Snowpiles; money making opportunity for Somerville

[Estonut]

Estonut says:

ghost, I believe this is because Google is only as good as its most recent troll of the web. You will not find immediate information there because it hasn't been trolled yet. If you're lucky, you will find previously-trolled information (like the pre-prepared list of speakers). You might also be pointed to a site that was previously found and which might itself have up-to-the-minute information about your subject, but you won't find that up-to-the-minute information in Google's cached pages because it hasn't had a chance to cache it yet.

I have a feeling someone will correct me if I'm wrong about this...

That is exactly why Google is what it is (whatever that is!) & not newsmedia. So it pains me when people treat it as such. 1st there's got to be an article/youtube post, whatever. Then a bunch of people have to select (or troll!) it. Only then will you get pointed to anything.

I was just observing, back on inaug day, how hard it was to get pointers to that very recent news.

You are misunderstanding the concept of trolling. This is something Google, Yahoo and every other search engine is constantly doing. They are pro-actively traversing the web, building an index of what's where. It has nothing to do with people ("a bunch of people have to select (or troll!) it"). You were looking for an index to information that was too new to have been found and indexed.

[ghostjmf]

Estonut says:

You are misunderstanding the concept of trolling. This is something Google, Yahoo and every other search engine is constantly doing. They are pro-actively traversing the web, building an index of what's where. It has nothing to do with people ("a bunch of people have to select (or troll!) it"). You were looking for an index to information that was too new to have been found and indexed.

Aha! I didn't think Google (or the other search engines) let on how they did what they did, but I'm willing accept they do build this skeleton/index. I know (because they have discussed it in public fora) that Google these days tries to combat the "an army of people have been hired to click on this site, so as to make it bubble to the top of any popularity index" phenomenon, though they don't say exactly how they do that (other than the obvious "reject multiple hits by the same person at the same site" method; a lot of "forced popularity" teams are way more sophisticated than that these days).

[ghostjmf]

I just wanted to say.

[gotribego26]

i enjoy reading ghosts incessant complaints about an ever expanding variety of misfortunes which are not her fault.

Give her a break - she's not paranoid - they are out to get her.

[Jeemie]

i enjoy reading ghosts incessant complaints about an ever expanding variety of misfortunes which are not her fault.

Give her a break - she's not paranoid - they are out to get her.

You've been reading my sigline!!!

[ToLiveIsToFly]

i enjoy reading ghosts incessant complaints about an ever expanding variety of misfortunes which are not her fault.

Give her a break - she's not paranoid - they are out to get her.

You've been reading my sigline!!!

Where was it that I read about the poster of the worried-looking king that said, "I know I'm paranoid. But am I paranoid ENOUGH?"

[Estonut]

Estonut says:

You are misunderstanding the concept of trolling. This is something Google, Yahoo and every other search engine is constantly doing. They are pro-actively traversing the web, building an index of what's where. It has nothing to do with people ("a bunch of people have to select (or troll!) it"). You were looking for an index to information that was too new to have been found and indexed.

Aha! I didn't think Google (or the other search engines) let on how they did what they did, but I'm willing accept they do build this skeleton/index. I know (because they have discussed it in public fora) that Google these days tries to combat the "an army of people have been hired to click on this site, so as to make it bubble to the top of any popularity index" phenomenon, though they don't say exactly how they do that (other than the obvious "reject multiple hits by the same person at the same site" method; a lot of "forced popularity" teams are way more sophisticated than that these days).

ghost, just tonight we had a visitor from Yahoo trolling this bored:

Users browsing this forum: DaveSenior72, Estonut, Yahoo [Bot] and 2 guests

I've read where BBs have mentioned the Bot before, but I'd never caught it red-handed!

[mcd1400de]

mcd1400de says:

Perhaps I'm misinterpreting, but by the way you stated this, I get the impression that the city's "selective enforcement" is not news to you, but something of which you are/have been very much aware.

If that is so, and there were piles of snow on the ground, as your post implies there must have been, I guess what I want to know is... why did you still park your car there, and NOT expect a ticket??

You are indeed misinterpreting. In my original post, I go over never having seen this "20-ft law" before. And, may I restate so you can re-see it, very clearly, in many places they have "no parking here to corner" signs, & these signs are 10 feet from the corner, not 20 feet.

You'd think that at least the signage would comply with the law, but it doesn't. The corner near which I parked had no signage whatsover, & led into a cul-de-sac that very rarely is visited by long trucks, & never by buses, both of which type of vehicles make wide turns & need all the space they can get. Furthermore, I'd occasionally parked there over an 18 year period, & never gotten a ticket before, winter or summer. I said that in one of the earlier posts too, but I guess you didn't read it.

I actually had to look up this law to make sure they weren't making it up. They have a special sheet of "really really important laws", & this wasn't on it. It was buried in about 250 pages of city ordinance code.

The only reason I would, prior to the ticket, have had to avoid that corner was that I know that snowplows like to park on corners, when available, & you don't want to make snowplows mad or they'll just back right into you for fun, but there were no other parking spaces available. I pulled as far back from the corner as the existing piles of snow would allow.

First off, I apologize for the misinterpretation. I'll cut myself a little slack, though, by the fact that I at least allowed for the fact that I might be doing so.

I think it came from the way you originally said "The city only enforces these restrictions when there are piles of snow on the ground." To me, that made it sound as if you had previously seen or experienced a ticketing while piles of snow were on the ground, or at least had some other reason to know this as a fact BEFORE you actually got the ticket. In which case I think you'd deserve to be ribbed for complaining about the ticket. But that apparently was not the case; I was wrong, and again, my apologies.


The irony is that I identify all too well with the idea of selective enforcement of parking statutes. I frequently park on the city streets in the vicinity of my office, and I have gotten my share of tickets, mostly deserved. But I've also fought a couple, some successfully (lack of proper signage).... others not so much.

That one time, I got nailed for being within 15 feet of a crosswalk -- even though I've often seen Parking Authority folks walk right past other cars, including my own, sitting in that same spot. I didn't go the "selective enforcement" angle, though; I fought it on the grounds that there's no crosswalk markings or signals of any kind at that intersection!

It's a "T", with a side street dead-ending onto a major road. However, opposite the side street is a turn lane leading into a garage; there's no sidewalk on the other side of the main road at that point, which is apparently why no markings.

They probably could have legitimately gotten me for being too close to the intersection, but that's not what the ticket was for. Guess they didn't buy my argument about the lack of crosswalk, though. Ah well -- an occasional $25 is still a lot cheaper than what it costs to park in that same garage....

[Jeemie]

They probably could have legitimately gotten me for being too close to the intersection, but that's not what the ticket was for. Guess they didn't buy my argument about the lack of crosswalk, though. Ah well -- an occasional $25 is still a lot cheaper than what it costs to park in that same garage....

Hey- I got out of a ticket that way once.

I was ticketed for doing "60 in a 50 mph zone".

But it wasn't a 50 mph zone....it was a 55 mph zone.

I was thinking I would get the lower fine (at this time, the lowest level carried a fine for <10 mph over, which was actually significantly less than the next level up), but the judge dismissed the entire ticket!!!