"FREE' SEARCH ENGINE RESULTS

Remember how not long ago a lot of the stuff on the internet was truly free? The sites got their income from advertising icons that you could click on and the advertiser would pay the site a buck or two (or more). You used to be able to get social security information, genealogical information, names with telephone numbers, addresses and email addresses, and the like for truly "free". But not anymore! But, nevertheless, the search engines, parroting the language from the site itself, trumpet 'FREE SEARCH", "FREE THIS", "FREE THAT", "FREE - FREE - FREE"! BALONEY! Or is it bologna? But that's the only part that is free. The Baloney, that is. If you are trying to find an old friend or long lost relative, once you get to the site you find out that the "search" is free BUT.... You find out that there is or was a Robert Redford in Vail, CO; that there is or was an Abraham Lincoln in Illinois, or that there is or was a Deedar Schimding in Grover City. (Yes, there really was a Deedar Schimding in Grover City. That wasn't his real name but that's what he liked to call himself so we all called him that also!) But that is probably information that you already knew. Then they tell you that they have all the information you want on that person but it will be $7.95 to get it. Or, for $19.95 you can get a 24 hour unlimited search privilege! And for $39.95 you can get a criminal history of Deedar as well. Free, indeed! So you waste an immense amount of time trying to find a truly free site but to no avail. Do any of you know of any truly free sites that actually give you information without having to pay for it? Search engines should be required to list these sites under a category called something like "So-Called Free" (or something like "Commercial" or "Fee required") and the other sites as "Really, really free", if there are any such sites remaining. Should we be writing to search engines to complain about the way they list these "free" sites? I think so. I'm going to try it anyway. If enough of you join in, maybe we'll get something done. It's easy. Just copy this blog and mail it to them in an email. These blogs are great. They give you a chance to gripe about anything. But I'm not sure anybody looks at any of them. At least not at mine. Oh, well.
23 OCT 06: Another thing that I just discovered, quite by accident, is that a lot of these porno and other rip-off people are hi-jacking legitimate search names and words and somehow "hiding" them in their website but listing them many times in their site, so that when you go to look for something you will find this site that looks like it is has the info you want. When you "click" on it, you'll wind up on one of these porn or scam sites with no reference whatever to what you are looking for. If I discovered that, surely the search engines must know about this practice but I think that all of them are a bunch of bums also (some worse than others) and they don't care because all they want to show to advertisers is "traffic" or "clickers" so that they can get people to buy advertising on their site. And I find that the "big name" search sites are worse than the lesser names but they're all bad. I can't tell you one really good, reliable, trustworthy one. They all will try to tell you how much they have your best interests at heart. That's true but you and I only come in at about third or fourth place in priority of best interests. We are definitely not first! What a shame, huh? It's worse than listening to a bunch of politicians trying to get your vote for something except that none of them seem to be exposing any of the others. They can't afford to. Remember something about people who live in glass houses? Don't rat on me and I won't rat on you!
27 OCT 2006: I'm starting to see some newspaper articles appearing on the subject now. It's called "search engine optimization", a phrase that I have heard before. And there are many web sites that have been available for years that teach you how to do that and how to generate traffic coming to your site. It seems to be quite prevalent now in the field of politics. (Wouldn't you know it?) It's also called "bombing" and involves something like "imbedding" (hiding is what I think this means) hyperlinks in your website to make your site look highly relevant with respect to the information that you are searching for. The search engines do know of this practice. A Google spokesman is quoted in the newspaper today as saying "We don't condone the practice of Google bombing, or any other action that seeks to affect the integrity of our search results." Typical corporate or political "spin" (i.e. horse manure). Noticeably absent is any statement concerning what they intend to do about it to put a stop to it. My analysis of it: They intend to do nothing but "condemn" the practice and say that they do not "condone" it. That should take care of the problem.