Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2010 May 22

= May 22 =

website error!!
how do i create my website to ensure top listing in google search, it a travel site, how does seo help? anyone please.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.122.36.6 (talk) 08:57, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Essentially it takes a great deal of effort and time to get and keep a listing at the top of google's search. You need to 'optimize' your site so that it helps push itself up their Pagerank. This site (http://www.webworkshop.net/pagerank.html) gives some suggestions on how to improve your pagerank and explains a bit about how it works (at least based on what google have released as they're pretty secretive of what is one of their more valuable assets). ny156uk (talk) 09:09, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Search engine optimisation can help a little, but the main thing you need to do is make your site useful. Google's algorithms are very clever and it is very hard to get a site high up their search results without it being a good site. --Tango (talk) 15:44, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I think some companies pay Google loads of money to get on the first page of search results, either that or they pay someone else. It's a lot of hard work and you are better off using different methods to advertise your site, although if you get the search engine things right it can really drive loads of traffic to your site. Chevy  monte  carlo  06:00, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately for you, but fortunately for the rest of us who actually want to use Google, Google's algorithms are very good these days. The only way to get a top listing on Google is to make your site one of the best, most popular and most useful for the searches that you want to be top listed for. /Coffeeshivers (talk) 09:09, 23 May 2010 (UTC)


 * To Tango's point, note that there are many online companies that will advertise that they will take your money and use SEO to boost your site high, high, high in the rankings. Personally I'd insist on a money back guarantee and specific performance benchmarks required for payment before sending any money to these companies.  Comet Tuttle (talk) 16:45, 23 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I would go further then that and ask about their methods or at least seek assurance they won't spam. Even if you don't have any qualms about such methods, you should be aware that the increase you get from this spamming could easily be offset by the long term negative reputation your website will gain from this combined with the potential risk to your hosting. Nil Einne (talk) 21:55, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * See WikiProject Spam/Internet Brands. Took a long time to catch them but now they have been caught you can see people ain't happy with them Nil Einne (talk) 02:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Debt.
We keep hearing about the global debt problems following the recent financial boom and bust in the international banking and money markets. But as a simple taxpayer, I feel bamboozled by media experts and politicos constantly referring to foreign debt, structural debt, sovereign debt etc., etc. Please, will someone here either enlighten me or else point me to a layman's wiki article covering the subject? Thanks. I am reminded of, "you can fool some of the people some of the time.......". 92.30.55.247 (talk) 11:56, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


 * [The first posting to a discussion should not be indented.] This topic reminds me of a discussion about ambiguous wording, now archived at Reference desk/Archives/Language/2010 January 9.—Wavelength (talk) 14:03, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

There is a pretty good (and quite popular) recent book on this topic by John Lanchester with the title Whoops!: Why Everyone Owes Everyone and No One Can Pay (in the US the word "Whoops!" is replaced by "I.O.U."). I recommend picking it up at your local library. Gabbe (talk) 17:07, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It may help if you ask a slightly more specific question. Like, what caused x. Or what do they mean when they say y. Ref-deskers love being verbose, but the scope of this question might be just a bit wide.--Jabberwalkee (talk) 11:42, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Sword to identify
A friend recently brought me a sword to look at in the hopes I could help him get more information about it - provenience, age, etc. I have a small collection and I've read a bit about swords, so I agreed to do what I could, but I'm stumped. None of my books have a sword that looks like this. I've uploaded some pictures here. It is a straight-edged iron/steel backsword, with a back-edge point (i.e. part of the back is also sharpened near the tip to make it a more effective thrust weapon), which is common enough, I guess, but the work at the hilt is what's throwing me off. The grip is quite small (about 8cm - just enough room for my somewhat smallish hand) and strangely curved, though it's not uncomfortable to wield. The hilt also includes these strange flaps that come up over part of the blade on both sides, but they are not flush with the it - almost as if they were designed to trap an opponent's blade, though I don't see how they'd be very effective. The entire thing is quite rusty, so any marks it may have had are obscured, though the convex face of the cup-shaped pommel was at some time (perhaps originally?) painted a dark green. The scabbard is simply a couple of slats of wood covered with a canvas-like fabric. As you can see, it's not exactly top-quality, but it fits the sword quite well. The blade itself is about 60cm. To be honest, my opinion is that the thing is probably homemade, but I'd be interested to know (as would my friend) if it's been made "in the style" of something else. Any help appreciated. Matt Deres (talk) 14:33, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * All I can say is that the hilt is a Mameluke-style, and could be in imitation of the US Marine sword. I can't be sure, though, without seeing the whole thing. 67.170.215.166 (talk) 03:21, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The sword in question is straight; the Mameluke-style swords, including the ones used by the Marines are all (so far as I know) sabres (i.e. curved). Also, the "flap" shapes appear to be an added decoration; on the sword in question the cross-piece, grip and "flaps" are one piece. You're still closer than anything I've found, though; any other suggestions? Matt Deres (talk) 14:26, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The hilt appears to be similar to that of a tulwar (or talwar) (see these google images). The "flaps" you describe are langets, designed to fit over the scabbard for secure, water-proof fit: as per 2nd photo here. The tulwar  is a curved Indian sword, but perhaps an old hilt has been fitted to a straight blade?   There are a few around. Gwinva (talk) 00:04, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * This forum has a photo of a straight-bladed tulwar, but no provenance. Another forum offers a discussion on straight blades with tulwar hilts (also this one). In addition, our tulwar article notes that some Indian hilts were fitted to European blades.  Gwinva (talk) 00:27, 24 May 2010 (UTC)  Here are two more photos:  and . Gwinva (talk) 00:53, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Gwinva, thank you so much - excellent work! A tulwar, eh? Very interesting indeed, since the fellow who owns the sword had been told it was from the French Revolution! (I didn't bother mentioning that earlier as I was already 99% sure that wasn't legit). I may post a link at that forum you mentioned; the folks there might be interested in the piece and/or provide more info. Many thanks again! Matt Deres (talk) 20:25, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem - I was intrigued by the straight blade. If you hear anything back from the forum, post me a link or drop me a line sometime - I'd be interested to hear more about it.  Gwinva (talk) 01:05, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Are they different from gay blades? :)  --  202.142.129.66 (talk) 01:52, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Marine Manufacturing Company Question
Can you please find out what happened to Cimmarron Marine Manufacturing Co. out of Jackso, GA. I need some info on my boat and all you list is the models they made. Like to know the history of the company like who bought them out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.95.133.87 (talk) 17:09, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Odd Restaurant Voucher T&C
I have just downloaded a delightful voucher from Cafe Rouge which entitles me until Tuesday to a free portion of snails with any main course to celebrate the week of the snail (apparently). I was reading the T&C just to check anything I should know, and noticed something which is on lots of vouchers. The deal isn't available at airport or Center Parks restaurants. Why not, and why them? Is it a licensing thing, that these locations run the place separately and they aren't actually part of Cafe Rouge?

Cheers, Prokhorovka (talk) 18:45, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It could be something to do with the location - they might have to pay a ton of money to Center Parks and the airport(s) in order for them to have a restaurant there. There might also be something in their contract with the airport/Center Parks which stops them from letting customers use offer vouchers.  Chevy  monte  carlo  05:54, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Possibly to do with some places being franchises who's owners don't want to participate for a variety of reasons..hotclaws 08:46, 23 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Could also be something as simple as not having compatible Point of sale terminal equipment in these locations. I visited an airport Starbucks a couple of days ago which had a sign apologising that they were unable to honour some form of starbucks money-off voucher for exactly this reason. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:33, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * This seems common in NZ and Malaysia. I've always assumed it's because of the high prices in airports which relate to high rental costs and monopoly. I was planning to say it at the time but then remembered reading which bizzarely suggests the airport monitors prices and tries to keep them down so got confused and didn't bother. But thinking about it again, I'm resonably sure that Burger King in the KLIA and McDonalds right here in the Auckland Airport which supposedly monitor prices do infact have higher prices so the Auckland Airport claims may be a little 'enthuastic' because despite  and  AFAIK McDonalds prices thoroughout Auckland (perhaps all of NZ but I'm not sure) still generally remain the same other then the airport so it's not that hard for them to realise that the prices are above 'average'. Perhaps their measures to get the retailers to lower prices consist primarily writing a letter to McDonalds once are month asking them to consider lowering prices :-P This  also mentions the generally higher prices at airports. Nil Einne (talk) 02:16, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

old magazines
How do i find out if an old magazine is worth anything. i have an isssue of 1930 popular mechanics shop notes and a issue of 1952 golden anniversary issue of popular mecnanics —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.219.39.201 (talk) 20:07, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I always do this by searching eBay. You haven't mentioned the month of the 1930 issue, but an eBay search for popular mechanics 1930 shows several for sale for about US$10.  (I didn't investigate important details like the condition of the magazine.)  Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:16, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Popular Mechanics are not usually worth a whole lot. There are about a million people on eBay selling them. It was quite, err, popular, and seems to have been the sort of magazine that people saved rather than just threw away when they were done with it. --Mr.98 (talk) 20:27, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That reminds me, I have loads of old TopGear issues that need attention... Chevy  monte  carlo  05:55, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Abebooks.com is another good site where you can search for mostly any kind of literature, and check its current pricing amongst the antiquarian book dealers. A good advice would be to always use the lowest avaialable price there for the value of your literature, because it seems there is always a couple of dealers that charge ridiculously large sums of money for just about anything. A single issue of Popular Mechanics from 1930 is about 10-20$ worth, and the 1952 anniversary can be bought for 4.95-8$. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:49, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Legality of Lolicon
Is lolicon (depiction of nude children) legal? I've read on the WP page about it that it's legal but only when there isn't anything "obscene". What do they mean? --TylerDurdenn (talk) 23:01, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Beyond the dictionary definition, see the Obscenity article. What counts as "obscene" in different communities, and legal jurisdictions, varies wildly, and is notoriously difficult to define (cf I know it when I see it). -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 23:08, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Uh, so, for example a picture of a girl (drawn in japanese style) with her hands down in the pants can be acceptable? TylerDurdenn (talk) 23:11, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


 * You'd need to ask a lawyer for an opinion regarding a specific image in a specific jurisdiction and in light of specific jurisprudence. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 23:15, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Probably the best answer we can give you is "Maybe". Like Finlay says, it depends on so many things.  If you had a specific image that was involved in a case already, we could probably help find information about that case but as far as a hypothetical image in some random jurisdiction, our best is not a solid answer.  Dismas |(talk) 23:43, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The image shown at the top of the Lolicon is unlikely to be illegal in any of the 'liberal democracies'. In the case of depictions of things beyond "pyjama parties" there is an article Legal status of cartoon pornography depicting minors.87.102.18.191 (talk) 23:53, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * In the United States, a drawing cannot be considered child pornography if it doesn't include any real children, as per Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition (in some Countries, like the UK, it can be considered child pornography). They can, however, be illegal under the Miller test for obscenity.  It's easy to prosecute someone for possessing child pornography: if it depicts children in sexual acts, it's child porn: throw the guy in jail.  It's much harder (in the U.S. anyway) to prosecute someone for obscenity.  Obscenity is notoriously hard to define, and thus also notoriously hard to prosecute for.  In particular, under the Miller test, prosecutors must show that the work "lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value".  Do cartoons of children engaging in sexual acts have any artistic value?  It certainly could.  So in the United States, people are rarely successfully prosecuted for lolicon or similar types of images.  If it's nearly impossible to prosecute you for it, does that make it legal?  I'll leave that up to the political philosophers here. Buddy431 (talk) 04:07, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no way a drawing can include real children. It might depict children or be an incidental product of an act exploiting real children. I think only the latter would be prosecuted. WHY ARE WE GIVING LEGAL ADVICE ANYWAY? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 19:08, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I expect they are referring to realistic depictions of real children. The example in that article are not realistic looking children, they're cartoon characters. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:13, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, i was asking because there are drawings like this: http://rule34.paheal.net/post/list/rin_kokonoe/1 circulating online, and everyone seems to be fine with it... --TylerDurdenn (talk) 20:53, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Eek. I could see where those could be trouble. I doubt "everyone" is just fine with it. But they're still just cartoon characters. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:14, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That character is from Kodomo no Jikan. Look around on YouTube for clips, you can notice that there's a lot of innuendo... implied bare chest, lowered panties, improper licking... it must be that peculiar Japanese culture striking again. --TylerDurdenn (talk) 21:21, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5Iq-_HiIvM LOLOLOL, she bites her t-shirt and lowers her panties in front of the teacher --TylerDurdenn (talk) 21:37, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * @Cuddlyable3: In the United States, I believe that to be prosecuted as child pornagraphy, it must be a photograph of children (I should have said image rather than drawing in my first sentence) (and I'm not a lawyer, so don't take anything I say as legal advice). The rationale in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition is that the law is restricting the First Amendment by making child porn illegal.  This is acceptable when real children are involved, because real children were sexually abused to make the porn (and the Supreme court felt that the welfare of children was more important than Free Speech in this case).  But they held that in the case of drawings, Computer generated porn, etc, it was not acceptable to restrict the First Amendment in this way.  In other countries, notably the UK, even things that don't contain photographs of children can be considered child porn.  Finally, I maintain that none of this is legal advice: I advocate neither for nor against possessing such images, nor what to do if you are caught with said images. Buddy431 (talk) 22:26, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * And @TylerDurdenn: you'll notice that the website you linked to has a notice to UK users at the top about how much of that content is illegal to possess. Buddy431 (talk) 22:50, 23 May 2010 (UTC)