Made out of people

Picturing Usenet

I've been kind of short on blogging time recently. But I did recently co-publish Picturing Usenet, which tries to pull together some of the visualization work that's been going on in my group and tries to tie it together.

Shipping it

Even in Research, we sometimes ship product. Last night, I put the finishing touches on the web page, ran the install one last time to make sure it wouldn't throw me off, and shipped SNARF.

SNARF is still an internal tool: it won't see the light of out-of-Microsoft-day for a few months, yet. None the less, a release to a possible customer base of, oh, 78000 people can make one a little jittery. Doubly so, because each person's run is sending us back usage data. Are we collecting the right data? Will it be analyzable the way we think? Will we come up with sufficiently-interesting analyses?

Because if this works, it's going to be GREAT. Great for the users, whose email experience should be vastly improved. And great for researchers, who will get truly interesting information about how much email flow happens, how quickly, and when.

(An overview of SNARF will be presented at the upcoming CEAS conference.)

Dr. Updates, or How I Learned to Stop Worrying, and Love the Toast

Another day, another cryptic movie reference. New blog entry posted on Raindrop

Who knew?

This is just distressing: Microsoft Indexing Service was there all along, and it worked, and it worked well. Your Windows 2000 box was able to do high-speed full-text searches of your hard drive.

It's just that, um, it wasn't connected to the search box without a magic invocation.

Jon Udell has more

Wikipedia has errors?

A while ago, I talked about Wikipedia and ways that it has of correcting errors. This was in the midst of great controversy: is wikipedia reliable? Can you trust a system that might errors as much as you can trust the stolid, ever-accurate Brittanica?

One counter-argument, of course, is that if you find an error in Wikipedia, you can fix it.

Today, Many2Many points to an article in the Times Online

A schoolboy with a fascination for Poland and wildlife has uncovered several significant errors in the latest — the fifteenth — edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica.

And now, of course, Brittanica readers are stuck with the mistakes...

And this is a gratuitous reference to Borges because I can.

Hunting Yenc: Tracing the Great Usenet Bump (Part IV)

Back in the first post, we found a large bump in Usenet traffic. On the second day, we showed that the bump was not due to an obvious flaw in our system--at least, it wasn't due to the same flaws we've run into before. On the third day, we traced the bump to alt.binaries, and from there found that it spread itself across a lot of groups. alt.binaries.dvd seemed to most dramatically have it.

Let's continue by tracing through and seeing individual authors.

I took a closer look at alt.binaries.dvd. The most frequent poster on alt.binaries.dvd is some guy calling himself yenc. yenc@power-post.org. Indeed, he has a great many names:

	yenc@power-post.org (Yenc-PP-A&A) 
	yenc@power-post.org (anonymous@anonymous.com)
        "Builder" <Yenc@power-post.org>
        "daathal" <Yenc@power-post.org>
        "Dognorah" <Yenc@power-post.org>

and oodles of others …

Here's a daily count of yenc's posts.

A quick web search points out that yenc@power-post.org isn't just one person. yenc is the default name generated by Power-Post software for yEncoding. Which means that what we're seeing here is a whole lot of people, posting at software defaults.

(yEncoding? That's the sequel to UUEncoding, and is another way of breaking up binaries and posting them to newsgroups.)

Now take a quick look at that peak there. That's 300,000 daily messages[1], pretty close to the size of the spike we're trying to account for.

So what did this Yenc have to say?

One person hypothesized that this was a spike generated by a movie release -- maybe this is a few thousand copies of Return of the King? Another suggested that this was a surge of some more-illicit material.

Here's a random selection of post titles from 2004 posted by yenc@power-post.org (Yenc-PP-A&A)

        ManxTT2002- "manxTT2002.part005.rar" yEnc (142/161)
	#alt.binaries.cd.image.xbox @ efnet + 28484 [09/32] - "ins-fn2k4x.r05" yEnc (094/201)
	(DERWI) [Twins] - "twins.part083.rar" yEnc FTD: 195277 (195/201)
	isleofmanTTextras1.- "isleofmanTTextras.part092.rar" yEnc (025/161)
	isleofmanTTextras1.- "isleofmanTTextras.part102.rar" yEnc (081/122)
	#alt.binaries.svcd@Efnet #5317 Garfield "vcd-garfieldts1.r16" yEnc (25/36)
	(www.abstartrek.org) 04 of 32 - "TOS - 101 - The Man Trap.part04.rar" yEnc (14/24)
	(199013) Mooimakertje.part05.rar (17/27)
	isleofmanTTextras1.- "isleofmanTTextras.part076.rar" yEnc (027/161)
	(DERWI) [Twins] - "twins.part082.rar" yEnc FTD: 195277 (051/201)
	Karperfilmpjes "CarpseX aflevering 05.wmv" By VanManiac (007/390)
	(DERWI) [verzoek repost ANNE] - "anne.part123.rar" yEnc FTD: 205123 (130/201)
	§ #alt.binaries.svcd@Efnet \/ Spiderman 2 TS CD1 \/ #5422 "vcd-spiderman2ts1.vol165+40.PAR2" § (01/54)
	(R.S.V.P. #208020) [06/94] - "rs0932.part05.rar" yEnc (051/201)
	Hajni from mikesapartment.com | The hottest women I have ever seen! [03/25] - "hajni-03.mpg" yEnc (08/19)
	§ #alt.binaries.svcd@Efnet \/ \/ #5394 "vcd-garfieldts1.r22" § (33/40)
	Karperfilmpjes "HollandseKarpersessies- 01-Pannekoek.wmv" By VanManiac (128/342)

I can send you a larger set if you want, but this is pretty much representative. It's … stuff. Games and movies and songs and pirated Dutch films and all the other things that look like the binary Usenet today.

Which tells me that it isn't content that's driving this spike. This is not a sudden surge of interest in anything in particular. Nor is it a particular person: I'm pretty sure that no individual is rolling out 300K messages per day. Yenc-PP-A&A is, I'm pretty sure, another aggregated alias.

So what is it? We need to explain two things. The up curve, or why binary posting took off like mad in early 2004, and the down curve, or why binary posting suddenly started to drop, out through October 2004.

A few notes:
· As far as I can tell, the YENC release notes suggest that no new versions of power post have come out since mid-2003. So it's probably not the excitement over a new software version.
· BitTorrent downloads have been rising steadily, but don't seem to have the sort of spike that would explain the drop…

Any other clever ideas?

--

1. Ok, full confession: looking back at the table, I'm no longer quite so sure what query our data guy used to get me this table. I need to double check my figures: I quietly suspect that this is weekly, not daily messages. I also quietly suspect that it's just Yenc-PP-A&A and not any of the other Yenc identities.

Tracing the Great Usenet Bump (Part III)

Over the last two days, we've looked at the number of messages across Usenet. We seem to have found an interesting phenomenon: a surge in messages that doesn't connect to an obvious technical failure on our part.

One obvious question is to figure out where those posts are hiding.

Let's see if we can trace this out a little further. Here's the curves for three different news hierarchies, microsoft.public, tw, and alt.binaries.

In each of them, the orphans are the smaller scale (and are usually something like 10% of the message scale).

These were pretty arbitrary choices, but there is a method to this madness. These are three of the biggest hierarchies in our records.

We look pretty carefully at microsoft.public, and we have better archives, so if the phenomenon is there, it'll be easy to pin down. alt.binaries often gets scapegoated as a home for odd behavior, because it's so very big and heavily trafficked with illegal material (CD rips, DVD copies, cracked computer games, and so on).

Now, I'm not sure what's going on with the bump in the orphans count in microsoft.public, but the post count isn't going nuts. Our feed from Taiwan isn't quite as reliable as I might like, but it's pretty stable too.

And, wow, alt.binaries has our bump. Peak to baseline, it looks to be somewhere around the 300,000 that we're interested in.

Now, a lesser research team might accept this and call it a day. "Yeah, that's those binary posters," they might say. "Not even Google tracks 'em -- they just want to swap pr0n and copies of Return of the King."

And while this is true, there is always more data to sift. Let's go on. Maybe this whole phenomenon is buried within a single newsgroup or two. (Then again, maybe it's not).

Let's try to be systematic, now. I got a table of the posts-per-day for every alt.binaries group with more than ten thousand posts. For each group, I compared a baseline period (May 2003 - Feb 2004) to the bump period (May 2004 - June 2004), and checked whether the average posts per day during the later period was more than twice the average posts per day of the earlier period.

Now, for each of them, I looked for a groups where the average number of daily messages from May 2003 through Feb 2004 was under half the number of messages for May 2004 thorough June 2004. I also looked for groups that had a maximum day over 50,000 messages. Less than that, and we just aren't able to build up to this large a spike.

It's not hard to find echoes of the bump in a number of groups ...

… but the most dramatic one that I'm finding seems to be in alt.binaries.dvd. Alt.binaries.dvd had nothing before January, 2003, but got up to 50,000 posts per day during our time period. Tomorrow, we'll look a little more into what happened.

Isolating Technical Issues (Part II)

Yesterday, we examined a chart of Usenet traffic, and saw some mysterious bumps. We ended our study with the question of which of those bumps were due to our own reliability, and which we could attribute to outside phenomena.

(Today's post is a little bit technical, and can probably be guiltlessly skipped without too much guilt. I'll catch you up tomorrow)

Now, how to measure your own reliability is a little tough. We could, I guess, compare our feeds to yet another feed coming in from somewhere, or double check our incoming messages against Google. But each of those is expensive, and requires even more processing -- and with our statistics engine, we've got a lot of stuff churning away already.

We've chosen a different take. We look instead at internal measures: things that just don't add up in our own database.

In particular, we can look for messages where we see someone answering a message … but we don't have the original. That suggests we failed to get the original, leaving behind an "orphan," so called because it is a message without its parent.

There will always be a background level of these "orphans". the first message may have been cancelled, for example, without us seeing either the original or the cancel. But we can make a good estimate.

Orphans turn out are a pretty good measure of our reliability. On days when we're scooping up most of Usenet, we don't have many orphans. When we are missing things, for one reason or another, our orphan count shoots upward. In fact, you can see that some of the downward spikes -- like the really big one in February, 2003 -- are matched by a surge in orphans. That's a pretty good sign that we lost stuff.

Here's a count of our orphans per day. These orphans on the chart are counted at one-tenth the scale of the posts: the high peak the orphan trend-line, in March of 2001, is about 60,000 a day.

Where orphans are flat, we're doing well. That's when we give our database guys a raise. (It does make sense that orphans have dropped in the last few years: we're talking to more news servers, now, and so we have a better flow of messages; our collection mechanism has, by and large, improved, so we're getting higher-quality data).

It looks like most of the fluctuations can be accounted for by the orphan count. Got a dip? We must have been missing stuff that day.

But take a good look at that curve. There's one thing that stands out in the recent past to me -- total volume went up during the summer. Way up. Up by a good 50% or so: at its peak, that's around a million messages a day, up from around 700,000 messages a few months before that.

This is peculiar. The orphan count is flat, so it's not some sort of strange server bump. This is simply more messages. Lots more messages.

Tomorrow, we'll take a look into several different Usenet sub-hierarchies and try to drill down into this spike.

A Day at MSR: Chasing the Great Usenet Bump (Part I)

I love my job. One of the reasons it's quite so cool is because I get to try to solve mysteries in between my work with Total World Domination & Crushing the Helpless.

My team has been working for quite a few years on Netscan. We have a fairly impressive set of statistics and measurements over the last five or six years, which I'm quite pleased with. And which turn out to be a lot of fun. There's a lot of different ways to cut and splice the data, and we're just beginning to scratch its surface. (Incidentally, large portions of these data are available online, at the Netscan website; further, universities can request 500-GB-sized chunks of our data for their own research.)

Let me walk you through one of our latest mysteries. Perhaps you'll find it interesting too.

I should note that this project isn't quite typical of what we do: there's a lot of projects going on. Many of them are ethnographic, or design-oriented, or more traditionally sociological. But in general, we are trying to understand the social phenomena around online systems -- and if there's one thing going for Usenet, it's that it's a seething mass of social phenomena.

This mystery, like any good suspense, is presented as multi-part post. We'll do this one in four parts; I'll put up one part every day, through Sunday. None of them are painfully technical.

Part I: Counting Messages

At some point, I wanted to know how many messages we had. This chart shows the number of Netscan messages (click to zoom in). The X axis is the date: January 2000 (when Netscan's collection started) through October 2004. The Y axis, shows total posts per day; every line shows 200,000 posts, so the high point is just a little over a million posts.

The darker orange line is a 30 day running average: there's enough day-to-day variation that I need to run a trend-line average, or the data becomes hard to read: the noise begins to stifle the signal.

Again, this chart shows unique messages per day. You'll note a few features of this graph: it seems to be generally rising, linearly, over time. There's a few periods of particular interest: a particularly-noisy period in late 2000; a large dip in January, 2003; a smaller one in June, 2003; and a bit of a climb in April through June of 2004.

Now, as a person who hangs out with sociologists, I like to be able to explain behavior. What happened in 2000? In 2003? In mid-2004? Is it depression over a super-bowl result, or international terrorism?

Or is it just a technical glitch on our side?

Now, you should note that this chart isn't "all messages in Usenet"; this is "all the messages that our server saw." No one quite has the same view of all of the Usenet, due to the fairly anarchic design. There are various good descriptions of what happens, but here's an approximation:

When I post a message to, say, alt.candy-lovers.drgoodbar, it is sent to my local server. This server, periodically, communicates with a set of other servers that it knows. Those servers feed me their latest posts, and my server feeds them my latest posts. So this post is offered to a few other servers. Maybe one of them doesn't like posts sent anywhere in the alt hierarchy, and so it drops it. Perhaps a different server has a glitch, and doesn't get it. A third server is an incoming-only connection, and so doesn't want my updates. But my post's immortality is assured: a fourth server picks up the message, a few minutes or hours later, and propagates it. That server passes it on to some others, and so on.

So messages come in fits and starts, in great surges as they queue up somewhere and then flow more smoothly. Our own collector sometimes has problems and loses messages. So maybe this is just a problem on our side.

Tomorrow: Is the variation just a glitch?

Netscan talks RSS

So I'm sorry to have been out of touch, but projects here at MSR are blasting ahead at top speed. It's pretty exciting, really. One of my favorite innovations is that we're developing new ways to look at our Usenet overview system, Netscan.

Netscan has been collecting message headers for four or five years now, and tracks lots of statsitics per-author, per-newsgroup, or in several other combinations.

You can now get an RSS feed for virtually every page of netscan -- get the newest statistics, datasets, and percentages for your favorite author, newsgroup, or thread delivered right to your door!

http://netscan.research.microsoft.com/Tech has lots of "RSS" buttons on it that will follow your favorite (technical) newsgroup.

Technical, incidentally, because Netscan scrapes those daily. Nontechnical newsgroups are still batched up onto a hard disk and only updated once a month.

It's kind of fun.

I Wuz Stalked (And How I Feel About It).

A quick look over my blog from the last year shows that I'm presenting myself in interesting ways. The loyal blog reader knows about lots of stuff in my life, from my move from SoCal to Seattle, to my minor obsession with typefaces. They know that I am involved in an open source visualization package, and they know that I travelled to far away places.

Which is why I was startled at how startled I was to be approached at CSCW a few weeks ago. "Hi, I've read your blog."

It was a little weirder than that, actually. The question was, Have you ever had someone who reads your blog come up to you at a conference maybe, and tell you, 'Hi! I've read your blog.'

The answer was no. Until that moment, at which point, it was yes.

And I got this weird, profoundly uncomfortable feeling that I'm still trying to figure out. It's weird: the blog is filled with all sorts of information that I'm fine with being public, and, indeed, I post it because I want it said, and read. And I've been blogging stuff that outsiders might find of interest because I'm ok with blurring part of my social world with part of my technical world.

Then again, I have a vision of who is reading this. I know most of my readers, I think, in person; I have a few who have wandered by at various times. But I suppose a mysterious other (the hypothetical person who buys my blog at auction perhaps?) will know a lot more about me than I am ready for them to know.

Facts, individually, are weak little things. Facts, collectively, make my life well-considered (and, thus, to Socrates, worth living) and well-examined and well --

Well, exposed.

Web professionalism

A few years ago, my mother got a web page. She hired a designer through a friend-of-a-friend, who produced her this site: Resources for Change

A little bit ago, I was trying to figure out why Google didn't produce a summary of the page, why it was hesitant to index it, and why a search like Gail Fisher, MSW, RODC wouldn't find it¹.

I contacted my mother, and then the web page designer (name available upon request, but I don't want to start a war), saying:

The home page, ResourcesForChange.com, does not have the words "Gail Fisher" or the word "MSW" or "RODC" on it. As Ms. Fisher corresponds under these words and this name, its lack is a severe problem.

I then expanded (below the fold)...

¹ (Um, this link doesn't link to it; it's Google bait.)

I suspect that it is not intentional: the page's design incorporates Ms. Fisher's name twice, both in images. To a handicapped person reading the page with a screen reader, or to a user with images turnedoff, those words would never appear. (Indeed, throughout the page, and the site, plain text is drawn in images rather than being presented in text.)

These words are not in the text at all as alternatives, making the site inacessible to both search engines and disabled users. Standard web usability guidelines call for all text that appears in images--certainly all content text--to be echoed in "ALT" tags, or to be otherwise accessible. (For example, see Usabilty.gov )

You may view the page with a lynx simulator in order to see better what text does, and does not, appear.

I would strongly reccomend that this page incorporate the following additional elements:

1) The name "Gail Fisher, MSW, RODC" and "Registered Organizational Development Counselor" appear IN PLAIN TEXT somewhere on the page--perhaps in the copyright line or on the top of the page.

2) All images that appear on the page with words on them--such as this and this
and this --be labelled with appropriate "ALT" tags with the words that are on them.

In particular, the list of keywords arranged on the left hand side of the page and the motto at the top of the page should both be recreated in order to be both accessible and searchable.

These are not exotic demands--basic Web tutorials also list text compatiblity as a crucial element. See, for example, this

Which leaves me with this slightly plaintive question: am I off-base? What are the ground bases for professionalism in web design? When you pay someone, should you expect alt-tags and searchable pages, or is that an icing on the cake?

Spam Preservation Society

In the extended entry... by special request of "Jack" and "Eric in Texas". (Oddly, Eric in Texas logged in from scotlandbiz, which is blacklisted... so he's now out, too.)

001-dot-me-dot-uk
1000-dot-me-dot-uk
1111-dot-me-dot-uk
11111-dot-me-dot-uk
11111-dot-org-dot-uk
11a-dot-co-dot-uk
123-dot-me-dot-uk
12345-dot-org-dot-uk
222-dot-me-dot-uk
222-dot-org-dot-uk
33-dot-org-dot-uk
3a-dot-me-dot-uk
3d360view-dot-com
3duk-dot-biz
44-dot-me-dot-uk
444-dot-me-dot-uk
4444-dot-org-dot-uk
4a-dot-me-dot-uk
55-dot-me-dot-uk
55-dot-org-dot-uk
5a-dot-me-dot-uk
5a-dot-org-dot-uk
6666-dot-me-dot-uk
6666-dot-org-dot-uk
6a-dot-me-dot-uk
77-dot-me-dot-uk
7a-dot-me-dot-uk
88-dot-me-dot-uk
8a-dot-me-dot-uk
8a-dot-org-dot-uk
99-dot-me-dot-uk
a3-dot-org-dot-uk
a4-dot-org-dot-uk
a6-dot-me-dot-uk
a6-dot-org-dot-uk
a7-dot-me-dot-uk
a7-dot-org-dot-uk
a8-dot-me-dot-uk
a8-dot-org-dot-uk
a9-dot-me-dot-uk
aaaa-dot-org-dot-uk
aamerica-dot-biz
aamerica-dot-info
aamerica-dot-org
abbeyhotel-dot-org
adultlistings-dot-co-dot-uk
aim-biz-dot-co-dot-uk
allamerica-dot-co-dot-uk
allamerica-dot-me-dot-uk
allamerica-dot-org-dot-uk
alldrugs
alldrugs-dot-co-dot-uk
allsex-dot-co-dot-uk
allsex-dot-me-dot-uk
america-home-dot-co-dot-uk
america-page-dot-co-dot-uk
america-page-dot-com
america-shop-dot-co-dot-uk
america-site-dot-com
america-web-dot-co-dot-uk
americadrag-dot-co-dot-uk
americadrag-dot-com
americadrug-dot-co-dot-uk
americahome-dot-co-dot-uk
americanow-dot-biz
americanow-dot-co-dot-uk
americanow-dot-info
americanow-dot-me-dot-uk
americanow-dot-org-dot-uk
americaok-dot-co-dot-uk
americaok-dot-org
americapage-dot-co-dot-uk
americasex-dot-biz
americasex-dot-co-dot-uk
americasex-dot-me-dot-uk
americasex-dot-org-dot-uk
americauk-dot-com
americaweb-dot-co-dot-uk
autobiz-dot-co-dot-uk
b11-dot-me-dot-uk
b11-dot-org-dot-uk
b12-dot-me-dot-uk
b12-dot-org-dot-uk
b2-dot-org-dot-uk
b4-dot-me-dot-uk
b4-dot-org-dot-uk
backrub-dot-me-dot-uk
backrub-dot-org-dot-uk
bamerica-dot-info
bamerica-dot-net
bamerican-dot-biz
bamerican-dot-co-dot-uk
bamerican-dot-info
bamerican-dot-org
bgates-dot-co-dot-uk
billgates-dot-org-dot-uk
bizcart-dot-co-dot-uk
bodywork-dot-me-dot-uk
bumerica-dot-com
bumerican-dot-com
buzybiz-dot-co-dot-uk
cabra-dot-co-dot-uk
camerica-dot-biz
camerica-dot-info
capitalbiz-dot-co-dot-uk
capitalbiz-dot-net
carbiz-dot-co-dot-uk
childcare-dot-biz
damerica-dot-biz
damerica-dot-info
damerica-dot-org
deamerica-dot-co-dot-uk
drag-online-dot-co-dot-uk
drag-dot-me-dot-uk
dragamerica-dot-co-dot-uk
dragamerica-dot-com
dragshop-dot-co-dot-uk
dragweb-dot-co-dot-uk
duk-dot-biz
ealing-biz-dot-co-dot-uk
ealingbiz-dot-co-dot-uk
ealingweb-dot-co-dot-uk
elmbridge-biz-dot-co-dot-uk
elmbridgebiz-dot-org-dot-uk
elove-dot-me-dot-uk
elove-dot-org-dot-uk
esex-dot-me-dot-uk
esex-dot-org-dot-uk
esexshop-dot-me-dot-uk
esexshop-dot-org-dot-uk
everybiz-dot-net
famerica-dot-net
famerica-dot-org
fuckamerica-dot-org
g-mail-dot-me-dot-uk
g-mail-dot-org-dot-uk
gamaway-dot-co-dot-uk
gamerica-dot-biz
gamerica-dot-info
gamerica-dot-net
gbush-dot-me-dot-uk
georgebush-dot-me-dot-uk
getamerica-dot-co-dot-uk
getaol-dot-co-dot-uk
getgoogle-dot-co-dot-uk
getlove-dot-biz
getlove-dot-co-dot-uk
getlove-dot-me-dot-uk
getlove-dot-org-dot-uk
getmassage-dot-co-dot-uk
getmassage-dot-me-dot-uk
getmassage-dot-org-dot-uk
getsex-online-dot-co-dot-uk
getsex-dot-co-dot-uk
getsex-dot-me-dot-uk
getsex-dot-org-dot-uk
getsexonline-dot-co-dot-uk
googleinc-dot-info
googleinc-dot-me-dot-uk
googleinc-dot-net
googleinc-dot-org
googleinc-dot-org-dot-uk
googlepc-dot-biz
googlepc-dot-co-dot-uk
googlepc-dot-info
googlepc-dot-me-dot-uk
googlepc-dot-net
googlepc-dot-org
googlepc-dot-org-dot-uk
googles-dot-me-dot-uk
googles-dot-org-dot-uk
gooogle-dot-me-dot-uk
hamerica-dot-biz
hamerica-dot-info
hansenheating-dot-co-dot-uk
health-resources-dot-co-dot-uk
hiamerica-dot-net
hitamerica-dot-co-dot-uk
hitamerica-dot-com
hitusa-dot-co-dot-uk
holisticpage-dot-co-dot-uk
holisticweb-dot-co-dot-uk
hounslowbiz-dot-co-dot-uk
iamerica-dot-co-dot-uk
iamerica-dot-me-dot-uk
iamerica-dot-org-dot-uk
idamerica-dot-biz
idamerica-dot-info
idamerica-dot-org
ilove-dot-org-dot-uk
iloveamerica-dot-biz
iloveamerica-dot-co-dot-uk
iloveamerica-dot-me-dot-uk
iloveamerica-dot-org-dot-uk
ilovesex-dot-me-dot-uk
ilovesexshop-dot-co-dot-uk
iloveshop-dot-co-dot-uk
iloveweb-dot-co-dot-uk
imassage-dot-biz
imassage-dot-me-dot-uk
imassage-dot-org-dot-uk
info-cart-dot-com
infocart-dot-co-dot-uk
isex-dot-me-dot-uk
iwantamerica-dot-co-dot-uk
iwantmassage-dot-co-dot-uk
iwantmassage-dot-me-dot-uk
iwantmassage-dot-org-dot-uk
iyahoo-dot-co-dot-uk
jamerica-dot-co-dot-uk
jjsg-dot-co-dot-ukfree
kamerica-dot-net
LAmerica-dot-info
Lamerica-dot-org
landuk-dot-co-dot-uk
londonbiz-dot-co-dot-uk
londonbiz-dot-net
londonmassage-dot-biz
londonmassage-dot-me-dot-uk
londonmassage-dot-org
londonmassage-dot-org-dot-uk
londontherapy-dot-biz
londontherapy-dot-co-dot-uk
londontherapy-dot-me-dot-uk
love-home-dot-co-dot-uk
love-page-dot-co-dot-uk
love-shop-dot-co-dot-uk
love-site-dot-co-dot-uk
love-web-dot-co-dot-uk
loveamerica-dot-co-dot-uk
loveamerica-dot-info
loveamerica-dot-me-dot-uk
loveamerica-dot-org-dot-uk
loveaol-dot-co-dot-uk
loveyahoo-dot-co-dot-uk
loveyahoo-dot-com
macrosoft-dot-me-dot-uk
mamerica-dot-biz
mamerica-dot-info
mamerica-dot-net
mamerica-dot-org
manxbiz-dot-co-dot-uk
massagelondon-home-dot-co-dot-uk
massagelondon-online-dot-co-dot-uk
massagelondon-page-dot-co-dot-uk
massagelondon-shop-dot-co-dot-uk
massagelondon-site-dot-co-dot-uk
massagelondon-web-dot-co-dot-uk
massagelondon-dot-biz
massagelondon-dot-info
massagelondon-dot-me-dot-uk
massagelondon-dot-org
massagelondon-dot-org-dot-uk
massagelondononline-dot-co-dot-uk
massagelondonpage-dot-co-dot-uk
massagelondonshop-dot-co-dot-uk
massagelondonweb-dot-co-dot-uk
massageme-dot-biz
massageme-dot-info
massageme-dot-me-dot-uk
massageme-dot-org-dot-uk
massagenow-home-dot-co-dot-uk
massagenow-site-dot-co-dot-uk
massagenow-dot-co-dot-uk
massagenow-dot-me-dot-uk
massagenow-dot-org-dot-uk
massageonline-dot-me-dot-uk
massageonline-dot-org-dot-uk
massagethai-dot-co-dot-uk
massagetherapy-dot-me-dot-uk
meamerica-dot-net
mkbiz-dot-co-dot-uk
mobilebiz-dot-co-dot-uk
mobilephonesites-dot-co-dot-uk
msn-dot-me-dot-uk
my-america-dot-co-dot-uk
my-massagelondon-dot-co-dot-uk
my-massagenow-dot-co-dot-uk
my-sex-dot-biz
my-sex-dot-me-dot-uk
my-sex-dot-org-dot-uk
my-website-dot-org-dot-uk
myalternative-dot-co-dot-uk
mybodywork-dot-co-dot-uk
mydrug-dot-co-dot-uk
myglobe-dot-co-dot-uk
mylondonmassage-dot-co-dot-uk
mylove-dot-org-dot-uk
mymassage-dot-co-dot-uk
mymassage-dot-me-dot-uk
mymassage-dot-org-dot-uk
mymassagelondon-dot-co-dot-uk
mymassagelondon-dot-me-dot-uk
mymassagelondon-dot-org-dot-uk
mymassagenow-dot-co-dot-uk
mymedicine-dot-me-dot-uk
myrub-dot-co-dot-uk
mysex-dot-me-dot-uk
mysex-dot-org-dot-uk
mysexonline-dot-co-dot-uk
mysexpage-dot-co-dot-uk
mysexpot-dot-co-dot-uk
mysexpot-dot-me-dot-uk
mysexweb-dot-co-dot-uk
mythaimassage-dot-co-dot-uk
mythaimassage-dot-org-dot-uk
mytherapy-dot-me-dot-uk
mytherapylondon-dot-co-dot-uk
mytherapylondon-dot-me-dot-uk
mytherapylondon-dot-org-dot-uk
namerica-dot-biz
namerica-dot-co-dot-uk
namerica-dot-info
newchild-dot-co-dot-uk
noamerica-dot-co-dot-uk
nolove-dot-co-dot-uk
nolove-dot-me-dot-uk
nolove-dot-org-dot-uk
nosex-dot-me-dot-uk
nosex-dot-org-dot-uk
nousa-dot-co-dot-uk
nousa-dot-org-dot-uk
oamerica-dot-org
ohamerica-dot-org
oilmassage-dot-co-dot-uk
ok-biz-dot-co-dot-uk
okamerica-dot-biz
okamerica-dot-info
okamerica-dot-org
okok-dot-me-dot-uk
okuk-dot-biz
okuk-dot-info
okuk-dot-org
okusa-dot-biz
okusa-dot-info
orkut-dot-me-dot-uk
orkut-dot-org-dot-uk
ourbiz-dot-co-dot-uk
pagedesigners-dot-co-dot-uk
pamerica-dot-biz
pamerica-dot-info
pamerica-dot-net
pcgoogle-dot-biz
pcgoogle-dot-co-dot-uk
pcgoogle-dot-info
pcgoogle-dot-me-dot-uk
pcgoogle-dot-org
pcgoogle-dot-org-dot-uk
petbiz-dot-co-dot-uk
phonebiz-dot-co-dot-uk
posterpages-dot-co-dot-uk
posterpages-dot-net
propertybiz-dot-co-dot-uk
pumper-dot-me-dot-uk
pumper-dot-org-dot-uk
qamerica-dot-org
ramerica-dot-biz
retsina-dot-co-dot-uk
ringtonesuk-dot-biz
rub-dot-org-dot-uk
rubdown-dot-me-dot-uk
rubdown-dot-org-dot-uk
samerica-dot-biz
scotlandbiz-dot-co-dot-uk
scotlandbiz-dot-com
scotlandbiz-dot-net
sex-home-dot-co-dot-uk
sex-home-dot-me-dot-uk
sex-home-dot-org-dot-uk
sex-online-dot-org-dot-uk
sex-page-dot-co-dot-uk
sex-page-dot-me-dot-uk
sex-page-dot-org-dot-uk
sex-site-dot-org-dot-uk
sex-web-dot-me-dot-uk
sex-web-dot-org-dot-uk
sexamerica-dot-co-dot-uk
sexes-dot-me-dot-uk
sexipage-dot-co-dot-uk
sexishop-dot-co-dot-uk
sexiweb-dot-co-dot-uk
sexless-dot-me-dot-uk
sexonline-dot-org-dot-uk
sexpot-dot-me-dot-uk
sexweb-dot-org-dot-uk
sexypage-dot-co-dot-uk
shitamerica-dot-com
spgb-dot-org
thaimassage-dot-org-dot-uk
the-usa-dot-co-dot-uk
the-usa-dot-me-dot-uk
the-usa-dot-org-dot-uk
theamerica-dot-biz
theamerica-dot-co-dot-uk
theamerica-dot-me-dot-uk
theamerica-dot-org
theamerica-dot-org-dot-uk
thebillgates-dot-co-dot-uk
thebillgates-dot-me-dot-uk
thegoogle-dot-co-dot-uk
therapeuticmassage-dot-me-dot-uk
therapistonline-dot-co-dot-uk
therapylondon-dot-org-dot-uk
thesex-dot-me-dot-uk
thetalkingwalk-dot-co-dot-uk
theuk-dot-biz
theuk-dot-me-dot-uk
theusa-dot-co-dot-uk
theusa-dot-me-dot-uk
theusa-dot-org-dot-uk
theyahoo-dot-co-dot-uk
theyankees-dot-co-dot-uk
treatment-dot-me-dot-uk
tuina-dot-org-dot-uk
uamerica-dot-info
uk-biz-dot-co-dot-uk
uk-biz-dot-com
ukbiz-dot-org
ukok-dot-biz
ukok-dot-info
usa
usa-home-dot-co-dot-uk
usa-page-dot-co-dot-uk
usa-page-dot-com
usa-shop-dot-co-dot-uk
usa-sie-dot-co-dot-uk
usa-site-dot-co-dot-uk
usa-web-dot-biz
usa-web-dot-co-dot-uk
usahome-dot-me-dot-uk
usahome-dot-org-dot-uk
usaok-dot-biz
usaok-dot-org
usaonline-dot-co-dot-uk
usapage-dot-co-dot-uk
vamerica-dot-biz
vamerica-dot-org
veryeasy-dot-biz
wamerica-dot-biz
wamerica-dot-info
wamerica-dot-net
wamerica-dot-org
weaol-dot-co-dot-uk
webposters-dot-co-dot-uk
wegoogle-dot-co-dot-uk
welove-dot-co-dot-uk
welove-dot-info
welove-dot-me-dot-uk
welove-dot-org-dot-uk
weloveweb-dot-co-dot-uk
wesex-dot-co-dot-uk
westendagency-dot-com
weyahoo-dot-co-dot-uk
whyshouldi-dot-com
worldsocialism-dot-com
worldsocialism-dot-info
worldsocialism-dot-org
worldsocialism-dot-tv
worldsocialistmovement-dot-com
worldsocialistmovement-dot-org
worldsocialistparty-dot-net
worldsocialistparty-dot-org
x10-dot-me-dot-uk
x10-dot-org-dot-uk
x11-dot-me-dot-uk
x11-dot-org-dot-uk
x12-dot-me-dot-uk
x12-dot-org-dot-uk
x4-dot-me-dot-uk
x6-dot-me-dot-uk
x7-dot-me-dot-uk
x8-dot-me-dot-uk
x9-dot-me-dot-uk
xamerica-dot-biz
xamerica-dot-info
yachtie-dot-co-dot-uk
yahooo-dot-me-dot-uk
yahoos-dot-biz
yamerica-dot-biz
yamerica-dot-info
yank-dot-org-dot-uk
yankee-dot-me-dot-uk
yankee-dot-org-dot-uk
z14-dot-co-dot-uk
z15-dot-co-dot-uk
z2-dot-me-dot-uk
z4-dot-me-dot-uk
z9-dot-me-dot-uk
zamerica-dot-net
zamerica-dot-org
001-dot-me-dot-uk
1000-dot-me-dot-uk
1111-dot-me-dot-uk
11111-dot-me-dot-uk
11111-dot-org-dot-uk
11a-dot-co-dot-uk
123-dot-me-dot-uk
12345-dot-org-dot-uk
222-dot-me-dot-uk
222-dot-org-dot-uk
33-dot-org-dot-uk
3a-dot-me-dot-uk
3d360view-dot-com
3duk-dot-biz
44-dot-me-dot-uk
444-dot-me-dot-uk
4444-dot-org-dot-uk
4a-dot-me-dot-uk
55-dot-me-dot-uk
55-dot-org-dot-uk
5a-dot-me-dot-uk
5a-dot-org-dot-uk
6666-dot-me-dot-uk
6666-dot-org-dot-uk
6a-dot-me-dot-uk
77-dot-me-dot-uk
7a-dot-me-dot-uk
88-dot-me-dot-uk
8a-dot-me-dot-uk
8a-dot-org-dot-uk
99-dot-me-dot-uk
a3-dot-org-dot-uk
a4-dot-org-dot-uk
a6-dot-me-dot-uk
a6-dot-org-dot-uk
a7-dot-me-dot-uk
a7-dot-org-dot-uk
a8-dot-me-dot-uk
a8-dot-org-dot-uk
a9-dot-me-dot-uk
aaaa-dot-org-dot-uk
aamerica-dot-biz
aamerica-dot-info
aamerica-dot-org
abbeyhotel-dot-org
adultlistings-dot-co-dot-uk
aim-biz-dot-co-dot-uk
allamerica-dot-co-dot-uk
allamerica-dot-me-dot-uk
allamerica-dot-org-dot-uk
alldrugs
alldrugs-dot-co-dot-uk
allsex-dot-co-dot-uk
allsex-dot-me-dot-uk
america-home-dot-co-dot-uk
america-page-dot-co-dot-uk
america-page-dot-com
america-shop-dot-co-dot-uk
america-site-dot-com
america-web-dot-co-dot-uk
americadrag-dot-co-dot-uk
americadrag-dot-com
americadrug-dot-co-dot-uk
americahome-dot-co-dot-uk
americanow-dot-biz
americanow-dot-co-dot-uk
americanow-dot-info
americanow-dot-me-dot-uk
americanow-dot-org-dot-uk
americaok-dot-co-dot-uk
americaok-dot-org
americapage-dot-co-dot-uk
americasex-dot-biz
americasex-dot-co-dot-uk
americasex-dot-me-dot-uk
americasex-dot-org-dot-uk
americauk-dot-com
americaweb-dot-co-dot-uk
autobiz-dot-co-dot-uk
b11-dot-me-dot-uk
b11-dot-org-dot-uk
b12-dot-me-dot-uk
b12-dot-org-dot-uk
b2-dot-org-dot-uk
b4-dot-me-dot-uk
b4-dot-org-dot-uk
backrub-dot-me-dot-uk
backrub-dot-org-dot-uk
bamerica-dot-info
bamerica-dot-net
bamerican-dot-biz
bamerican-dot-co-dot-uk
bamerican-dot-info
bamerican-dot-org
bgates-dot-co-dot-uk
billgates-dot-org-dot-uk
bizcart-dot-co-dot-uk
bodywork-dot-me-dot-uk
bumerica-dot-com
bumerican-dot-com
buzybiz-dot-co-dot-uk
cabra-dot-co-dot-uk
camerica-dot-biz
camerica-dot-info
capitalbiz-dot-co-dot-uk
capitalbiz-dot-net
carbiz-dot-co-dot-uk
childcare-dot-biz
damerica-dot-biz
damerica-dot-info
damerica-dot-org
deamerica-dot-co-dot-uk
drag-online-dot-co-dot-uk
drag-dot-me-dot-uk
dragamerica-dot-co-dot-uk
dragamerica-dot-com
dragshop-dot-co-dot-uk
dragweb-dot-co-dot-uk
duk-dot-biz
ealing-biz-dot-co-dot-uk
ealingbiz-dot-co-dot-uk
ealingweb-dot-co-dot-uk
elmbridge-biz-dot-co-dot-uk
elmbridgebiz-dot-org-dot-uk
elove-dot-me-dot-uk
elove-dot-org-dot-uk
esex-dot-me-dot-uk
esex-dot-org-dot-uk
esexshop-dot-me-dot-uk
esexshop-dot-org-dot-uk
everybiz-dot-net
famerica-dot-net
famerica-dot-org
fuckamerica-dot-org
g-mail-dot-me-dot-uk
g-mail-dot-org-dot-uk
gamaway-dot-co-dot-uk
gamerica-dot-biz
gamerica-dot-info
gamerica-dot-net
gbush-dot-me-dot-uk
georgebush-dot-me-dot-uk
getamerica-dot-co-dot-uk
getaol-dot-co-dot-uk
getgoogle-dot-co-dot-uk
getlove-dot-biz
getlove-dot-co-dot-uk
getlove-dot-me-dot-uk
getlove-dot-org-dot-uk
getmassage-dot-co-dot-uk
getmassage-dot-me-dot-uk
getmassage-dot-org-dot-uk
getsex-online-dot-co-dot-uk
getsex-dot-co-dot-uk
getsex-dot-me-dot-uk
getsex-dot-org-dot-uk
getsexonline-dot-co-dot-uk
google
googleinc-dot-info
googleinc-dot-me-dot-uk
googleinc-dot-net
googleinc-dot-org
googleinc-dot-org-dot-uk
googlepc-dot-biz
googlepc-dot-co-dot-uk
googlepc-dot-info
googlepc-dot-me-dot-uk
googlepc-dot-net
googlepc-dot-org
googlepc-dot-org-dot-uk
googles-dot-me-dot-uk
googles-dot-org-dot-uk
gooogle-dot-me-dot-uk
hamerica-dot-biz
hamerica-dot-info
hansenheating-dot-co-dot-uk
health-resources-dot-co-dot-uk
hiamerica-dot-net
hitamerica-dot-co-dot-uk
hitamerica-dot-com
hitusa-dot-co-dot-uk
holisticpage-dot-co-dot-uk
holisticweb-dot-co-dot-uk
hounslowbiz-dot-co-dot-uk
iamerica-dot-co-dot-uk
iamerica-dot-me-dot-uk
iamerica-dot-org-dot-uk
idamerica-dot-biz
idamerica-dot-info
idamerica-dot-org
ilove-dot-org-dot-uk
iloveamerica-dot-biz
iloveamerica-dot-co-dot-uk
iloveamerica-dot-me-dot-uk
iloveamerica-dot-org-dot-uk
ilovesex-dot-me-dot-uk
ilovesexshop-dot-co-dot-uk
iloveshop-dot-co-dot-uk
iloveweb-dot-co-dot-uk
imassage-dot-biz
imassage-dot-me-dot-uk
imassage-dot-org-dot-uk
info-cart-dot-com
infocart-dot-co-dot-uk
isex-dot-me-dot-uk
iwantamerica-dot-co-dot-uk
iwantmassage-dot-co-dot-uk
iwantmassage-dot-me-dot-uk
iwantmassage-dot-org-dot-uk
iyahoo-dot-co-dot-uk
jamerica-dot-co-dot-uk
jjsg-dot-co-dot-ukfree
kamerica-dot-net
LAmerica-dot-info
Lamerica-dot-org
landuk-dot-co-dot-uk
londonbiz-dot-co-dot-uk
londonbiz-dot-net
londonmassage-dot-biz
londonmassage-dot-me-dot-uk
londonmassage-dot-org
londonmassage-dot-org-dot-uk
londontherapy-dot-biz
londontherapy-dot-co-dot-uk
londontherapy-dot-me-dot-uk
love-home-dot-co-dot-uk
love-page-dot-co-dot-uk
love-shop-dot-co-dot-uk
love-site-dot-co-dot-uk
love-web-dot-co-dot-uk
loveamerica-dot-co-dot-uk
loveamerica-dot-info
loveamerica-dot-me-dot-uk
loveamerica-dot-org-dot-uk
loveaol-dot-co-dot-uk
loveyahoo-dot-co-dot-uk
loveyahoo-dot-com
macrosoft-dot-me-dot-uk
mamerica-dot-biz
mamerica-dot-info
mamerica-dot-net
mamerica-dot-org
manxbiz-dot-co-dot-uk
massagelondon-home-dot-co-dot-uk
massagelondon-online-dot-co-dot-uk
massagelondon-page-dot-co-dot-uk
massagelondon-shop-dot-co-dot-uk
massagelondon-site-dot-co-dot-uk
massagelondon-web-dot-co-dot-uk
massagelondon-dot-biz
massagelondon-dot-info
massagelondon-dot-me-dot-uk
massagelondon-dot-org
massagelondon-dot-org-dot-uk
massagelondononline-dot-co-dot-uk
massagelondonpage-dot-co-dot-uk
massagelondonshop-dot-co-dot-uk
massagelondonweb-dot-co-dot-uk
massageme-dot-biz
massageme-dot-info
massageme-dot-me-dot-uk
massageme-dot-org-dot-uk
massagenow-home-dot-co-dot-uk
massagenow-site-dot-co-dot-uk
massagenow-dot-co-dot-uk
massagenow-dot-me-dot-uk
massagenow-dot-org-dot-uk
massageonline-dot-me-dot-uk
massageonline-dot-org-dot-uk
massagethai-dot-co-dot-uk
massagetherapy-dot-me-dot-uk
meamerica-dot-net
mkbiz-dot-co-dot-uk
mobilebiz-dot-co-dot-uk
mobilephonesites-dot-co-dot-uk
msn-dot-me-dot-uk
my-america-dot-co-dot-uk
my-massagelondon-dot-co-dot-uk
my-massagenow-dot-co-dot-uk
my-sex-dot-biz
my-sex-dot-me-dot-uk
my-sex-dot-org-dot-uk
my-website-dot-org-dot-uk
myalternative-dot-co-dot-uk
mybodywork-dot-co-dot-uk
mydrug-dot-co-dot-uk
myglobe-dot-co-dot-uk
mylondonmassage-dot-co-dot-uk
mylove-dot-org-dot-uk
mymassage-dot-co-dot-uk
mymassage-dot-me-dot-uk
mymassage-dot-org-dot-uk
mymassagelondon-dot-co-dot-uk
mymassagelondon-dot-me-dot-uk
mymassagelondon-dot-org-dot-uk
mymassagenow-dot-co-dot-uk
mymedicine-dot-me-dot-uk
myrub-dot-co-dot-uk
mysex-dot-me-dot-uk
mysex-dot-org-dot-uk
mysexonline-dot-co-dot-uk
mysexpage-dot-co-dot-uk
mysexpot-dot-co-dot-uk
mysexpot-dot-me-dot-uk
mysexweb-dot-co-dot-uk
mythaimassage-dot-co-dot-uk
mythaimassage-dot-org-dot-uk
mytherapy-dot-me-dot-uk
mytherapylondon-dot-co-dot-uk
mytherapylondon-dot-me-dot-uk
mytherapylondon-dot-org-dot-uk
namerica-dot-biz
namerica-dot-co-dot-uk
namerica-dot-info
newchild-dot-co-dot-uk
noamerica-dot-co-dot-uk
nolove-dot-co-dot-uk
nolove-dot-me-dot-uk
nolove-dot-org-dot-uk
nosex-dot-me-dot-uk
nosex-dot-org-dot-uk
nousa-dot-co-dot-uk
nousa-dot-org-dot-uk
oamerica-dot-org
ohamerica-dot-org
oilmassage-dot-co-dot-uk
ok-biz-dot-co-dot-uk
okamerica-dot-biz
okamerica-dot-info
okamerica-dot-org
okok-dot-me-dot-uk
okuk-dot-biz
okuk-dot-info
okuk-dot-org
okusa-dot-biz
okusa-dot-info
orkut-dot-me-dot-uk
orkut-dot-org-dot-uk
ourbiz-dot-co-dot-uk
pagedesigners-dot-co-dot-uk
pamerica-dot-biz
pamerica-dot-info
pamerica-dot-net
pcgoogle-dot-biz
pcgoogle-dot-co-dot-uk
pcgoogle-dot-info
pcgoogle-dot-me-dot-uk
pcgoogle-dot-org
pcgoogle-dot-org-dot-uk
petbiz-dot-co-dot-uk
phonebiz-dot-co-dot-uk
posterpages-dot-co-dot-uk
posterpages-dot-net
propertybiz-dot-co-dot-uk
pumper-dot-me-dot-uk
pumper-dot-org-dot-uk
qamerica-dot-org
ramerica-dot-biz
retsina-dot-co-dot-uk
ringtonesuk-dot-biz
rub-dot-org-dot-uk
rubdown-dot-me-dot-uk
rubdown-dot-org-dot-uk
samerica-dot-biz
scotlandbiz-dot-co-dot-uk
scotlandbiz-dot-com
scotlandbiz-dot-net
sex-home-dot-co-dot-uk
sex-home-dot-me-dot-uk
sex-home-dot-org-dot-uk
sex-online-dot-org-dot-uk
sex-page-dot-co-dot-uk
sex-page-dot-me-dot-uk
sex-page-dot-org-dot-uk
sex-site-dot-org-dot-uk
sex-web-dot-me-dot-uk
sex-web-dot-org-dot-uk
sexamerica-dot-co-dot-uk
sexes-dot-me-dot-uk
sexipage-dot-co-dot-uk
sexishop-dot-co-dot-uk
sexiweb-dot-co-dot-uk
sexless-dot-me-dot-uk
sexonline-dot-org-dot-uk
sexpot-dot-me-dot-uk
sexweb-dot-org-dot-uk
sexypage-dot-co-dot-uk
shitamerica-dot-com
spgb-dot-org
thaimassage-dot-org-dot-uk
the-usa-dot-co-dot-uk
the-usa-dot-me-dot-uk
the-usa-dot-org-dot-uk
theamerica-dot-biz
theamerica-dot-co-dot-uk
theamerica-dot-me-dot-uk
theamerica-dot-org
theamerica-dot-org-dot-uk
thebillgates-dot-co-dot-uk
thebillgates-dot-me-dot-uk
thegoogle-dot-co-dot-uk
therapeuticmassage-dot-me-dot-uk
therapistonline-dot-co-dot-uk
therapylondon-dot-org-dot-uk
thesex-dot-me-dot-uk
thetalkingwalk-dot-co-dot-uk
theuk-dot-biz
theuk-dot-me-dot-uk
theusa-dot-co-dot-uk
theusa-dot-me-dot-uk
theusa-dot-org-dot-uk
theyahoo-dot-co-dot-uk
theyankees-dot-co-dot-uk
treatment-dot-me-dot-uk
tuina-dot-org-dot-uk
uamerica-dot-info
uk-biz-dot-co-dot-uk
uk-biz-dot-com
ukbiz-dot-org
ukok-dot-biz
ukok-dot-info
usa
usa-home-dot-co-dot-uk
usa-page-dot-co-dot-uk
usa-page-dot-com
usa-shop-dot-co-dot-uk
usa-sie-dot-co-dot-uk
usa-site-dot-co-dot-uk
usa-web-dot-biz
usa-web-dot-co-dot-uk
usahome-dot-me-dot-uk
usahome-dot-org-dot-uk
usaok-dot-biz
usaok-dot-org
usaonline-dot-co-dot-uk
usapage-dot-co-dot-uk
vamerica-dot-biz
vamerica-dot-org
veryeasy-dot-biz
wamerica-dot-biz
wamerica-dot-info
wamerica-dot-net
wamerica-dot-org
weaol-dot-co-dot-uk
webposters-dot-co-dot-uk
wegoogle-dot-co-dot-uk
welove-dot-co-dot-uk
welove-dot-info
welove-dot-me-dot-uk
welove-dot-org-dot-uk
weloveweb-dot-co-dot-uk
wesex-dot-co-dot-uk
westendagency-dot-com
weyahoo-dot-co-dot-uk
whyshouldi-dot-com
worldsocialism-dot-com
worldsocialism-dot-info
worldsocialism-dot-org
worldsocialism-dot-tv
worldsocialistmovement-dot-com
worldsocialistmovement-dot-org
worldsocialistparty-dot-net
worldsocialistparty-dot-org
x10-dot-me-dot-uk
x10-dot-org-dot-uk
x11-dot-me-dot-uk
x11-dot-org-dot-uk
x12-dot-me-dot-uk
x12-dot-org-dot-uk
x4-dot-me-dot-uk
x6-dot-me-dot-uk
x7-dot-me-dot-uk
x8-dot-me-dot-uk
x9-dot-me-dot-uk
xamerica-dot-biz
xamerica-dot-info
yachtie-dot-co-dot-uk
yahooo-dot-me-dot-uk
yahoos-dot-biz
yamerica-dot-biz
yamerica-dot-info
yank-dot-org-dot-uk
yankee-dot-me-dot-uk
yankee-dot-org-dot-uk
z14-dot-co-dot-uk
z15-dot-co-dot-uk
z2-dot-me-dot-uk
z4-dot-me-dot-uk
z9-dot-me-dot-uk
zamerica-dot-net
zamerica-dot-org

Odd Contracts

Filling out the various waivers for my upcoming trip. And one paragraph writes:

... I expressly assume any and all risks with respect to the activities and circumstances described within, and pledge not to sue Releasees on account of any losses, claims, costs, liabilites or damages, and further I agree not to claim the unenforcability of this agreement.

Emphasis in the original.

How does one interpret this? If it's unenforcable, then so is that paragraph; if it isn't, it isn't. (This is the same travel company that has previously claimed immunity from California's "Consumer Restituion" law because it isn't registered to sell travel in CA.)

I'll give you even odds that neither of these would hold up in court.

Categorization is the New Folders

Notes: Categorization is the New Foldering

Notes based loosely on the session from FOO Camp. Thanks to Ross Mayfield, the guys from deli.cio.us, Matthew MacLaurin and a bunch of other people who were nice enough to say their bit.

By "categorization," I mean specifically metadata that assigns labels and tags to individual items: files in file systems, for example, or email messages. The tags I'm interested in are not mutually exclusive--a single item can fall into more than one category--and are not (necessarily) hierarchial.

This is the philosophy behind GMAIL, DELICIOUS, FLICKR, and other tagging systems. It's the philosophy that was tried with earlier versions of Lotus Notes (which then managed to use a confusing "folder" metaphor).

Issues:
* Where does the metadata come from? When is it assigned? How easily can it be changed? Should categories be chosen in advance (and thus often turn out to be inaccurate) or should they evolve?

** If they evolve, how do you reconcile newer versions of where stuff goes with earlier versions? What happens to our deepening understanding of what the relevance of entries? (This is the autocollaboration to which I referrred earlier).

• Are the categories trying to be an exhaustive coverage of possible topics, or is the user comfortable with lots of stuff in "other" and overly-broad categories?

• Is the categorization created by individuals, or is it collectively derived? If the former, is there ever a need to reconcile with others? If it is collective, how is it arrived at?

• How does one handle linking categorization to the various namespaces available out there? Can we distinguish between (for example) all copies of a given book (Amazon's ASIN, or the ISBN) as opposed to a particular copy of a book? Can we point to an individual's files? (In some sense, this is a realization that while library systems--like LoC and Dewey--both identify something and tell us about it, this loose notion of categorization may not be able to do both.

• How can social navigation and related concepts be used to understand which categories a user is creating well (that is, successfully), or badly; how their categorization might match others (by pivoting on the object, for example); by statistically deriving similiarities.

A write-only mailbox

Pretty soon, I'll stop getting land-based mail. So I'm writing in this address for all mail that I will get on 11/1. Until 11/1, this is a write-only address. I'm blogging it so I can keep track of it...

DANYEL FISHER
BOX # 444
15127 NE 24th St
Redmond, WA 98052-5547

Nuked comments ...

I think I, or Paul, or something deleted all the comments on this blog. I'll try to recover them from backup shortly....

... ok, my comments.db file is showing that they still exist somewhere. (As well as all the old blacklisted stuff.) Does anyone know about the formats so I don't need to? (I'm happy to restore everything, and then run it against my blacklist again if I need to...)

Wikipedia and Coverage

Ed Felten checks Wikipedia against Brittanica:

Me: Wikipedia has a short but decent entry; Britannica, unsurprisingly, has nothing. Verdict: advantage Wikipedia.

Virtual memory: Wikipedia has a pretty good entry; Britannica has no entry for virtual memory, and doesn't appear to discuss the concept elsewhere, either. Verdict: advantage Wikipedia.

Public-key cryptography: Good, accurate entries in both. Verdict: toss-up.

This pretty clearly reinforces Paul's comment that Wikipedia -- as a creation of people with spare time and computers -- is likely to have a particular sort of focus... Frankly, I'm impressed that Brittanica talks about public-key cryptography, and I don't think I'd decline to pick up a Brittanica because it doesn't cover virtual memory.

Life on the Virtual Commons and the Wikipedia

Alex Halavais tried an experiment in which he slightly defaced 13 Wikipedia pages. To his surprise, all were fixed within hours. On Alex's blog, I noted that Wikipedia makes a point of looking for damage, and tries hard to fix it quickly. I proposed a mechanism (the "recent changes" list), and I'd like to expand on that a little.

In my comment, I've been recently praised for invoking the magic of RSS as the tool for Wikipedia self-correction. This comes out of a series of conversations about whether Wikipedia is trustworthy or not: see discussions at Techdirt and Many2Many.

I was actually going to blog about something else, but I've become absolutely fascinated¹ with the set of tools that the Wikipedia community has developed for social control and monitoring misbehavior. The virtual worlds people may have been right in seeing strong analogies between maintaining social control in the Wikipedia and maintaining control in virtual worlds.

What they perhaps didn't realize is that Wikipedia manages this with a stunningly large number of implicit rules, mores and activities that just aren't externally visible: the Wikipedia "backstage" (to use Goffman's term) is large, complex, and requires a great deal of work.

Update, 9/4/04. Another Wikipedia experiment with subtler changes that weren't noticed. Please do not try this at home!

This article is, I think, still in progress; feel free to comment upon it.

Let's take a look at how Wikipedia does self-correct. While I'm pretty sure that participants in the Wikipedia community know this, I don't think I've seen the process written out much before. So I'll take a stab. I certainly welcome more careful Wiki participants to clarify this discussion...

Start from the beginning. A Wiki is a sort of an online editing space². Anyone can go to any page and modify it, or create a new page. This becomes a useful tool for brainstorming, for maintaining todo lists or FAQs, and generally for keeping around stuff that other people can fix freely. It's used by classes, by software development teams, and by other groups of people who want to track their collective knowledge.

Of course, it is (by its nature) unstructured. Because they don't have the advantages, and disadvantages, of the temporal order of blogs and discussion boards, Wikis need people to wander through and clean up periodically. This ranges from refactoring portions of articles to fit them into categories, to adding correct links between them, to--yes--correcting damage.

---

Wikipedia is a free online encyclopedia that is basically working on the principle that people reading it will catch errors and fix them. Largely built from the ground up (I don't know what sort of money is behind it), a sizable army of volunteers have written and edited articles that largely seem to explain many issues thoroughly and clearly. It's a pretty good place to look for useful information.

It's also a huge project built by a mob of volunteers, and thus (like much of the open source community) is a large steaming mass of well-organized social capital. Now, I haven't figured out what makes Wikipedia tick--why this particular Wiki Works so very well (and so many fine other wikis don't). There's something to be said for having a compelling concept, and a place for people to show their specializations and interests. But that's not really what I'm into at the moment.

Take it as given, then, that people are there. Some are writing new articles, some are editing articles and refactoring sections of text, and some are correcting errors. Still, the many eyes do not make the problems go away themselves.

---

Wikipedia shows that there are mechanisms for collectively repairing problems and for adding new content. It has the interesting property that any article may be wrong at any moment (because someone may have just damaged it) but the encyclopedia, as a whole, is too big to really thoroughly attack. The WikiGnomes (to use the C2 vocabulary; Wikipedia calls them the RC Patrol )

Most of the time, then, most pages of the Wikipedia is at a (fairly) steady state--that is, they aren't changing at all.

Sometimes, a page comes to attention. World events bring place into focus⁴, or someone finds a page of particular interest and decides to edit it. It gets tagged as the collaboration of the week, or gets bumped to the front page as a featured article. Or maybe someone just happens to read it, and makes a change. Making changes triggers the recent changes list; that, in turn, drives edits and modifications, and so the page may change rapidly.

At first pass, then, this is a punctuated equilibrium model: catacylysmic changes follow long periods of silence. [Hm. This is statistically testable fairly easily with a couple good SQL queries on change history...]

[download]:http://download.wikimedia.org/

A lot of what I am saying here can be seen quickly in the HistoryFlow diagram labelled "Iraq on Wikipedia - spaced out by time." The authors of the work seem to prefer "spaced out by change" displays, which are very useful -- but lose the niftiness of just how fast Wikipedia corrects. In the "spaced out by changes" display, every change is given equal distance on the X axis, so it's hard to tell when the changes occur, or how often.

In contrast, if you look at the image labelled "spaced out by time", you realize that an entry just sits there for a while -- and then someone does something to it. This often triggers a flurry of activity: revisions, fixes, edits, discussions, which converge on a newer, better page.

This can be largely explained by the existence of an army of readers following the Recent Changes list: and, indeed, Ward Cunningham has discussed how Wikis manage to be fairly resilient because of the recent edits list. Curious readers want to know what's new -- and anything that a malevolent person adds can be caught.

Now I haven't found the Recent Changes RSS Feed for the Wikipedia, but I can't imagine it's too far away. (Or do people just bookmark it and read it regularly?)

I'm being, incidently, horribly unfair here. An overview of everything that's changing might work for a smaller Wiki, but Wikipedia is big. Really big. Three-hundred-odd-thousand articles. The revisions log scrolls 25 changes in two or three minutes. You can't just expect that to all be caught, checked, double-checked³.

The RC patrol and Village Pump make it clear that there's a substantial backstage (to use the Goffman sense) to this Wikipedia thing: it's not just that a smart person wanders by and cleans up, but that a community of smart people are actively arguing and discussing what should happen.

In addition, it's not like the community only watches present events. Here's a couple of the internal tools that are used for internal cleanup on the Wiki:

• The How to Spot Vandalism page lists a series of Google searches to help catch random defacement of wiki pages; the Vandalism in Progress page gives a pretty good sense of where the community is worried. (Alex's tromping about showed up here; search for "User:AlHalawi")

• The system routinely generates a series of Offline reports that help clarify current activity, such as lists of entries with a lot of broken links )

• My officemate talk a lot about his dissertation work, watching how admins in his MUDs track down bad actors. It's worth glancing over a battle like the one archived here as anonymous figures with arbitrary editing power argue about who should, or shouldn't, be able to edit an article.

• One issue that comes up in (for example) virtual world societies is people masquerading under various identities; several the discussions have mentioned that members who are willing to label themselves with a username are better trusted than those who aren't, in part because it makes the users accountable.

• There is a class of people, known as "Sysops" or administrators. Administrators have some additional special rights: deletion of articles, blocking IP addresses, and killing user accounts.

So who does the correction, or watches the watchers? It's internal. The people who are correcting are other members of the community; roughly, they seem to trust each other to make decisions. Perhaps because everything is logged in the changes log, there is a strong ethic of explaining decisions; the Wikipedia--it seems--would prefer to err on the side of discussion than overaction, and on the side of retaining informaiton than losing it.

The theme I think is emerging is that the recent changes log is a form of internal accountability--but so are a number of other tools, such as user names. In the Wiki panopticon, good behavior occurs, and is seen, in part as a result of its being continuosly visible and commentable. When every page, including every personal user page, has a meta-page (labelled "Discussion"), there is room to comment on anything that happens.

I'm reminded, then, of David Brin's book, The Transparent Society, in which he defends the idea of a society in which no one has privacy: instead, he suggests, bad behavior is minimized when anyone can see anyone else. (Yes, it takes a radical restructuring of social norms).

Has anyone tried creating a panoptic virtual world. where there are no dark shadows or hidden corners? I'm curious what that would be like.

----

(Like everything on this blog, this article is © 2004 Danyel Fisher. Click the "Creative Commons" button to see the copyright notice.)

----

¹ _This is turning out startlingly long. Perhaps I could consider upgrade it in a hurry to a CHI paper? It's not like I have anything to do between now and September 13th... and it's dead-on for the theme: "Technology, Safety, and Community" fits VERY WELL into the question of self-regulation for an online community. Too bad I don't have any data. ponder _

Incidently, Alex Halavais has now followed up his experiment with a brief writeup that points to his editing history and the conversation that then happens around him.

² To blatantly self-promote, one chapter of my book contains an interesting article by Andreas Dieberger and Mark Guzdial entitled "CoWeb - Experiences with Collaborative Web Spaces." In that chapter, they discuss a Wiki in practice.

³ It's probably worth contrasting Cliff Lampe's worth with Paul Resnick on Slash(dot) and Burn which shows, among many other things, that it takes a lot of eyes to keep Slashdot running. An article is read by thousands, moderated by dozens -- and then each of those moderations is metamoderated by five or six. More people are watching the watchers than are doing the watching themselves

On the other hand, on Slashdot, there is only a small number of featured stories at once: the collective attention of Slashdot examines a story for a day or two (the slashdot effect before it wanders away).

⁴ I would love to see hit counters for different pages of Wikipedia over time. What's the Wikipedia Zeitgeist? (Some of this is in the Wikipedia stats page).

Borges and the Wikipedia

In the process¹ of writing a post on the shortcomings of temporality, I got distracted by wriiting a post on how Wikipedia does its thing. I'll post that shortly, but until then, I'd like to simply present you with a slightly Borgesian found poem:

This page has a lot of red links

1. List² of Baronies
2. List of garden plants
3. List of aircraft
4. List of candidates in the 2004 Canadian election
5. List of Amiga games
6. List of television stations in USA by Call Sign
7. List of firearms
8. List of lunar craters
9. List of Australian musicians
10. Olympic medalists in athletics (men)
11. List of military aircraft
12. List of Ohio townships
13. TLAs from YAA to ZZZ
14. List of volcanoes
15. List of LSTs
16. List of United States Navy aircraft squadrons
17. List of craters on Mars
18. List of asteroids (3001-4000)
19. List of gay erotic actors

¹ Yes, I've been blogging up a storm. The major feeling from finishing a dissertation is that of getting a weight off your shoulders, and after that little while of staying hunched--"but I need to, it's HEAVY"!--the first thing you do is to stand up, and discover that you CAN. And so my brain is now back to firing on all--well, make that most--cylinders, and the world is a substantially better place, and a lot of stuff that's been building up is now coming out.

Enjoy it while it lasts--I don't my blogging to steadily decrease over the next two months as I go from FOOCamp to Washington DC to Copenhagen to Madrid to Tanzania.

² Oddly, virtually every one of these violate #13 on the list of What Wikipedia is Not.

Minorities, networks, and jobs

For some reason, Many2Many's article on Social Capital and Income isn't letting me post a comment. So it'll go here, and they can trackback it to read ...

To bolster the post, I saw a cite recently (I will dig it up upon request) that suggested that jobs with formal application processes are better for minorities and discriminated-against groups than jobs with informal applications.

That is, government jobs (for example), where your resume goes into a computer are more likely to hire a minority than research jobs, where a committee of people decide.

This is partially linked, I think, to racism--but more linked to networks. A student at a traditionally minority school may not have the same access to powerful networks, great connnections, and thus the initial "in" for the informally-collected jobs.

Indexing for Thunderbird

I've pretty much moved over to GMAIL for email, because I am willing to trade offlineness and some UI for search. Search--fast, working search--is a good thing.

Danny O'Brien pointed me to Mairix which indexes email in mbox format. Thunderbird saves email messages in mbox format.

Now all someone needs to do is to strap the two together properly... does anyone have a decent idea of how to write a Thunderbird extension? (Yes, this conversation should be happening at Mozillazine. But I'm lazy.)

Googlebombing Porn

A friend sends me this link on pornography which I strongly feel should be the google number one hit for porn or pornography. Ever heard of Googlebombing, in which a web site is heavily linked in order to encourage hits?

We've talked about this before with the Google Jew episode; I think that this may help a little.

Document Formatting can Cost Lives!

Have you ever had the problem of fighting with a word processor's text boxes? You aren't the only one. Intelligence agents may be able to kill a man with their bare hands in a crowded room, but when it comes down to it, computer interfaces are hard.

I'm glancing over the Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq and ran into this bizarre quote:

While formatting the final version of the NIE, the NIC staff decided to separate the entire aluminum tubes discussion into a separate annex that laid out each agency's position. When this formatting change was made, a text box INR had previously submitted for the body of the NIE was split into a text box on reconstitution and a text box on the aluminum tubes. ... INR's dissent on the uranium reporting was inadvertently separated from the reconstitution section and included in the aluminum tubes box in the annex of the NIE. (pg. 54; 64th PDF page) ...

The language on Iraq's efforts to acquire uranium from Africa appeared as it did in the draft version and INR's position that "claims of Iraqi pursuit of natural uranium in Africa are highly dubious " was included in a text box, separated by about 60 pages from the discussion of the uranium issue. (pg. 55; 65th PDF page)

Copyright (a rant)

ranting below the fold follows

ACM Copyright says:

ACM aims to serve readers' and authors' interests by publishing high-quality original works, maintaining the integrity of these works, defending authors' rights in them against plagiarism, providing a stable means of linking to them, promoting the dissemination of these works to the widest possible readership in contemporary media, and preserving access to them indefinitely despite changes in technology.

While I don't doubt they are sincere, the problem with locking stuff up on their private server (this goes for JSTOR and IEEE and the various other libraries too) is that sometimes your server goes down.

Right now, ACM is telling me:

Error Diagnostic Information

An error occurred while attempting to establish a connection to the service.

The most likely cause of this problem is that the service is not currently running. You can use the 'Services' Control Panel to verify that the service is running and to restart it if necessary.

Windows NT error number 2 occurred.

Which, while fascinating and--most likely--transient, is NOT what a guy working on his dissertation needs for the four or five references that he's trying to pop into his work at the last moment.

The problem is, see, ACM provides a reliable digital library and prevents anyone (except the author) from keeping a copy around. Which means that when the digital library goes down, we're just stuck. While this is nothing compared to the restrictions of a paper library, which can not only catch on fire but often close in the evenings, it's substantially worse than allowing documents to propagate. Say, to Google and Citeseer, which each have their own reliability problems... but collectively are very powerful and reliable.

Dubious Statistics

So I try not to bring up politics on this blog. There's lots of other wonderful stuff in the world to talk about, like social networks and visualization and temporality research and statistics and ....

Well, let's talk statistics. To do that, I'll need to talk politics for just a moment. Below the fold, perhaps.

Chris Cox is my local US representative. He proudly sends out an Annual Report that discusses government dealings. It's actually useful: I'd never known that having a President costs $365 million a year¹. And it's kind of nice to see the relative sizes of different chunks of the government.

But on the next page, Cox tries to make sure you get his message. And so, using a trick right out of How to Lie With Statistics, he picks some figures that look like what he wants to say.

Looks pretty good! Economic growth is "current"ly higher than it has been in the last few decades!

Until we read the caption.

"Average annual growth in gross domestic product per decade, and for the 12-month period ended March 31, 2004." Why doesn't the chart show 2000-2002? Did those years just not exist? Indeed, given that this decade is less than half over, why pick a decade resolution?

I've gone ahead and prepared a different chart. Let's go to the data. This chart gives us quarterly change in GDP (in normalized dollars). He's not wrong about his numbers--but that doesn't make the chart accurate.

So I went ahead and took one year sliding averages of the percentage growth². It's a pretty noisy graph, so the moving average smooths things out a little. Here's the new variant:

Hm. Looks pretty variable. Economic growth is now climing, but hit a pretty low point recently. It obviously fluctuates a lot.

The other charts do similar things:

Average annual unemployemnt rate per decade, and on June 30, 2004.
...
Average Federal Funds rate per decade, and on June 20, 2004.
...
Average annual rate of increase in the consumer price index per decade, and for the 12-month period ended May 31, 2004.

The figures are, in other words, pretty clearly cherry-picked. This isn't how I want my CEO reporting to me, and this isn't how I want my congressman reporting to me either.

¹ At those rates--a million dollars a day--we could probably outsource the office for considerable savings.

² It occurs to me that the running average of cumulative percentages probably isn't the right measure: growing by 20%, then growing by 10%, isn't an average 15%, it's an average 14%. But that's not what I did here, because I don't want to fighjt with Excel.

Does Bill Tozier have it right?

Bill Tozier, eBay observer, Erdos-seller, and diverse thinker, wants to create a new scientific community. One in which papers can be openly presented, hashed to pieces, and the best of them can be extracted and the strongest ideas revised. In the article linked, he discusses how to deal with the various crackpots and loonies who would inevitably become involved in the space.

The short summary is that a combination of rules and interest by the contributors. The contributors who have failed to take into account a substrantial body of literature should be directed to it (where they can learn how to use vocabulary well and understand what's already been done); the space should have rules about standards of typography, language, and presentation (to avoid the hand-scrawled diagrams with random capitalization).

These seem like perfectly reasonable standards for the sort of online, multi-edited journal that has been proposed for years. Indeed, arXiv.org seems to be slowly evolving into something like this: it's changed from pre-prints to "e-Prints"; some articles are printed in it that appear nowhere else. (Why they appear nowhere else is a matter of specuilation left to the reader).

My concern with Tozier's system is the critical mass problem. I suspect that mad geniuses will be delighted to use it, once they are convinced that the inability to use the blink tag doesn't actually damage their content. (That is, assuming that the contingent wants to be published in well-read sources.)

But what about everybody else? Will there be a large enough population to wade through the chaff and find the wheat? When reviewing for a major conference this year, I found a paper that flagrantly disregarded twenty year