Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Internet Technology

The Rise of the Junkweb and Why It's So Awesome 181

Posted by samzenpus
from the lowest-common-denominator dept.
Hugh Pickens writes writes "Have you noticed your Facebook stream or looked at reddit lately? A huge chunk of what goes by lately are photos with text over them, usually quotes about this or that. 'It's the Junkweb,' writes Chris Brogan. 'Why "junk?" Because the original intent of the Internet was that links were gold, that searchability was key, that this ability to find anything and use resources from wherever was magic. And this new web? The web of pictures with text over them? They're junk. They're a dead end. The picture is the payload.' Facebook and Pinterest are doing what so much of our 'awesome' tech hasn't been able to do well: let the everyperson into this universe. For whatever reason, the 'photos with text' experience gives us that feeling we get when we read magazines. 'It makes the texty text of blogging a lot less stark. It draws our eyes in. It's fast to consume, and it brings an emotional response faster.' Now with the release of Google's Panda search technology, it has been acknowledged that links and pages aren't everything and with Google+ goes the realization that it's no longer a links-only world. who shares is as important as how it's shared. 'I'm spending far more time on the Junkweb than I am on the Smartweb,' concludes Brogan. 'Deny it, if you want. The numbers show otherwise. We are in love with this new method of interacting.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The Rise of the Junkweb and Why It's So Awesome

Comments Filter:
  • It's ugly (Score:2, Insightful)

    by pubwvj (1045960)

    I hate the text of photos. People should post the actual text and have a photo with it if necessary. But the text over photo is awful for a whole lot of reasons.

    • Now get off my lawn!

    • by Hatta (162192)

      Isn't this what the Alt attribute to the IMG tag is for?

      • by Pieroxy (222434)

        Isn't this what the Alt attribute to the IMG tag is for?

        Nope, that's not it at all. ALT represents the text a user agent should substitute to the image on a device that has no image displaying capabilities. Think Lynx, Google, Browsers for disabled people, etc.

      • by mcgrew (92797) *

        No, alt is for captioning for the blind, title is what you're looking for. As in
        <a title="e.coli"><img="ecoli.jpg" alt="photograph of a microscope slide depicting an e.coli"></a>

        • by Carewolf (581105)

          Actually... Alt was for the text-based browsers. It just happens to also be a good idea for the blind, especially now that people rarely use text-based browsers anymore.

          • No, "alt" was included because HTML is semantic markup, and there should be no assumptions made about rendering technology. The IMG tag was always a bit of a (necessary) hack, because an image file isn't semantic.
    • Or, hide the text in the photo using steganography (see sig link)

    • by Jaktar (975138)

      I hate the text of photos. People should post the actual text and have a photo with it if necessary. But the text over photo is awful for a whole lot of reasons.

      I believe this [memegenerator.net] is what you were looking for.

      • by pubwvj (1045960)

        No, that would by hypocritical.

      • by Guignol (159087)
        WOW ! amazing :)
        Can I buy you a beer some time ?
        I am going to abuse this new found website until my coworkers stop sending me screenshots of the error messages they see in the web application I support :D
        Of course, for those of them who send said screenshot embedded in an MS Word document, it probably won't be enough to convey the message, but it's a start ;)
    • by mcgrew (92797) *

      Well, I'm not on facebook and have never visited reddit, so I'm afraid I don't feel your pain. At least, in this respect. From TFS: Because the original intent of the Internet was that links were gold, that searchability was key, that this ability to find anything and use resources from wherever was magic.

      And now search has been trashed. My car's AC went out, a mechanic buddy told me it was the temperature control module and one from an auto parts store was $500, $75 from a junkyard. So I figured, nerd that

      • Re:It's ugly (Score:4, Informative)

        by ukemike (956477) on Thursday July 26, 2012 @10:37AM (#40777075) Homepage

        Google failed me. I googled for "2002 concorde temperatre control schematics" and not a single result ha dthe word "schematics" in it. I was horrified that advanced search is GONE now, and "+schematics" still didn't return anything with that word.

        Perhaps if you tried "2002 concorde temperature control wiring diagram" you might get better results. Sorry but google is an american company, chrysler is an american car company you'll get better results if you use american words and spelling. Using search engines well is a skill.

        • by Minwee (522556)

          Perhaps if you tried "2002 concorde temperature control wiring diagram" you might get better results

          And if you knew that the last Concorde was built in 1979, you'd have some idea of why you were getting the wrong results.

      • You stand a better chance of getting cool by arguing the price down to $20 at the junkyard. Why would that schematic be on the Internet? It's a cheap PCB module made by some unknown Mexican / Chinese / whatever module maker. The actual schematic probably doesn't even exist at this point - once the printed up the PCB and the pick lists, it probably got overwritten when the designer's 100 meg hard drive got filled up with porn.

        You COULD spend entertaining hours reverse engineering that thing, but instead y

      • by pnutjam (523990)
        Here is the Haynes manual [haynes.com] It's worth every penny. I buy one for every car I work on.
      • by ffflala (793437)

        I was horrified that advanced search is GONE now...

        Google advanced search is not gone, and there are a number of ways to access it. Try googling "advanced search".

        • by pepty (1976012)
          Yep, they hid advanced search and google scholar. I guess Google doesn't need for data on people's use of those search tools anymore.
      • by Sentrion (964745)

        There are many manufacturers that keep their schematics unpublished and proprietary for the exact reasons that you want them. When schematics are published it is usually for larger appliances like refrigerators, but the components are not (usually) soldered to a PCB. In some of these cases the arrangement of the components in the schematic is "low tech", and everybody in the industry uses the same approach, so there is no real risk of losing intellectual property. Maybe one day you'll be able to get an O

    • by gl4ss (559668)

      .. it will not survive resharing if the text isn't attached to the image.

      it's old as bbs's, really.

    • by Ja'Achan (827610)
      They are REALLY EASY to share though. You can't do that so easy with a HTML file with embedded image. If it's so popular, maybe we should design an image file format it that makes the text parseable by browser and search engine. Though really, who'd go through the trouble to use that?
  • by Cornwallis (1188489) on Thursday July 26, 2012 @08:07AM (#40775395)

    Speak for yourself. Reminds me of how TV dumbed us down. Thanks for making it sound so important.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Brogan's probably the kind of guy who likes watching the ads on TV, too. "Infomercials 24/7, the numbers show we're in love with them!"

    • by JaredOfEuropa (526365) on Thursday July 26, 2012 @08:41AM (#40775651) Journal
      The article isn't important or even insightful. It's another lament about people using the internet in "non-approved" ways. Today's villain is the lolcat, apparently. It used to be people tweeting about what the dog is doing, or posting family pictures online, or blogging about what one had for dinner, or mailing each other jokes, or top-posting on Usenet, or whatever. It's all "junk" and yes, a lot of people are doing it. And in the mean time the rest of the Internet is moving along just fine. Nothing to see here, move along.

      What a surprise: technology that enables us to create and enjoy wondrous works of art can and will also be used to produce lowest common denominator crap. Hell, even Gutenberg's printing press wasn't used at first to print new works, or even to make existing works (like the bible) available to the masses. It was used to mass-produce indulgences for the church to sell to sinners; the clergy couldn't hand-write the things fast enough to meet demand.
      • by Sentrion (964745)

        Agreed. We used to do this 10 years ago (and probably before then) when we (friends, families, coworkers) would forward funny emails to each other, and often times it was a funny pic with text. No big deal then or now. Except that facebook is on the web, not actual email, but people are using facebook like a "reply to all" application so somehow that makes it special.

      • Today's villain is the lolcat, apparently.

        =^..^= Iz not evil, i swears! Iz just want u 2 lub meh!

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by NReitzel (77941)

      I'm entirely content with letting Joe Sixpack have an outlet (or inlet) from this cyber universe. His (or her) treatment of the medium as "funny looking TV" will provide the capital support for those of us who actually use the net as an information source.

      The net is evolving. Much like our genome, which if you haven't looked, is 95% nothing. Those of you who believe in intelligent design should ask yourself, "What intelligence would design something so poorly." The net is stuffed with junk, and unlike t

      • The net is evolving. Much like our genome, which if you haven't looked, is 95% nothing. Those of you who believe in intelligent design should ask yourself, "What intelligence would design something so poorly."

        I'm a cystic fibrosis carrier. It's a disease caused by a genetic mutation. If that mutation had happemed in "nothing" as you put it, it would be harmless. Maybe "nothing" is an insurance policy against random, radiation-induced mutations.
        I'd ask my wife, as she's the geneticist, but she's not here....

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Half-pint HAL (718102)
        "Junk DNA" is a myth. Some idiot decided that just because he didn't know what it did, that it must do nothing. Now go away and learn some science.
    • by gl4ss (559668)

      yeah the same tv that brought the world to billions of barely literate dumbos?
      your neighbours would be some real dumb fucks without tv. evidence: any fucking country without tv and a famine going.

      of course funny gifs don't do as much, but if you don't hunt for them the chances are that the one's you see are funny or thought provoking.

      photography and tv were the biggest attitude changers of 20th century - they forced billions of people to think things over, things like consequences of war and so on.

      • by s.petry (762400)

        It also allowed for cover ups, deceit, and distraction from everything you state in your last statement. Like any other media medium, it is a medium that has many purposes. Since we no longer teach concepts like "The good of Humanity" and instead teach bullshit, the medium is more often abused than used for the benefit of society.

        The point is, everything you stated is a fallacy. Your statement regarding not having a TV causing famine is completely irrational (perhaps you meant that as sarcasm?).

        Media h

  • by acidfast7 (551610) on Thursday July 26, 2012 @08:10AM (#40775417)
    when it's actually funny. I don't have a problem with the medium per se, but content is usually horrendous. Maybe 5% of the time is either stunning or hilarious, but the other 95% is just trash :(
    • by fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) on Thursday July 26, 2012 @08:18AM (#40775459) Journal

      So, pretty similar to the rest of the web...

    • by ArsenneLupin (766289) on Thursday July 26, 2012 @08:19AM (#40775475)
      When I see a particularly insightful quote on one of these photos, the first thing I do, I usually type it (not copy-paste...) into google to learn more about the quote, who said it, the backstory, etc.

      But what's more annoying than these Facebook photos are all those "tutorial" or "news" videos. Not only are they almost always flash, but often the "news" videos don't show any actual footage of the event they're about, but just a guy reading off a script...
      Result: I cannot use this in my open-office without bothering the neighbours. I cannot quickly skim or skip over those parts that I already know. I cannot search through it, to go straight to the juicy bits. I cannot copy-paste command line examples from those tutorials directly into my shell. When I try to save them for later reference, they are huge... Give me back text any day!

      • by ffflala (793437)
        Amen. I suppose I'll get over the feeling of surprise eventually, but I'm still a bit startled at how little I want to watch video or listen to audio feeds now. Watching/listening is a huge time sink, and that's not even counting the doubling of the length with the inevitable ads.

        For quite some time now I've been at the point where my instant reaction is to immediately close and move on if I follow an interestingly titled link, only to land on a video/audio clip that has no text transcript. (The only nota
    • by AmiMoJo (196126)

      5% stunning/hilarious is a dream for almost all forums of media, especially TV and newspapers.

  • by GeneralTurgidson (2464452) on Thursday July 26, 2012 @08:11AM (#40775421)
    If all you're doing on the Internet is looking at pictures with text on it, maybe you should re-evaluate your goals in life. Like posting on slashdot.
  • Go to Google Images and search for lolcats.

  • by alen (225700) on Thursday July 26, 2012 @08:18AM (#40775461)

    1990's people used to email this crap to each other. stupid pictures and the dumb dancing baby animation
    with the rise of facebook and other social networking people share this crap and its more viral. and the sites that carry it found a way to monetize on the junk

    • 1990's people used to email this crap to each other.

      That's true. And I haven't had a "Re: re re Re re Fwd re fwd fwd Re re: fwd: re Re re Fwd fwd:" email for years now.

      • by Loughla (2531696)

        That's true. And I haven't had a "Re: re re Re re Fwd re fwd fwd Re re: fwd: re Re re Fwd fwd:" make it through my email filters for years now.

        FTFY

        Or, your other option is that your mom has passed away; moms always send that stuff. (but only because they just want you to call, they just need someone to talk to, because since your dad died, they just haven't been the same; too much time on their hands, maybe a bit depressed, and the kids are all gone. Like what, they're supposed to get a hobby? What can they do, they're on a fixed income and have arthritis. Oh, go on a date? Who wants to date a post-menopausal white-haired old lady? All they want i

      • by Pieroxy (222434)

        I haven't had a "Re: re re Re re Fwd re fwd fwd Re re: fwd: re Re re Fwd fwd:" email for years now.

        That's because most mail agents won't ass a Re in front of a subject line starting with "Re" anymore. Programs evolve too.

        • by Pieroxy (222434)

          I haven't had a "Re: re re Re re Fwd re fwd fwd Re re: fwd: re Re re Fwd fwd:" email for years now.

          That's because most mail agents won't ass a Re in front of a subject line starting with "Re" anymore. Programs evolve too.

          Hummmm. s/ass/add/g. How did I let that through? And more important, how did /;'s lame filter let me do it?

    • by Rei (128717)

      Ah, the good 'ol days of Hampsterdance [youtube.com], grandfather of the Rickroll. ;)

    • by Lev13than (581686) on Thursday July 26, 2012 @10:31AM (#40776981) Homepage

      1990's people used to email this crap to each other. stupid pictures and the dumb dancing baby animation
      with the rise of facebook and other social networking people share this crap and its more viral. and the sites that carry it found a way to monetize on the junk

      And before the internet it was all done with photocopiers, fax machines, (to a much lesser extent) VCRs and (even more rarely) BBSs. People used to keep binders full of these things at their desks. Before photocopiers showed up it was done via mimeograph, and one assumes that before that people were tracing boobs through eight layers of carbon paper.

      Just as porn is at the forefront of all consumer technology, any office technology gets immediately co-opted for cartoons, kittens and breasts.

  • Why would anybody be surprised by the ubiquity of these 'photos with text on them'? Lo, such things are truly the chosen of ceilingcat and his blessing is upon them and their remixes unto the 7th generation.

  • Wikipedia is the #6 most visited website on the internet, and is a textbook example of hypertext: it's mainly text, with some illustrations, intended to be informative, with an emphasis on making the documents hyperlinked and searchable.

    I will admit that the idea's been losing some traction outside of Wikipedia, but partly because many people have started pooling their efforts there. Ten years ago I ran websites with information on subjects of interest to me. But today I just edit Wikipedia articles. There's little reason for me to create Trepidity's Ancient Greek Temples Homepage when there's no way it could ever compete with the information Wikipedia already has on them.

    • by sootman (158191)

      > But today I just edit Wikipedia articles. There's little reason for me to
      > create Trepidity's Ancient Greek Temples Homepage when there's no
      > way it could ever compete with the information Wikipedia already has
      > on them.

      Actually, you create Trepidity's Ancient Greek Temples Homepage first, then go make the page on Wikipedia and cite it.

  • by yahwotqa (817672)

    I especially "love" the hundreds of pixels tall images which tell some very old joke in many poorly drawn comic panels. Reading the same joke few years ago meant reading few lines of text, now it means scrolling through several screens and trying to understand the ugly graphics. Quite sad.

  • Meaningless Dreck (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Phrogman (80473) on Thursday July 26, 2012 @08:22AM (#40775499) Homepage

    I am far more concerned about the proliferation of endless pages that are designed only to echo content to gain page rank for some pointless website I have little interest in, or to garner the display of as many ads as possible. Often I will be reading something that I find interesting but when I follow a link in the text - or in the sidebar - I get a page that is an aggregate of pointless links (but has ads) and if I try to click on the link to the original thing that interested me, I get yet another page and so on and so on. There is a massive amount of this dreck out there on the web, and I think its sole purpose is to gain pagerank mostly.
    When the internet was academic primarily, there was not much data but it was perhaps a bit more informative, now that we have the commercial internet the bulk of the it seems to be almost devoid of purpose and content.
    The LOLCat meme and others like it - endless motivational posters etc - is at least created by someone who thought it was funny and hoped to create a meme that lasts. Its tiring and its jumped the shark IMHO but its far preferable to webpages without meaning or purpose.

    • "endless pages that are designed only to echo content to gain page rank for some pointless website"

      That's actually what slashdot is (and always has been). One could argue if it's pointless or not, but one's pointless is another's treasure, of course.

      As for PageRank: I think that one got mostly pointless several years back. It's a system that's way too easy to game, hence Google uses a lot of other ways to come up with the actual rank (position) on a search results page (SERP).

      And aggregating happens because

  • Bla Bla Bla.... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Lumpy (12016) on Thursday July 26, 2012 @08:30AM (#40775569) Homepage

    The author can wax poetic all over it. I think it's worthless garbage. So much so that I now filter my facebook stream and have it hide anything posted by friends that has the word "Shared" in it or "Liked" in it.

    I personally look at this new trend as proof that Facebook has jumped the shark like MySpace did. so the next big Exodus is about to happen to the next social website service....

    • The author doesn't just wax poetic, he links to some SEO slime who has an entire series of articles bemoaning how retro and 'undemocratic' it is for search engines to use links, rather than 'social', to assign pageranks...

      I'm not sure when the grand act of mental inversion that convinced SEO scumbags that search engines are supposed to be working for them, rather than working took place; but it's the bloody twilight zone over there now...

    • by gunnk (463227)

      Agreed! I'm spending less and less time on Facebook because of the rise of the "junkweb". I still go there to catch up on the activities of a few friends, but I'm filtering my stream more and more every day. Fewer and fewer people seem to be contributing original content.

      Google+ also tends to be a big "repost-fest", but the reposted material is sometimes a bit more interesting. Even so, I'm not really interested in re-posts - they are a mediocre substitute for sharing *your own* thoughts, beliefs and id

      • by Phrogman (80473)

        Sadly a lot of users out there on the intertoobs don't seem to have any original thoughts, beliefs or ideas. Reposting something that someone else found is a way to seem active, and doesn't require much thought.

    • The author can wax poetic all over it. I think it's worthless garbage. So much so that I now filter my facebook stream and have it hide anything posted by friends that has the word "Shared" in it or "Liked" in it.

      I personally look at this new trend as proof that Facebook has jumped the shark like MySpace did. so the next big Exodus is about to happen to the next social website service....

      Seconded...

      and please alert your single lady friends (who am I kidding) that when they start to put
      those sappy ass, trust or relationship or the meaning of love crap, we get it... someone
      shat on you and now you're depressed... thanks for sharing it with your 60 friends.

      BTW. Didja know only a tiny percentage of your "friends" see your posts?

      -AI

  • by cuby (832037) on Thursday July 26, 2012 @08:31AM (#40775585)
    I usualy block users who post a lot of lame images with text. I noticed a reduction in my Facebook usage since this fenomenon started...
  • by SirGarlon (845873) on Thursday July 26, 2012 @08:37AM (#40775625)

    the 'photos with text' experience gives us that feeling we get when we read magazines

    Obviously the poster is referring to magazines like People [people.com]: the feeling that it is so vapid, I want to throw it across the room. I am looking for an experience more like that of Scientific American [scientificamerican.com] and National Geographic. I'll stick to text, thanks. (Note the relative scarcity of pictures on Slashdot.)

  • by water-and-sewer (612923) on Thursday July 26, 2012 @08:44AM (#40775671) Homepage

    I'm not sure invention of the new catchphrase "Junkweb" was necessary. It's subjective after all - one man's junk is another man's treasure. I'm also not sure the new phenomenon of text-on-picture is all that big a deal - when people get sick of it, the trend will die out. I'm old school by most measures - born in the early 70s, grew up on a Commodore Pet and later C64, remember Gopher and Telnet, etc. But I think the stuff getting floated on Reddit is pretty funny, and it makes me laugh.

    If there's anything worth talking about at all, it's not the rise of something someone calls a "Junk Net," it's how the utopian promise of the Internet - liberated conversation, connection, and access to information - has been somewhat diluted by lots of other stuff, and as more and more people have gotten connected their tastes have swayed the general trend of what's on the web.

    I've got a forum that runs on Usenet era technology (http://dictatorshandbook.net/ [dictatorshandbook.net] and it's not exactly been a blistering success. People find usenet and even the web-based front end to it to be too "texty" and dry. They want pictures and LOLcats and stupid memes. OK, fair enough - that's not the audience I'm trying to attract, and the folks that are interested in educated conversation about dictators will probably enjoy my site and its text forum while everyone else will go bugger off.

    So if there's an issue here, it's just that increasingly people go to the internet not for information but for entertainment, and the companies have teed up to make that happen - look at the ipod ferfucksake, now I can watch TV in bed! YAY! I think this is a failure of society over all, not of technology.

    Fact is, there are good, knowledge-intensive sites out there. Go hang out on them if that's what you want. And if you want a good laugh, enjoy the latest meme. It's all good.

    • So if there's an issue here, it's just that increasingly people go to the internet not for information but for entertainment

      More than that, that people are increasingly going to the internet for *everything* related to communications and information and entertainment. We've seen the isolated stories: physical album sales are down, newspaper sales are down, phone companies have lost a lot of ground to VoIP, people are "cutting the cable" and using Netflix/Hulu instead, the post office is seeing less distribution, etc. These sometimes get treated as individual stories, but the reality is they're all part of the same process.

      Wha

  • instant gratification generation, and the people that have never heard an analog modem. I'm not even 35 and if I feel this cynical, I cannot imagine how some of my seniors reading this must feel (even in re: to the way my generation views tech)
  • by michaelmalak (91262) <michael@michaelmalak.com> on Thursday July 26, 2012 @08:47AM (#40775699) Homepage
    Get over it. It's just a Facebook use-case bug. When you click "share" to share an image, the poster's comments don't get shared with it, so the only way to caption an image is to photoshop the text directly onto the image.
    • by gl4ss (559668)

      its not like it started with FB anyways.
      it's fuckin old thing. because the only way the text is going to be attached to the photo is .. burning the text on the photo. sulplize and ninjas from cupboards.

    • Right - and it's the only way to do styled text on Facebook. Despite the HTML5/CSS3 world that Facebook exists in.

  • And to think that cat hungry for cheezburger started us down this road....
  • by superflippy (442879) on Thursday July 26, 2012 @09:16AM (#40776019) Homepage Journal

    It's not just a bunch of text, it's a square with some words in it! [superflippy.net]

    If this subject interests you, here's a post that got a lot of attention earlier this year: Facebook, Twitter and Google Plus shun HTML, causing the infographic plague. [blogspot.com]

  • by Quiet_Desperation (858215) on Thursday July 26, 2012 @09:41AM (#40776351)

    This article needed more haughty sniffing.

  • "Text On A Picture", and b3ta [b3ta.com] has been bitching about it and LARTing n00bs over it for years.
  • What a stupid fucking article. "Junkweb". Are you kidding me? Most people are really fucking stupid. They do stupid things. End of story.

    Of course, the guy who wrote it is "President of Human Business Works, helping (mostly larger) companies with customer acquisition and community nurturing by amplifying the human digital channel". Even his job title/business(?) is bullshit.
  • by DaveV1.0 (203135) on Thursday July 26, 2012 @10:50AM (#40777253) Journal

    Because the original intent of the Internet was that links were gold, that searchability was key, that this ability to find anything and use resources from wherever was magic.

    Um, no. The original intent of the Internet was to allow computers to communicate. The above quote doesn't even describe the World Wide Web. What it does describe is GOPHER. Why should anyone take seriously the comments of someone who obviously has no clue about the subject of which he speaks?

  • The point of images with text over them is to provide an expressive context for the words. Words by themselves are dry, with the only indication for tone available the punctuation at the end of the line.

    Punctuation is ridiculously limited! There are whole ranges of emotions and nuance that can't be captured with a period or a bang, sarcasm for example! Many times I've watched someone be sarcastic in text and have it totally miss the mark, because they fail to express the tone required to indicate sarcasm!

  • That's not really new, I remember JWZ commenting on his webcollage xscreensaver hack, noting how much of the web is really just images of text.

  • by istartedi (132515) on Thursday July 26, 2012 @12:18PM (#40778595) Journal

    OK, people like to put the caption in the image sometimes. There are some apps that do it for you. It's in a lot of places, and you can sort of suss out a certain shared style among the people that do it. This isn't a "web". It's a meme on the web. It may or may not have staying power. You may or may not like it. You may simply use it as a marker to guess certain things about what kind of a site you just stumbled on. Whatever. It's NBD. The Economist is not going to replace paragraph after paragraph of analysis and commentary with a picture of Ben Bernanke pseudo-aged and the words STUCK RECORD superimposed on it.

  • had beta technology that would search photos for certain graphical elements. IT was pretty cool. Anyways, I'm sure someone will create an app that figures out the text, and then display that in a searchable field.
    The demo I say, that had 200 pictures of flowers in BLOB fields and do something like: Select * where image = 'Rose"; color "Red"
    It would return the picture with the Red rose. (not exact syntax).
    Shame they could figure out how to market their superior database tech against Oracle.

Receiving a million dollars tax free will make you feel better than being flat broke and having a stomach ache. -- Dolph Sharp, "I'm O.K., You're Not So Hot"

Working...