|
An ESC! Magazine Editorial
November 11, 1998
Are we wasting bandwidth from an overcrowded
web?
- or -
Internet Decimal System, Is it time?
by Michael R. Potter
I was browsing the web at work the other day, attempting to
find information which, at the time, was critical to the
project I was working on. What I found instead was an endless
list of links to pages which had absolutely no relevance to the
search terms I had entered. Foolish man that I am I exclaimed:
"I'm wasting my bandwidth looking at all this crap. I
wish the web would go back to the way it was, simply a place for
reference." (I'm paraphrasing at the moment)
Little did I know that this would strike up a rather heated
debate with an office colleague as to the worthiness of his
site. He was offended that I should suggest that his site was
a waste of time. Indeed, my suggestion was that both his and
mine were a waste of time if they erroneously came up in a search
about a completely different topic. In fact, the majority of
the web is a waste of time if it comes up in place of what I'm
looking for. There have been studies done which show how much
time is wasted on the web everyday by employees who get diverted by
the randomness of the web.
So what do I propose? In the old days, we used card
catalogs to locate books in the library. The library would be
organized into multiple sections, each dealing with general topics
and then narrowed down to the specific when you actually got to the
individual books on the shelves. This organizational scheme
was called the Dewey Decimal System and do you know what? It
worked! In fact, it worked so well, that when libraries began
using computers in place of those wonderful old card catalogs, they
followed the same organizational method. So why not do the
same with web sites?
I.D.S.
The INTERNET DECIMAL SYSTEM. Why not implement the same type
of coding scheme on web sites that we use on books? Certainly
everyone would agree that most, if not all, web sites could be
classified with the existing system. If we need to come up
with new categories then so be it, it's certainly been done
before. I know that some would argue that certain search sites
like Yahoo!
already are categorized and they would be right. But the major
difference here is that all search engines could implement this
system to ensure more accurate searches by the browser. In
fact, most search engines could continue to implement their old
methods of crawling sites and delivering pages as well so they can
maintain their individuality and uniqueness.
How Do We Implement This?
Easy! Just put the correct IDS code into the META tag section
of your entry page in the form of IDS9845.6 (made
up example). When your site gets crawled, this number will be
added to that particular search engines database. All I ask is
that the search engines provide a simple means for the end user to
look up those pages without having to know the coding scheme by
heart (just like the card catalogs). Perhaps there could be a
central IDS database which the various engines could tap into to
help speed the process along.
What Are The Downfalls?
Of course getting people to use these codes, and use them correctly,
would be the hardest. It would almost require an
independent governing board to decide what the coding scheme should
be and how to assign it to the millions of pages out there. To
ensure its success, at least one major search engine would have to
require that all new sites added to its database be required to have
the code. Eventually all search engines would pick it up
through the re-crawling of pages. Also, it would be imperative
that sites who abuse the coding scheme be temporarily suspended from
the existing search databases for a period of time. What
constitutes abuse? Assigning codes to sites which have no
relevance to the data contained on that site to fool web searchers
into visiting the site. Lastly, in the DDS, each book has its
own unique number. Obviously, the categorization of
sites could not be as specific as the DDS because there really just
aren't enough numbers!
The Conclusion
Are there many more things to consider regarding this proposed way
of categorizing web sites? Of course there are! In fact,
I look for your input. In the most constructive manner
possible, let me know if you think I'm cracked or on to something
good here. I know for a fact that I haven't thought of
everything and maybe the idea would never float, but we don't know
unless we at least give it an honest thought. As I come
up with more ideas, I'll post them here on ESC!Webs.com
Thanks for listening!
Michael R. Potter
Publisher
ESC! Magazine
|