I just noticed via our “Technorati Link Page”:http://www.technorati.com/cosmos/links.html?rank=&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.crookedtimber.org&sub=Get+Link+Cosmos that in the last few hours, CT has been linked to by dozens of (presumably) robo-generated blogspot blogs. Each one I’ve looked at is populated with a page of posts with content that looks like it was scraped from Wikipedia. All of them have names of the form AdjectiveNoun. My favorite name so far is TiredStation, which could be used by some pro-business content generators we know. So far the content is innocuous, but I suppose that the next step is for the Wikipedia content to disappear and be replaced by true spam after some suitable delay. Feh.
Meanwhile, the World Cup continues. In the general spirit of four hundred years of oppression I was hoping Angola would beat Portugal, or at least draw. The more anxious English pundits are killing themselves over Eriksson’s mysterious tactics, even though England won their opening game. Eriksson brought relatively few strikers along in the squad, and if the usual number of functioning legs for any _n_ strikers is given by the formula n∗2, in England’s case the calculation is presently the slightly more complex (n∗2)-(n-1). Coming up today: Australia vs Japan, USA vs Czech Republic, and Italy vs Ghana.
_Update_: My “adopted team”:https://crookedtimber.org/2006/06/05/allah-allah-dennis-bergkamp-dennis-bergkamp/ came through with a late rush of goals. Australia were unlucky with Japan’s goal, which might easily have been disallowed seeing as a Japanese player impeded the keeper. But then again, Japan should probably have had a penalty just after Australia equalized, so them’s the breaks.
{ 18 comments }
Daniel 06.12.06 at 1:35 am
if the usual number of functioning legs for any n strikers is given by the formula n∗2, in England’s case the calculation is presently the slightly more complex (n∗2)-(n-1).
there is no truth in the rumour that al-Zarqawi was set for a call-up.
Brett 06.12.06 at 2:00 am
So if n=0, there’s 1 functioning leg?
Chris Bertram 06.12.06 at 3:23 am
Match of the tournament so far: Argentina-Ivory Coast (either of whom would have had England on toast on the day). I’m hoping that Ivory Coast will beat the Dutch and survive the group of death.
John Quiggin 06.12.06 at 3:23 am
The social value added by Google (including Blogspot) is declining fast and could easily become negative.
Tim Worstall 06.12.06 at 4:08 am
Rooney seems to have worked out how to get into the next match though: injure Walcott in training.
Ray 06.12.06 at 4:42 am
If Walcott didn’t go on for Owen against Paraguay, he’s unlikely ever to go on.
Kieran Healy 06.12.06 at 7:28 am
So if n=0, there’s 1 functioning leg?
No, because like I said the general case is just n∗2. Though at the rate they’re going, England may indeed end up in some odd territory.
Anita Hendersen 06.12.06 at 7:39 am
“The social value added by Google (including Blogspot) is declining fast and could easily become negative.” You got that right. Google provides free blogs (via Blogspot) and then allows blog owners to share in the revenue from its AdSense program. The results: tens of thousands of useless blogs created in the hopes of generating a few pennies. It’s a blight on the web.
Rob G 06.12.06 at 9:07 am
Yes Chris, England would approach Argentina just as they did Paraguay. C’est a rire.
I’m an ex-physicist. Is there some use of ∗ that I didn’t get the memo on?
Jamie 06.12.06 at 10:01 am
Wow, congratulations to the Socceroos! Trailing Japan 1-0 at minute 40 of the second half, Australia explodes in the final minutes to win 3-1.
Kieran Healy 06.12.06 at 10:31 am
I’m an ex-physicist. Is there some use of ∗ that I didn’t get the memo on?
Man, one tiny math joke and everyone’s on your case.
Brian 06.12.06 at 10:54 am
The Australia win was wonderful. Between supporting Australia and Liverpool, I’ve had a few stressful wins recently. It has all been worth the decade it has taken of my life I think.
ben wolfson 06.12.06 at 12:16 pm
the slightly more complex (n∗2)-(n-1)
So … n+1? That actually seems simpler.
Kieran Healy 06.12.06 at 12:29 pm
Further math-related comments will result in banning. Also, wolfson is banned.
pp 06.12.06 at 1:01 pm
Well the US just got their tuckuses handed to them. Biggest problem is that they did not take a single offsides. No offsides means no offense. No offense means no second round.
Ray 06.12.06 at 2:05 pm
What?
(I’m guessing you mean that they weren’t caught offside. But that’s a pretty bad indicator of whether you’re attacking well or not, since poor attackers get caught offside all the time)
pp 06.12.06 at 3:30 pm
ray,
I am referring to them not being caught offisides. Your’re right to the extent that uncontrolled play results in offsides etc. When playing a strong opponent you need to take some risks to force them into positioning errors The US attack needs to stretch the field by leading with through passes and letting their strikers use their speed. The US also didn’t record a shot on goal in the game.
Maria 06.13.06 at 11:53 am
Kieran’s thoughts on our 300+ overnight fans prompted me to undertake some extra-credit reading and finally start to get my head around link-spam.
Anyone who’s interested in this topic could do far worse than read a Stanford paper that appears to have been written with a senior Google person, setting out a taxonomy of web spam. And also this one from Wellesley on how web spammers use social trust networks in the arms race against search engines. Fascinating stuff.
Comments on this entry are closed.