http://benparr.disqus.com/If you aren't having fun, then what are you doing?enWed, 26 Aug 2009 22:16:51 -0000http://benparr.com/2009/08/new-ben-parrs-posterous-experiment/#comment-283545547<p>hi Ben,<br>Good luck with your posterous experiment!<br><br>I saw your article [Google Caffeine: A Detailed Test of the New Google] on Mashable with almost 100 comments, and wasn't sure if you were still responding there, so I thought I'd ask a question here, if you don't mind...<br>In the article about the new Google (Caffeine) you wrote:<br>"It has more reliance on keyword strings to produce better results."<br><br>What do you mean by "keyword strings" and how does it handle them differently? Are you talking about "strings" on the webpage or in the links to the page? I thought google already focused on keywords, and already counted "strings" more than unconnected words on a page. Can you give an example? Thanks! Steve BTW, great article.</p>steveWed, 26 Aug 2009 22:16:51 -0000http://benparr.com/2009/08/new-ben-parrs-posterous-experiment/#comment-15439256<p>hi Ben,<br>Good luck with your posterous experiment!</p><p>I saw your article [Google Caffeine: A Detailed Test of the New Google] on Mashable with almost 100 comments, and wasn't sure if you were still responding there, so I thought I'd ask a question here, if you don't mind...<br>In the article about the new Google (Caffeine) you wrote:<br>"It has more reliance on keyword strings to produce better results."</p><p>What do you mean by "keyword strings" and how does it handle them differently? Are you talking about "strings" on the webpage or in the links to the page? I thought google already focused on keywords, and already counted "strings" more than unconnected words on a page. Can you give an example? Thanks! Steve BTW, great article. </p>steveWed, 26 Aug 2009 17:16:51 -0000http://benparr.com/2009/08/new-ben-parrs-posterous-experiment/#comment-283545543<p>hi Ben,<br>Good luck with your posterous experiment!<br><br>I saw your article [Google Caffeine: A Detailed Test of the New Google] on Mashable with almost 100 comments, and wasn't sure if you were still responding there, so I thought I'd ask a question here, if you don't mind...<br>In the article about the new Google (Caffeine) you wrote:<br>"It has more reliance on keyword strings to produce better results."<br><br>What do you mean by "keyword strings" and how does it handle them differently? Are you talking about "strings" on the webpage or in the links to the page? I thought google already focused on keywords, and already counted "strings" more than unconnected words on a page. Can you give an example? Thanks! Steve BTW, great article.</p>steveWed, 26 Aug 2009 15:16:51 -0000http://benparr.com/2009/08/new-ben-parrs-posterous-experiment/#comment-15251328<p>Posterous rocks. Period. :)</p>Daniel BrusilovskySun, 23 Aug 2009 01:31:19 -0000http://benparr.com/2009/08/new-ben-parrs-posterous-experiment/#comment-283545536<p>Posterous rocks. Period. :)</p>Daniel BrusilovskySat, 22 Aug 2009 23:31:19 -0000