This grandmother is not my real grandmother but she could have been. The other is very very old and doesn’t use internet and consequently I do always tend to imagine that she appears in any other grandmother, wherever she is, in order to send regards and let me know other wonderful grandmothers.

This one is the responsible for the false accusation launched on Israel (sorry, dear), as she was the one who wrote the note on the comment drawing attention on mine, thus contributing with her grain of intelligence to my irruption in the US market, as she did not, as all the others did, start a career in order to make herself or relatives famous but … took the care of thinking even of … me.

False accusation may thus be deviated in truth to Greece, who did really but really falsify entries, and this because a Greek literature teacher who accidentally read article on Kokkini  Milia, was so fascinated and enchanted that she thought of making of it an oficial version. She was answered that it had to come from a famous or at least somehow recognized person, and as recognized for her was attachable to Google, she started helping pakistani logic breakers by repeatingly searching for a determined name. As it didn’t help to make my way to universal recognition, she finally remembered that she knew someone working in Google.stats.gr, and asked for a little help. This intervention happened at the same time than the American starting up revolt and the Pakistani wild research for American recognition. Happily, while international authorities were already starting a crazy hunting of the teacher in question and cousin Petros was trembling for his job, multiple coincidences made it … impossible to determine whether there had been finally such an outer intervention or not! (On the other hand, sources are not always reliable, and most of the stuff I write are indications of possibilities and rarely facts in themselves.)

To come back to my grandmother, I had to answer to her most kind request to explain in a more, let us say… human way how this engine works, as she, who has really a lot of time and enjoys this engine as much as I do, would like to contribute to researches on ‘aleatory logic’. Having gone through the text on ‘model’ and other indications, she was so full of admiration with herself to have understood something, that she decided to jump immediately to a computer man written text and to her greatest disappointment felt renewed as … silly as a couple of hours before.

I have to explain to grandma that those computer texts are written in a given logic that affects seriously grammar and consequently general understanding. Mostly a male logic, one has to understand that these poor guys are moving in a 1+1 logic (some kind of morse) that governs the inner functioning of the computering system. As they are plunged in this type of logic, and usually do know little about literature, when they start writing it seriously affects their grammatical structures: they understand themselves among themselves.

As many others have exactly the same problem than grandma and do understand very little about their sometimes really magnificient inventions, here a few tips concerning the stats department:

There are a few different sections.

One looks like this:

ReferrersPeople clicked links from these pages to get to your blog.

Today

Referrer	Views
wordpress.com/tag/politics	1
sonjakasten.wordpress.com/2006/11/05/…	1

This means that someone has written on a page a link that looks like that, and which leads in a way or another to your page. Or, that searching through a determined engine through tags, you are indicated a link to your page. Here, someone appears to have made a general research on wordpress articles on politics and falls on my page, attracted certainly by subliminal publicity inserted in the presentation.

Another does look like this:

Top PostsThese posts on your blog got the most traffic.

Today

Title	Views
ALEATORY CLUB	3
Athina Onassis	3
Would will be fixed in the present?	1

These are top posts visited. It means that WP has the means of knowing which articles have been really read on your page. This is to say, not only that the page has been visited in general, but that this article in particular has been read. Now, what may be the difference between a hot post (you see today 7 read articles: 3 read on the aleatory club, 3 read on Athina Onassis, and 1 read on a complicated grammar question) and ‘views’ that you can see on the graphe (the little pictures like the Himalaya with peaks up and down) saying that 10 people have visited the site? In order to make the difference between an accidental or indifferent opening of page and a very concentrated reading of the article, the machine does count a certain time from the moment you have opened that page in particular. It starts thinking that you have really read the article after a determined number of seconds. This information is more than virtual: take the time you need my anecdotes (made on purpose), it’s not more than 2 or 3 seconds for some of them. The machine registers ‘indifferent reading’ while the reader has already started bursting out in laughter. But it gives you an idea of what people are interested in in your blog, so that you can orientate your writing in a certain way, if it is your will.

One of the most interesting parts of the stats is though this:

Search Engine TermsThese are terms people used to find your blog.

Today

Search	Views
Athina Onassis	2
Aristotelis Onassis	1
Alkistis Protopsaltis	1
would and will	1

 These are the words people put into google to find your article. It is an evidence that some do actually read something of yours after: the would and will question seems to lead to the answer in ‘would will be fixed in the present’. And Athina interested people do show interest in the read article. On the other hand people reading on Protopsaltis (another hit, found at least 3 or 4 times the last days) may go over to an article on Onassis, as belonging to the same cultural area. But, the thing I couldn’t solve, is how they arrive to my blog. I have myself copied research items in order to know what they had found (without opening the page, in order not to falsify data, although it is an intelligent way of cheating the first or second day in order to get a little push up help), and under some I don’t find anything at all. Usually people do open results on first page and don’t go over to second or third page, which means that necessarily they must have had the page not further away than the second page. How? As said yesterday, I think that Google has ‘developed’ some kind of correlative sympathetic appearance areas. If someone in Israel researches for ‘Onassis’ and a block appears as ’sympathetic = high mention’ to Israel, it will make appear an article on Onassis first page, even before thousands and thousands of other articles on the same. This is though yet an hypothesis I haven’t verified.

The hypothesis is exactly that: something happens and I think this may be the explanation. If it is really an explanation it will happen again and again, thus I have to keep an eye on the the same situation in order to know whether it happens once and again. If it happens often enough (some conclude earlier than others) you may say ‘it is a fact, an evidence, a rule’.

The importance of these ‘evidences’ is that it helps us to solve difficult questions. If what I say is true, I will quickly know that to mention this or that in an alpha context makes it appear in Google, thus doubling and tripling publicity possibilities in a very cheap way. If you don’t have a lot of money, you are obliged to use intelligence in order to obtain the same results. A publicity agency that has this strategy may earn thousands in very very little time. And if convinced of the efficacy of strategy, may pay me thousands for the system.

Exactly for this reason, information provided is not always absolutely right (my mother’s strategy) it is hints and indications for two reasons: I have never liked people who do egotistically keep results for themselves and don’t share them with anyone, as I think there is no greater pleasure than to share results with as many as interested. If you make a research alone, you may get very relative results, if you get help, very quickly many results. But how ask for help if you don’t give nothing? If though you give everything ready on the plate, people get used to copying and not to use their intelligence, and copying has always the bad side effect of not corresponding to the given environment. I’m working at a level of 5 different languages with a possible communication area of around 600.000.000 (think only of 300.000.000 Spanish speaking, 80 million German, 60 million French, 10 million Greek, and over 400.000.000 English speaking) and this is not the same than a restricted area in Connecticut or Mississippi, in Islamabad or St Petersburg. Relatively wrong information has the virtue of striking someone’s mind with ’tilt’ or ‘error’. If he doesn’t take his gun in order to put an end to his life seeing that virtual perfection has made a mistake, and concentrates himself more in the principle governing the investigation, he absorbs the information from his environment, gets results that are adequate for himself and … helps me to get more general results. Thus, giving is receiving, but to know to keep fundamental keys of functioning for yourself the only way of getting money and not only headaches or passing by excitement and … googlying happyness, as mine today.

By the way, today is my mother’s birthday. Should send her regards!

(This is all her logic translated into generally social and scientifical parameters.)