The Importance of Using Synonyms, Truncation, and/or Limiters in Searching

As I stated in an earlier posted blog, I stressed the importance of narrowing your search down in order to find a more perfect match search for you. If you really want to get advanced, you can narrow your search even more by typing synonyms and limiters within your search. When you do this, it identifies the synonyms and limiters, then narrowing your search even more. Like I mentioned earlier about picking your search engines carefully. Companies pay certain search engines for their website to advertise on. They then pay more money for a better spot within that website. Therefore, a more popular search engine will have more flow of people, therefore a better chance of finding that result. Also, a small business owner might want to keep in mind, especially if they are going to start advertising their business on the internet. The more popular website will have the most flow of people. Your company would have a better chance of getting hits and views if you pick a more common search engine. Also, pick what you would emphasize within the search, such as key words. If I doing a lawn care business in western Kentucky, I would choose one website. Let’s say I choose Google and I pay more money for the key words such as "lawn”, “mowing", and "Western Kentucky". If I pay the right amount, it would be the first advertisement that would pop up. If you searched the similar words on Yahoo, it wouldn't show the same results. Of course it's always best to advertise in both, if not as many as you can. However not everyone has a budget for that initially, that's why you should consider your search engine wisely. I use the advanced search all the time and type synonyms as well, and it does well with my results. Sometimes I use a couple, if not more search engines, I know to isolate and narrow my search options down to better identify my end result.

Finding a Website

When attempting to find a website, you have to first consider your topic. Then you consider what search engines would give you the exact results you’re looking for. While it's really hard to say at first, your best option would be to check all the popular search engines. I would recommend the common ones such as Google, Bing, Yahoo, MSN and Askjeeves.com. You have to consider that industries and companies all pay for ads for certain websites, depending on your search request. So for instance, I start a lawn mowing business and I want to advertise the fact that I'm the best in Western Kentucky. I would essentially be paying for the key words, such as lawn, mowing, Western Kentucky. So I advertise my business to a solid amount with only Google. When you search the words in any combination such as "lawn, mowing, best, Western Kentucky", it'll be the first website that pops up. Remember Google only, if you were to search the same terms in another search engine such as Yahoo, it wouldn't be the first one to pop up as it would in Google. That is exactly why you should highly consider a more popular website. Currently Google and Yahoo are the most popular. It's not a reason to not check out the other search engines; I would just highly consider a more popular search where more internet traffic flows. The more flow of internet users, the more potential of you to come across your website you searched for. It is also something to consider if you ever want to advertise anything on the internet, pick a more popular website in order for a better chance of people of search and find your perfect match of a search.

Disney

I always knew of and loved Disney related films and toys growing up as a kid. As I grew older and began to realize a little more how the world worked, I just kind of figured Disney and it's rights will always belong to the founder of the of Disney, which is currently Walt and Roy Disney. However, back in 1998, a certain deadline came up that left Disney owners, employees and fans a little nervous. The rights to Disney were about out of a deadline due to copyright rights that only last for a certain year. On October 27th, 1998, Bill Clinton passed what's called a Copyright Term Extension Act that now extends copyright rights 20 years. Yeah left many at ease now, but what about in 2018? Then it enters the public domain. I initially thought that that's not right; the right should always be within the Walt Disney foundation, however, you have to think about other circumstances. For instance, a medical device is founded and produced by someone. Let’s say there’s no law to where the founder always has rights to this. This device is very helpful but it has a harsh consequence to leave scars, but is very efficient nonetheless. Well, somebody else believes they can produce the same device that is not only just as efficient, but it also doesn't leave the harsh scars. While he could still produce that device, certain rights along with benefits come along with this due to copyright laws. Wouldn't it make sense for the rights to have a deadline to rights then? I believe so. While it may initially not think it’s right for the rights of the owners to come into an end, you have to think on the other end of the spectrum that with a deadline, it opens the window for opportunities for better inventors to essentially tweak an invention for the better. That defiantly gives my okay, for the Copyright Term Extension Act to stay intact.

Copyright and Cooks Source

There's no telling how many times growing up as a kid even until now, that I simply pulled up Google.com and copied then pasted pictures for my personal use on PowerPoint’s and presentations in general. Not to mention, I never cited the resources until about high school, but even then a lot of work slides by without getting properly cited. Sure, in school it may not be a big deal, unless it’s something like plagiarism. But regardless, the consequences in school aren’t near as bad as the stir of negative attention Cooke Source got into. A blogger posted a story about how Cooke Source used a copy of a picture she used in a previous story for their magazine article. They did identify her for their publish but did not notify her of the publishing of her picture in their magazine. You could see why there would be a stir. But how much can really be said. The internet is an open resource to virtually anything and with proper citing; it is okay in most circumstances to publish them in a viewing intent. But I believe you should have to notify and get permission, especially in a profit intent purpose. However, there doesn't seem to be a fine line to where it is okay or not to notify. While some do, think about how many more don't. Perhaps think about how many people use it in PowerPoint’s and other educational purposes. Or maybe it was used in the huge business presentation in a multi-billion dollar deal. Either way, it happens daily and not too much is always said. To some, it’s a not that big of a deal, then of course there's the ones that do think it's a huge deal. I mean, perhaps it was a huge piece of the appeal that sealed that deal in the multi-billion presentation. Shouldn't you get credit for that?

Open Source/ Community Sharing Resources

An open source or community sharing resource is very common, but how often do we really come across them in an average day? More than most people would initially think. Actually, it is considered highly controversial. I remember around the holiday times, even all the way back growing up as a kid and my family was consistently cooking. My mom would make a few pies, while my grandma was making different casseroles. When we all gathered with the rest of the family, that’s where all the different foods and drinks got put together as a feast. Point being, all these recipes came from somewhere. I know personally my family looked up a lot of their recipes on the computer. It's convenient, just a few clicks of a button and your all of a sudden at the world's biggest recipe book, the internet. This recipe sharing is just like downloading illegal music off the internet as well, right? Napster co-owners Shawn Fanning, John Fanning, and Sean Parker both claimed this as they battled their law suit years ago in regards to their "illegal music" downloading program. They claimed it was the same as sharing recipes, but everyone else didn't exactly agree. These programs are known as "peer-to-peer file sharing" services. These are an open source/community sharing resource that is legally controversial. Reason being, just as with Napster, this opened programs to allow people to download essentially free music, videos, software’s and games straight to their computer. See any potential red flags? I do. Even though I admit to using similar programs, it was around the same time I had a really popular program in the social world known as MSN Messenger. As long as you had an email address, you qualified. You had a user name that was open for your friends to identify you and you just chatted away at night with your friends. One moment I enjoyed was when me and my friend Jordan would get on chat and exchange the different music we had found. This was simply done by dragging your music file from your desktop per say and then dropping in your chat window. You could transfer virtually any file that was on your computer straight to the computer of one of your buddy's, or twelve. So let's say I buy a Nelly album with 12 songs for $15 onto my computer. The amount doesn't necessarily matter unless you look at a small scale figure in the sense of a typical MSN conversation I had. Instead of my friend just spending another $15 on the copy of same album for himself, I could just transfer the whole album straight through the chat and to my friend. That's $15 that Nelly didn't get. Or, I send the album to 10 of my friends. That's $150 that didn't go to this respected owner of that file. To compare, American studios lost 2.3 billion in 2005 due to those free downloading programs. Similar terms are considered online piracy and of course theft to some. However, not all open resources are considered bad. In fact, it’s got great benefits as well. I personally love that I can get on my Murray State account and access a free virtually library that consists of text for educational, spiritual and recreational purposes. You couldn't ask for a better, convenient resource just a few clicks away. Anyway, I think the fine line between the two is clear. But when you consider popular open sources/community sharing resources such as YouTube, Facebook and Twitter, not to mention the capabilities of sharing pictures, music, videos, text, ect.  You really wonder where to draw the line sometimes. To say what’s right and what’s wrong, it’s just hard to put your finger on sometimes. That’s why open sources/community sharing resources are highly controversial and always will be.