From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Cami Subject: Re: [PATCH] "metas" in reiserfs v4 snapshot 2004.03.26 Date: Mon, 05 Apr 2004 08:56:26 +0200 Message-ID: <4071031A.5080803@mweb.co.za> References: <200404050401.i3541XVk004592@sirius.cs.pdx.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Errors-To: flx@namesys.com In-Reply-To: <200404050401.i3541XVk004592@sirius.cs.pdx.edu> List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed" To: reiserfs-list@namesys.com > Good point, search engines as evidence. The problem is you're only > looking at distributions, which are going to be highly similar and you're > completely missing end users. So let us take this to a full search engine > and see what turns up... Hmm, roughly a million hits, let us look at a > few samples: > > http://www.metas.ch/ > http://vancouver-webpages.com/META/mk-metas.html > http://www.metas.com.br/ > http://metas.enfermeria21.com/ > http://www.metas.com.mx/ > > Okay, out of one million hits, we randomly look at ten, and half feature > "metas" in the URL somewhere. Going the other direction, Google indexes > roughly 4 billion pages. If we guess the above search was representative, > roughly 500,000 pages will include "metas" somewhere in the URL, possibly > only as a hostname, but somewhere. So we've managed to collect 1 out of > every 10,000 pages that Google indexes. Though we don't have a direct > proof, I hope I've come close enough to scare you. Quite true.. "..metas" or ".metas" would be the better choice.. Regards, Cami