Using Google to Calculate Web Decay

scottennis writes: "Google has yet another application: measuring the rate of decay of information on the web. By plotting the number of results at 3,6, and 12 months for a series of phrases, this study claims to have uncovered a corresponding 60-70-80 percent decay rate. Essentially, 60% of the web changes every 3 months." You may be amused by some of the phrases he notes as exceptional, too.

At last!

This kind of thing can be a good application of Google's SOAP interface!

Google's collection of the data

Are google claiming that they can check through the entire internet inside a timescale of 3 months, ready to check through again at the start of the next quarter?

Surely this can't be true. Check Google's cached pages - see the dates on there?

Google is turning into another history book [archive.org].

Not exactly decay...

It seems to me that in a way, the web is like an organism, whose smaller constituents are constantly (or not so constantly, depending on the webmaster) renewing themselves. It's a truely adaptive medium, and thus drastic change in short times like this as interest shifts should be quite expected.

That said, this is one of the many ways in which Google is an invaluable tool for research. Not just finding information, but generating it. Thanks Google!

bill gates sucks...

For once, that is on topic. I'm glad to see that the phrase 'bill gates sucks' had the lowest decay rate of the phrases that the guy tested for.

Re:bill gates sucks...

Actually (and unfortunately for any haters of the Evil that lies in the lands of Redmond) Headline News had this lovely little chart on recently, which showed public approval of several companies. Enron and Arthur Anderson had 9 and 11% approval ratings, respectively, while the big "winner" was Microsoft, with something like a 79% approval rating.

Let's face facts here. We might hate Microsoft, but the vast majority of people do not. Good? Bad? Indifferent?

Kierthos

Re:bill gates sucks...

All this means, actually, is that the sites that would include the information "Bill Gates Sucks" are not being updated very often, or have little else to say.

It's an indicator of the dubious kind of context in which one finds such rash statements.

An ever-eveolving creature?

I actually always wondered about this. Really interesting, although I guessed that there would be a rapid rate of decay due to the nature of "information." Things get old and pass with time. An interesting application of this would be to keep records over a number of decades and figure out the average life/revival span of certain trends.

blessed

How long until all the cheesemakers have fully decayed and are no longer blessed?

I don't look forward to that day.

Long live cheese and cheese makers!

Web Death

It would also be interesting to see how much of the web no longer exists... like at what rate the web is dying. God knows there's enough dead links out there...

Re:Web Death

Educators and "link rot". [unl.edu]

In a paper to be published in the June issue of the Journal of Science Education and Technology, Brooks and Markwell likened the rate of link rot to the type of "extinction equation" commonly used to describe natural processes such as radioactive decay. They wrote that the hyperlinks in their study had an expected "half-life" of 55 months."

Also this, which is just a link from the previous article. [unl.edu]

Easy! :)

(web's half-life -game -unreal -counter -gamers)

baseline

For a few moments, I thought that the phrase "base" (for baseline) on his graph was a reference to "all your base are belong to us." It would have been neat to see how quickly that phrase appeared, then decayed!

A few things...

After reading the artical, I found a few things to be disturbing...

First of all, he showed very little of his actual data. This makes it difficult to tell if his interpretation is correct.

Thirdly, what the heck was this guy smoking when he came up with search phrases. Most of these phrases seem to be tangental to the main purpose of most web sitees on the internet.

Finally, Timothy, why didn't you put the foot icon by the story? :)

One of the flaws

I think one of the flaws in any analysis of the decay on the web is the fact that most news sites keep an infinite archive of almost everything they have ever published online. The specific phrases probably don't represent a large enough sample size to properly reflect all sites. Sure, he says he used many phrases, but all he gives us is "bill gates sucks", "life's short play hard", "blessed are the cheesemakers", and "late at night". To properly do the study, he should've used a random word letter generator or word generator and test the decay of that.

But, it is interesting to see his results. I can only imagine that if Archive.org [archive.org] did a study like this, they would be able to make a more legitimate conclusion. Perhaps some collaboration is in order?

Obligatory Full Text

I only do this since I know an angelfire page will get /. and reach bandwidth limits fast! However, there is a pretty excel chart on there so bookmark and come back much later.

Web Decay
by Scott Ennis
4/26/2002
Knowing how anxious most companies are to keep their web content "fresh," I was curious how "fresh" the web itself was.

In order to come up with a freshness rating for the web you need to sample a very large number of pages. Not wanting to do this, I opted to use the Google search engine as a method for reviewing the web as a whole.

My hypothesis is this: By searching Google using some common english phrases and returning results at various time points, a baseline can be reached for the common rate of freshness of overall web content.

I took the total number of pages found for each given phrase at 3, 6, and 12 months. I calculated a percentage for each of these points based on the total number of results found with no date specified.

For example: Phrase 3 mos. 6 mos. 12 mos. Total

buy low sell high 4700 5470 6200 7830
60% 70% 79% 100%

Note:
This method excludes any pages which are not text and more specifically, not English text.
This method relies on a random sampling of phrases.
Using this methodology I determined that the average rate of decay of the web follows a 60-70-80 percent decline at 3, 6, and 12 months.

Therefore, If a company wants to maintain a freshness rate on par with the web as a whole, their site content should be updated at the inverse rate. In other words:
60% of the site should change every 3 months
70% of the site should change every 6 months
80% of the site should change every 12 months
The only way to do this effectively is to either have a very small site, or have a site with dynamically generated information.

The following graph shows the decay rate for a few phrases. I selected these phrase to display because of their unique characteristics.
bill gates sucks--This phrase had the lowest decay rate of any phrases I searched.
life's short play hard--This phrase had the greatest decay rate of any I searched (note: this search was also very small).
blessed are the cheesemakers--This phrase was relatively small, but demonstrates that quantity of pages may not be important in determining decay rate.
late at night--This phrase returned the highest number of results of any I searched and yet it also adheres closely to the 60-70-80 rule.

Conclusion:

Web content decays at a uniform, determinable rate. Sites wanting to optimize their content freshness need to maintain a rate of freshness that corresponds to the rate of web decay.

Free hosting is a bad bargain

Why do so many people use crap like Angelfire, Tripod, Homestead with all their bandwidth limits, restrictions, ads and blocking of remote image loads?

Not to mention that well over 50% of the time any search engine result that points to Angelfire in particular points to a 404 Not Found. This is much more than what I experience with other sites. Do their users get kicked off often, or just go away, or what? I don't even bother clicking on those results unless it looks like the content is truly compelling. And thank God for Google's cache.

I can understand if some truly can't afford hosting, but even for these people, even Geocities is much better!

Somehow I doubt the majority of those people using Angelfire, Tripod, etc can't afford hosting.

Well, after the dot-com world gets a little more squeezed, those sites may no longer exist. Too bad that many people won't bother rehosting their content and will just drop off the web.

olm.net [olm.net] offers Linux [linux.com] based hosting for under $9/month. No I don't work for them, but I am a (satisfied) customer.

$9 a month - and you won't piss off your users.

(Yes I know their other packages are more - but the $9 a month package is better than any of the free services)

Don't EVEN get me started on organizations and commercial BUSINESSES (ack!) that use free hosting - that is so unprofessional. I don't think I'd want to do business with a company (even a local store) that wouldn't/couldn't pay $9 a month to have a less annoying and more reliable website.

Of course, some of the content out on the Web isn't even worth $9/month, heck some of it has NEGATIVE worth. ;) Of course, then it isn't worth looking at, so who cares if it is even hosted.

Study: World Wide Web sites and page persistence

For a more extensive (although older) study, take a look at

Digital libraries and World Wide Web sites and page persistence [informationr.net]

That said, the Web and its component parts are dynamic. Web documents undergo two kinds of change. The first type, the type addressed in this paper, is "persistence" or the existence or disappearance of Web pages and sites, or in a word the lifecycle of Web documents. "Intermittence" is a variant of persistence, and is defined as the disappearance but reappearance of Web documents. At any given time, about five percent of Web pages are intermittent, which is to say they are gone but will return. Over time a Web collection erodes. Based on a 120-week longitudinal study of a sample of Web documents, it appears that the half-life of a Web page is somewhat less than two years and the half-life of a Web site is somewhat more than two years. That is to say, an unweeded Web document collection created two years ago would contain the same number of URLs, but only half of those URLs point to content. The second type of change Web documents experience is change in Web page or Web site content. Again based on the Web document samples, very nearly all Web pages and sites undergo some form of content within the period of a year. Some change content very rapidly while others do so infrequently (Koehler, 1999a). This paper examines how Web documents can be efficiently and effectively incorporated into library collections. This paper focuses on Web document lifecycles: persistence, attrition, and intermittence.

Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org) [sethf.com]

Intermittence

At any given time, about five percent of Web pages are intermittent, which is to say they are gone but will return.

For example, most web pages linked to in slashdot articles.

Credibility?

Is it me, or does this 'research' simply look like something a bored guy has just thrown together from a few minutes work, then submitted to Slashdot to see if it gets posted?

From the evidence, he searched for very few phrases. The sample size is way too low to be representive of the web - which some estimates put at several billion more pages than there are people on the planet! There are no signs of more than about 5 different phrases being searched for here..

Can a few simple searches on Google really generate a large enough sample to draw such large conclusions?

The report is one page long, hosted on Angelfire. There is no substantial data to back up his claims. Is this report reliable in any way?

I'm amazed this got posted on the front page of Slashdot..

archive.org

This makes the job of Archive.org [archive.org] - like sites damn tough.

P.S. Are we losing information at a comparable rate to generation....?

interesting but...

He creates a problem for himself by not providing us with his raw data, making any subsequent verification of the trend difficult. In fact, the one data set he gives us:
Phrase 3 mos 6 mos 12 mos. Total
buy low sell high 4700 5470 6200 7830
60% 70% 79% 100%
seems to demonstrate the opposite of the trend that he describes. Indeed, a current search on google [google.com] shows about 1,270,000 results (makes you wonder when he did his searches that the current number of results is so many orders of magnitude in difference). The methodology also fails to take in to account any growth in the size of the web, which could mask the effects of decay.

The Web is decaying

It is now official - Netcraft has confirmed: The web is decaying

Yet another crippling bombshell hit the beleaguered web community when recently IDC confirmed that the web accounts for less than a fraction of 1 percent of all server usage. Coming on the heels of the latest Netcraft survey which plainly states that the web has lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. The web is collapsing in complete disarray, as further exemplified by failing dead last [samag.com] in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive networking usage test.

You don't need to be a Kreskin [amdest.com] to predict the web's future. The hand writing is on the wall: the web faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for the web because the web is decaying. Things are looking very bad for the web. As many of us are already aware, the web continues to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood. Dot-coms are the most endangered of them all, having lost 93% of their core developers.

Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.

The web leader Theo states that there are 7000 users of the web. How many users of other protocols are there? Let's see. The number of the web versus other protocols posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 other protocols users. Web posts on Usenet are about half of the volume of other protocols posts. Therefore there are about 700 users of the web. A recent article put the web at about 80 percent of the HTTP market. Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 web users. This is consistent with the number of Usenet posts about the web.

Due to the troubles of Walnut Creek, abysmal sales and so on, the web went out of business and was taken over by Slashdot who sell another troubled web service. Now Slashdot is also dead, its corpse turned over to yet another charnel house.

All major surveys show that the web has steadily declined in market share. The web is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If the web is to survive at all it will be among hobbyist dabblers. The web continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, the web is dead.

Fact: the web is dead.

The guy who posted this may have made a mistake.

Essentially, 60% of the web changes every 3 months.

I think that is incorrect, according the "researcher". He should have said, "Essentially, 60% of the web is getting older every 3 months.".

Better article needed

I'm not impressed. The article does not define what he means by decay, or how he measured it, except in the vaguest of terms. The analysis of the data is poor; anyone interested in decay would suspect some kind of exponential decay. They would therefore plot the data logarithmically, and perhaps calcualte a half life. Piss poor.

BUT....

The "Study" does not take into account new web pages that have replaced the old.

But then again it is an interesting piece of trivia

we've lost the ability to rely on hyperlinks

Tim Berners-Lee wrote :"There are no reasons at all in theory for people to change URIs (or stop maintaining documents), but millions of reasons in practice.": http://www.w3.org/Provider/Style/URI and advocated creating a web where documents could last, say, 20 years and more

Thought and mod_rewrite are the key

The key to making links that don't rot is to design a URI schema that's both independent of any redesigns of your site and independent of any particular way of doing things.

Let's look at a few examples.

The URI to this page is http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=31884&op=Reply &threshold=3&commentsort=3&tid=95&mode=nested&pid= 3434535 [slashdot.org] - what is it telling you that it doesn't need to?

Well, for a start, that .pl is a bad idea. What happens in 4 years time when SlashDot is running on PHP, or Java, or Perl 7, or a Perl Server Page, or ASP? Then there's the difficult-to-decode query string that tells you nothing about the link other than "this is the information the server needs to locate your page at the moment", and doesn't give you much faith in it living forever.

Now let's look at an equivilent Kuro5hin [kuro5hin.org] URI.

http://www.kuro5hin.org/comments/2002/4/29/22137/6 511/51/post#here [kuro5hin.org] is a URI to reply to a random comment on k5.

For a start, you can't tell what application or script is serving you the page, and you can't see what type of file it's linking to; both these things can and will change over time.

Second, there's a date embedded in there; you can see the developers, if they ever decide to change the meaning of '/comments', using that date as a reference; if the URI is before the change, they can map it onto the new schema or pass it onto legacy code.

Having the date in the URI is good because it allows you to determine when the link was issued, and map it onto any changes or pass it off to a legacy system as required.

Now let's take an apparantly good link on my now horribly out of date site, aagh.net [aagh.net].

http://www.aagh.net/php/style/ [aagh.net] links to an article on PHP coding style.

Certainly, hiding the fact that I'm using PHP to serve this document is good, and shortening the URI to remove the useless querystring is good (you can't see one? Good, that's the point), however, this URI may well stop working in a few weeks; I'm planning a redesign and the old schema may well not fit in well with it.

A short yyyymm in there could have made all the difference; a simple if check on the URI's issue date would keep it working.

The moral of the story: Think about your URI's when you're designing a site. Try to remove as much data as you can without painting yourself into a corner.

Stop Web Decay Today

Do your part to stop web decay. Include this in a cron job. For best results, be sure to brush, I mean touch, three times a day...

find /var/www/html -name '*' -exec /bin/touch {} \;

Self-fulfilling prophecy?

The link now says:

Temporarily Unavailable

The Angelfire site you are trying to reach has been temporarily suspended due to excessive bandwidth consumption.

The site will be available again in approximately 2 hours!

Study?

Wow! What a wonderful, in-depth, study! Is there any link to a scientific paper on that page that I am missing or is that everything? I mean, how can someone claim something just showing us a few numbers and an excel graph.

I appreciate the topic very much, but some more material on it is needed. This study wouldn't be complete enough even for high-school homework...

And look at his homepage (just remove the last part of the url). The most pages are more than two years old... that's decay! :)

Seriously speaking, just look for a few more sources before you accept a story.

Study claims ??

this study claims to have uncovered a corresponding 60-70-80 percent decay rate. Essentially, 60% of the web changes every 3 months."

The guy that submited this story is the guy that did the study.

Google/CowboyNeal Study

On a similar note, I was curious to see what the CowboyNeal content of the web is. As luck would have it, a precise answer can be found easily.

Google gives us the following interesting results:

3,840,000 [google.com] sites contain the word Cheese.

1,640 [google.ch] sites contain the words CowboyNeal and Cheese.

Therefore, 4.27083333333333333333333333333e-2% of cheese related sites contain a reference to CowboyNeal.

As cheese is a randomly chosen word with no special connection to CowboyNeal it is reasonable to assume that 4.27083333333333333333333333333e-2% of all sites contain a reference to The Cowboy (Assuming the number of sites dedicated to CowboyNeal equals the number dedicated to ignoring him).

So there we have it. The web is 99.957291666666666666666666666667% CowboyNeal free. :)


I said the results were "precise", not "accurate". :P

Re:Google/CowboyNeal Study

Do you sell insurance?

S

major source of web decay:

bored geeks mercilessly devouring the download limit of free sites...I can't help but find it amusing that this guys decay information has just decayed.

Not that accurate

I can't even find my page on google anymore. I don't know if it's just because my site's unpopular, or because it has the same name as an online retailer. In any case, it's not searchable anymore, and my guess is that it was removed as "dead".

Jakob Nielsen: Web Pages Must Live Forever

Once you have put a page on the Web, you need to keep it there indefinitely. Read more [useit.com]. Slow news day, eh?

One More Reason Why The Web Sucks

"Temporarily Unavailable

The Angelfire site you are trying to reach has been temporarily suspended due to excessive bandwidth consumption."

Imagine that you were renting a building and running a business - a retail store. One day, the owner of the bulding comes in and padlocks the doors and says "Sorry, you can't re-open till the first of the month - too many people have come into your store".

What stupidity.

Needs a broader range

late at night--This phrase returned the highest number of results of any I searched and yet it also adheres closely to the 60-70-80 rule.
If he really wanted a large search he should have tried "porn".....

Heh.. Talk about web decay.

Looks like 100% of the link mentioned in this article decayed in a little under 5 minutes! ;)
Cheers,

Google "pages found" data

I have maintained a number of google celebrity lists, where celebrities in various categories are ranked based on the number of page hits by google.

While the numbers clearly aren't totally random, they are very fragile indeed. Some people have had a change of two orders of magnitude, within a week. And in these cases, there have usually been no real world events that could explain such a change. I guess the google page hits numbers depend as much on the internal google structure, as on the number of actual pages on the web.

So I doubt google page hits statistics is a useful research tool. Nonetheless, it can be fun. Here are some google hall of fame lists:

• A list of the most famous Danes [slashdot.org] according to google [google.com].
• A list of free software celebrities [slashdot.org] according to google [google.com].
• A list of Emacs contributors [slashdot.org] sorted according to google [google.com] hits.
• A list of sequential artists [slashdot.org] sorted according to google [google.com] hits.
• A list of OS (Kernel) Mindshare [slashdot.org] sorted according to google [google.com] hits.

PS: Mail me to suggest new entries to the lists.

average and real life persistance of documents

.. I noticed that a paper I wrote a LOT of years ago can still be found online somewhere.. so I suppose that although -in the average- web pages do disappear, if those pages contain documents, they will survive the death of their original webpage.

not that it was an interesting document - just a little paper about nothing important. But still, it's out there.

My thoughts? I think that as long as a website can be "saved" in some form, its content will be available in other forms for a long amount of time.

this should make people think, especially those who put copyrights on their webpages, or don't want some information to spread around.

could we say that information want to be free as long as it's downloadable?

hmm..

I conclude there is no decay !

By thoroughly researching the following phrases on www.yahoo.com :-

Sex
Warez
mp3

I have discovered that amazingly, my results differ substantially !

In conclusion, then, it seems that content is ultimately always fresh and there is no indication of decay !

Wide jump from findings to conclusion

In fact, I would argue that good content need not change. Aside from the obvious issues with the small sampling of phrases, the web is, thankfully, not just a series of catch-phrases. In fact, it was designed to carry complex information [vissing.dk] such that it could not be reduced.

What scares me here is the conclusion that web sites need to change their content 60% every 3 months. This is not freshness, this is reorganizing to re-organize. If you are considering doing this, you had better seriously re-consider your future. Its an interesting study but a good meme doesn't die simply because the catch-phrases are tired.

At faculty meetings at our school I sit with a bingo card. On it are a series of catch-phrases. We listen for the catch-phrases and shout out when we have finished our cards. B***SH*T is the game and to reduce your content to a series of reorganized catch-phrases is like having a marketing guy develop foreign policy.

Anyone willing to write the perl module that searches for the latest catch-phrases and inserts them randomly into your web content. Yeesh!

Google measurements--varied and fun!

Using Google to calculate Tooth Decay. [google.com]

Decay

Ironicaly, this site on decay, adds to the decay.

The Slashdotted Decay Rate

They failed to include one statistic: The decay rate when the Slashdot Effect is applied to a website: 99.998%

:)

Google Study in Another Place

The study I posted on Angelfire appears to have reached a bandwidth threshhold. I've made the same study available here:

http://helen.lifeseller.com/webdecay.html [lifeseller.com]

I've also included a link to the raw data I used.

Local storage of information that I want to keep

I have never liked the smell of bit-rot, so I like to keep them close by my desk where I can keep them well-watered and pruned. ;)

For years, whenever I've found an article that I've liked, or data that I thought would be useful later on, I've always either saved the .html file or text off to my hard drive, or (lately) used Adobe Acrobat to get the whole page (preserving graphics and layout in one binary file, rather than 100 extra .gif/.jpg images in a directory somewhere).

Ryan

website offline

The website pointed to by the article seems to have been taken down due to excess bandwidth usage ... text-book example of being slashdotted :-).

guidelines for content change?

From the article:

Therefore, If a company wants to maintain a freshness rate on par with the web as a whole, their site content should be updated at the inverse rate. In other words:
60% of the site should change every 3 months
70% of the site should change every 6 months
80% of the site should change every 12 months
The only way to do this effectively is to either have a very small site, or have a site with dynamically generated information.

This seems so totally- "if everyone else is
jumping off the Brooklyn Bridge, then we
should to" by itself that it discredits what
sliver of credibility the article had. Using
a web-wide average as a guideline for what
a particular web site "should do" is
meaningless. Web sites should present timely,
appropriate information that is useful to
those who visit. Some sites deal with
material that changes frequently (stock quotes
and sports sites should be presumably updated
regularly) and some sites deal with material
that does not change frequently (no need to
redo your tech support documents for long-
out of production products every week.)
This notion of `freshness' is ill-defined,
poorly measured and of dubious value.

Phrases that won't suffer any decay, ever:

1. Here is tonight's top 10 list

2. Critical Updates Package (138 MB)

3. Hey Ho Let's Go

4. Nobody's perfect

and, of course

5. News for nerds, stuff that matters

Grub.org wants to keep its database current.

An open source project, Grub [grub.org], wants to keep the internet current in its databases by having a distributed crawler network. Check it out; ive been active there for more than a year. Since many sites change hourly now, it would be nice to have search results that are up to date.

Decay - is this a joke :-)

Okay - this article is very entertaining but "Deacy" is the wrong word for this - the author must have been studying capacitors and the decay rate of charge on a capacitor. I would suggest substituting "decay" for "charge"

Decay and archives

"Decay" would be more along the lines of X% of links become dead after 3 months. You'd have to collect a bunch of live links from various search terms and check ALL of them 3,6,12 months down the road and see if they're still there. 60% is more a measure of changed/new content in the last three/whatever months. At least the web isn't stagnating.

What about archives? They should not care about being 'fresh' beyond adding stuff to the archive. I want to be able to bookmark something in an archive for future reference and be able to come back to it in three years and still find it there, just like a library.

The argument that web sites should change 60% of their content in order to keep up with the average is like saying we should all be wearing puke-green colored clothes because that's the average color of the universe - the reason has nothing to do with reality. Web content should be as 'fresh' as the information being provided demands of it. Weather forcasts should change daily, stockmarkets - hourly, slow pitch standings - monthly, and so on.

Irony!

I love how this very page seems to have died... The web is a massive irony generator.

Using Google to Calculate Public Opinion

Has anyone written a script to try to figure out if a text message is a positive one or a flame? Shouldn't be too hard (you'd toss out A LOT of 'unknowns').

If someone has, you could graph the ratio of positive/negative posts to USENET for a set of keywords over time.

One could also graph the total volume. That would be much easier.

The first last post of the new revolution

Down with Michelle's fascist regime of censorship! Long live the Widener!

Using Google to Solve Age Old Disputes

Try this out! [www.sfu.ca] It's a PHP script using the Google API. Now you can discover if the world likes dogs better than cats, and sex better than love (duh).

Re:Applying statistics meaningfully

The web is a closed system? No new sites being created to effect the results? If all the web pages that were ever going to be created have already been created and only existing pages were changes . . . then there might be a slight hint of validity to these results. Otherwise . . . this shows why Statistics is a science. (would that be "are a science"?)

For you, yes, it is a joke.

Did you find yourself laughing hysterically?

Re:shameless self promotion

Actually, it was an attempt at journalistic detachment.

Re:Completely Incorrect!

I am still curious how this takes into account the data which is automatically regenerated on purpose, and also the spider intervals of the search engines. Most of them are overloaded with not to mention many are tainted due to "pay for higher rankings" content. --mcp am [adultmatch.org]