I must admit to a tendency to roll my eyes in cynicism when I see commercial
oriented solicitations on the net, but I believe the Infoseek request must
be seen in context.  Some months ago we (at Psyche) received a request from
Info Mag-Net asking us to set our NOTEBOOKs to PUBLIC.  This would clearly
help increase the value of their product, but we are also clearly interested
in expanding our readership.  Both sides can win.
 
David Carlson notes:
 
>I took a different approach.  ARCH-L is a list for archaeologists so our
>archives do not have very broad appeal.  I told the company that they were
>welcome to archive the logs.  ARCH-L logs can be already searched via
>listserv for those who can master the syntax, individual months can be
>retrieved via the web, and the National Center for Preservation Technology
>and Training is archiving them on their gopher.  In other words, anyone can
>get the information for free if they are willing to do a bit of work. If
>they don't have the time to learn, they could pay someone (e.g. a student)
>to find it for them.  A commercial archive/search engine is the same thing.
>Their service has to be significantly easier or faster than the available
>free approaches or no one will use it and they will soon be out of business.
 
Exactly.
It would be another matter entirely if, on the other hand, Infoseek was
telling its customers it was the source and maintainer of the actual
content, or that they were they only way people could get to us.  As it is
they are positioned as an indexing service, and both sides can gain by
cooperating.
 
In the "real" world you have to pay someone to advertise your stuff.  Now
they're coming to us.
 
 
George