希望Google的人能看到

wherestip wrote:

The concept of net neutrality may be relevant to this topic.

Even in KudoZ and this forum, misinformation is unavoidable. I agree it's up to the user to distinguish what is useful to him or her.

http://www.google.com/help/netneutrality.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9jHOn0EW8U

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality#Absolute_Non-Discrimination

Wenjer Leuschel wrote:

Well, Steve, this might be a wrong idea for there are some countries where you don't have access to these three website. The idea must be wrong, I guess.

Donglai Lou wrote:

Clearwater 兄，

我和前面几位仁兄的观点基本相同，即赋予Google或任何机构此类权力，容易导致权力的滥用，因为很多事物是没有标准，见人见智的。

就拿你举的列子而言，“鹜”和“骛”两者是通用（假）的，很难说后者一定是错误的。

“鹜
騖
wù

奔驰。通“鹜” [gallop]。如:鹜置(以马疾驰传递);鹜行(疾驰)
引申为追求 [seek for]。如:好高鹜远;鹜新(求新)
游水 [swim]”（摘自金山词霸）

其次，语言是不断发展的。大众的使用习惯在其中起着十分重要的作用。有许多用法或许在出现时是错误的、无理的，但用的人多了，语言学家也就接受。

Tingting Huang wrote:



我明白你的意思．网上的东西要使用者自己去辨别真伪．这方面，我也有体会．我教的学生中，就有到网上去找reference的。明明是错的，还蛮有理的跟你说，他找到几十万个hits，总不会是都错了吧？

clearwater wrote:
是的，我是觉得网络上的许多东西可能误人子弟，尤其是许多新手和初学者。如果谷歌能够事先“过滤”一下这些明显的错误东西（包括错别字、错误用法和错误的解释等），起到词典的规范作用，至于那些有探讨性的内容，自然可以原封不动地予以保留。

Xiaoping Fu wrote:



IMO，谷歌之所以有用，就是因为它不加任何“过滤”，诚实地告诉你网上有什么。如果它加了某种“过滤”程序，严肃的用户就始终有一个疑虑：“我所要找的东西是不是被它滤掉了”？那么，谷歌当月的业绩就要下降。这等于花钱给自己做镣铐。:-D

此外，如果我就是要搜索一下“错别字”怎么办？譬如，我想知道究竟有多少人把“谷歌”写成“谷哥”，现在我可以做到，有了过滤就做不到了。;-)

clearwater wrote:
可要是有人，楞是拿错别字当成真，以此来“要挟”你，是不是要给活活憋坏啊^_^

clearwater wrote:

又譬如：美国知名的投资机构Carlyle Group，网上有译成：凯雷集团的，也有译成：卡莱尔集团的，如果不加规范，没看到或者不知Carlyle Group的人还以为这是两家截然不同的机构。要是有统一规范，岂不是轻松许多、清楚许多？！

wherestip wrote:


Wenjer,

I know what you mean. The whole idea of democracy is not having a Big Brother tell us what is right and what is wrong. People have to think independently and make up their own mind, 而不是 人云亦云.

Wenjer Leuschel wrote:



I guess you caught my irony.

The issue of "net neutrality" is clear for us who enjoying liberty and knowing right from wrong, but it isn't easy for people who are used to authoritarian rules. Such people usually need to be told what to think, what to do and what to say. That is why they ask for "the right answers" all the time.

Such people are 势利眼. They take orders from people powerful then they are and obey rules only when they are forced to obey, or else they would discard correct answers just because they wouldn't like to give credits to those who they considered less powerful.

For such people, there isn't anything like net neutrality for it doesn't make sense to them. Well, some hardware design failure and software development error in their mind which nobody can help.

Wenjer Leuschel wrote:

Clearwater,

没那个闲工夫陪你找贴子，但你应该非常清楚，你思想上的瓶颈得自于何因。比刻薄，谁当得起你？

Tingting Huang wrote:

Back to the original discussion, google is just a serach engine, although an increasingly powerful one, it is not reasonable to expect them to filter the information in their data system. Unless it is hard science, there is no absolute right or wrong answer. There are things that just cannot be standardized. I am not talking about typos here. Google is doing a fantastic job in offering people information from different perspectives. Google is a facilitator. Individuals are responsible for their own choice of information.