Re: My Gnutella spam reduction idea revised

Very interesting thought, Michael.  The only issue is
backwards-compatibility.  Current clients will not respond to a multi-word
query unless all words match.  If you add a new made up word, they will not
answer at all.  Do you have any ideas how to work around that?

On 4/23/07, Michael Rogers <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>   just_courtney_girl wrote:
> > As I was brainstorming, it dawned on me,
> > why not make this idea into a single step,
> > and make it an integral part of the searches?
> > So we can still chop off a letter from the
> > search terms, but we do the comparison on
> > the individual machine, not across the
> > network. Here is an example:
>
> Hi Courtney,
>
> Sounds like a good idea in principle, but I believe some Gnutella
> clients match partial words to provide more intelligent reponses to
> things like plurals, common suffixes and apostrophes. Instead of
> chopping up one of the query terms, how about adding an extra query term
> that's unlikely to occur in any real hits (eg a made-up word)? It's easy
> to use a letter/digram/trigram frequency table to generate
> realistic-looking words (too realistic, actually - you'd probably need
> to filter them through a dictionary to remove any real words that were
> generated by accident).
>
> Just a thought,
> Michael
>  
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]