The searching solution... (Score 1)

I tryed to post this as a subject with no luck, so I guess I will dump it here. Web searching isn't what it should or could be because the "indexing industry" can't seem to provide the two required elements: complete coverage and a logical way to extract relevant results-- in the same index. The big search engines (Fast, Google, Inktomi...) do index a lot of content, but it can be nearly impossible to find a "class" of web site if what you are looking for can't be tied to an exact phrase or exclusive keyword. For example attempting to find all sites that provide a "message board about internet navigation" using a "search engine" is made impractical by the fact that there is no way to filter out the pages with irrelevant references and the fact that there is no common language (keywords or phrase) used on all message board sites to filter in. When Al Gore invented the Internet he apparently didn't realize that different people can describe the same thing using very different words, and that computers aren't likely to like that. Enter the categorized "web directory" (Yahoo, Dmoz, Go, Looksmart, Hotrate,...) to save us from this lack of foresight. Unfortunately, these "humans do it better" alternatives are "edited" by "humans do it slower with arrogance" communities of a selected personality who are more interested in iradicating "evil"--as they sometimes perversely define it--than doing their job of labeling and categorizing. Worse, this ever-growing population of "samey-vertical-directories" all have the insane perception that web page managers have nothing better to do than fill out redundant "add url" forms all day. The result is that the bad under-coverage of the big search engines is magnified some 100 times by the best of these "tip-of-the-iceberg representations" of what's on the internet. The solution is to make "editor" censorship opaque by opening and centralizing the site submission process and to reduce the noise and chaos of "dumb" search software by standardizing the language used to describe web site content. In my vision of a better World wide web, a site would only have to introduce itself once to the "indexing industry" to be fairly placed in the accessible site universe. The foolish waste of each index or directory doing the same basic "spam check" would be eliminated and done once with greater reliability and objectivity. This public domain list of addable Url's would be simply indexed based on a 5 or 6 keyword description where all but one of the words would have to come from a small pool of precisely defined, clear keywords. No longer would relevant sites be made inaccessible because someone thought a laptop computer was a notebook computer or a insect was a bug. The absence of standardized language and enforceable rules against lying, wrecked the good idea of meta tags --but we still can have the logical navigation they promised. I believe the creation of a "simple, complete universal index" is a no lose proposition. Unfortunately, I by myself can't make it happen, and as providing this service is not likely to be a for-profit enterprise, few "show me the money" web professionals are offering help. I am confident that the web using public would require little convincing to embrace the idea of cleansing the roots of web navigation of destructive corporate self-interest. The unanswered question is, will they ever have a vote? I have written more stuff on this subject, and I do have some improved ideas regarding how the index could be structured and regarding spam prevention, but I have decided I am not going to just give them away until I see some hope that change is possible.