM on April 27, 2005

Besides, dude, I thought you were going back to work?

Now you're gettin' the hang of it! Good on ya...
posted by shoppingforsanity at 5:36 PM on April 27, 2005

shoppingforsanity:

>>>So, are you prepared for ArticleBot to be LITIGATED against then?

*** A) Are you conceding that there is difference between "convenient searching" and "added value"? If so, thanks for that. B) What would Article Bot be "litigated against" for? WE don't do ANYTHING. We provide folks a way to create content. How THEY create content is up to THEM. C) Article Bot's ability to create content is not the same as a search engine's BUSINESS MODEL of TAKING content and MANIPULTING IT to MAKE MONEY. You can debate the relative "goodness " or "badness" of computer-generated content, but you can't really debate the fact that the search engines SOLE BUSINESS MODEL is based on OTHER PEOPLE'S content.


>>> Because it seems that your software does the same thing. (yes, we know that's not ALL it does, but I'd be willing to bet that most of your users are using it for this purpose to make money on the internets)

*** That's an odd bet. Something for which you have no knowledge and people you've never talked with. Besides, Article Bot can (and, again, PLEASE TRY TO READ THIS) make YOUR OWN content different. I (and others) do this ALL THE TIME. EVERY DAY. Our OWN content. That is different than a search engine TAKING my content and MANIPULATING IT.

>>> Do you have examples?? I would be interested in seeing them...

*** I've posted that stuff ON THIS PAGE already. There are examples on the main page of Article Bot's site. The stuff in the left-hand column is HUMAN-WRITTEN content re-written.

>>> I (and others here) have quite freely admitted that your software definitely has some uses, but I don't see them being promoted on your site...

*** LOL. You are not looking very hard. And, you have an agenda. And, you continue to gloss over every post I've made here speaking of ways to use Article Bot. I mean, for Pete's sake: You could use MS Word to write a love story or a horror story. But neither of those uses of MS Word are a product OF MS Word. MS Word is a TOOL. So is Article Bot...

>>> I just see comments about making money by tricking search engines all over the place.

*** Uh, no. You don't see anything like that at our site. What you see are people who use Article Bot and gain rankings in the search engines that they are finding profitable for them. Your use of the word "tricking" is assumptive, and uninformed. Also, EVEN if people were "tricking" the search engines, what's wrong with that? Are the search engines gods? Are they the new government? Are they your leader, parent, or friend? You know, some people (you may find this hard to believe), don't like the search engines. Some people believe they are BAD. Some people believe they are ruining free speech. Some people believe they are bad for democracy.

So, you may LOVE Google, but your love would not equate to whether "tricking" (whatever that means, anyway) a search engine is "good" or not.

>>> Oh, and what exactly does "Works with ANY affiliate program" mean? (taken from your ad, #8 in the list of other uses for the 'bot)

*** Article Bot can take a topic of a page and align that topic with an affiliate program you are a member of. Say you have a page about "Widgets", Article Bot can set up your links to affiliate programs that return results that are topical with the "Widget" theme.


>>> BTW, you might want to take comments like this off your site too: "this is one of the greatest opportunities we've had since we started massaging the internet to make a living" because it's really not helping your argument.

*** Dude, you're joking, right? That's the FUNNIEST thing I've seen on this board. My "argument" is that Article Bot creates content. That testimonial is from a guy that sees the content-creating abilities of Article Bot as a way to make money. And, uh, read last month's Reader's Digest. The cover story was, "Never Run Out of Cash Again".

You can't be serious.

Well, no, maybe you can. That's the sad thing about this whole thread.

My "argument" continues to be: Article Bot creates content in many ways. You choose how to use it and why.

If you choose to make some other "argument" for me, I can't help that.
posted by articlebot at 6:12 PM on April 27, 2005

If you google "articlebot" you get this sponsored link in the right-hand column:

Sponsored Links

Blacklisted? Site banned?
That happens when you're a slave
to the engines. Free yourself now.
www.articlebot.com

So I clicked on it 500 times...
posted by warbaby at 6:16 PM on April 27, 2005

All that is added is "convenience" for someone searching. That "convenience" comes at the expense of people who've worked to create their content.

The majority of users want that convenience. If I search for "Alaska", I don't want to have to wade through dozens of pages advertising Alaska Joe's Penis Enlargement Pills because some gonzo company has hacked its Google ranking.
posted by raygirvan at 6:25 PM on April 27, 2005

Oops: no offence meant to any real Alaska Joe.
posted by raygirvan at 6:32 PM on April 27, 2005

raygirvan:

>>>The majority of users want that convenience. If I search for "Alaska", I don't want to have to wade through dozens of pages advertising Alaska Joe's Penis Enlargement Pills because some gonzo company has hacked its Google ranking.

*** So, you justify "alleged" copyright infringement, intellectual property theft, and the profiting on that by YOUR CONVENIENT SEARCHING? You think it's OKAY to take someone's property and give it to YOU because it's EASY or whatever?

Would you like it if someone took something your wrote and then sold it for a profit without paying you a DIME?

Wait... Don't answer that. Never mind.

I must admit that the world has changed in ways I can't understand. But, you prove the point that if you give people cheap, "free" or "easy", they will look right past "RIGHT".

Well, every time you visit a search engine that got it's content from someone else, you are "in effect", looking at the manipulated works of someone else that a MACHINE decided was "valid".

A MACHINE.

If you like the possibility that Google (et al) can CONTROL what you see, you are a misguided person. That's truly all I can say, I guess.
posted by articlebot at 6:37 PM on April 27, 2005

You are a personified pyramid corner. Educated people are the evil empower- ment of the self - the lowest form of humanity. Humans are brainwashed stupid and indoctrinated evil. A human will rotate around 4-corner lifetime stages within a family metamorphosis -baby, child, parent and grandparent.
Name your 4/16 greatgrandparents.
posted by signal at 6:45 PM on April 27, 2005

Wait... Don't answer that.

OK.
posted by raygirvan at 7:10 PM on April 27, 2005

Coming up next: Articlebot meets Blevets

I'd pay money for that.
posted by warbaby at 6:53 AM on April 28, 2005

Jesus, Matt, the post itself was pretty damn crappy and I figured you hadn't deleted it because you hadn't seen it yet. Then I start scanning the thread, and here you are. Even so, it's a bad post. Please delete it.

I mean, whether or not articlebot has any legitimate use (depending upon someone's definition of legitimate) might be an interesting topic to discuss...were the point of posts the interesting discussion which hopefully ensues. But this didn't actually turn out to be an interesting dicussion, did it? I fell asleep at least three times whilst merely scanning the thread.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 8:15 PM on April 29, 2005