Seoyoon

Hey Seoyoon, I saw that you withdrew your vote for Dokdo. I'm not going to brainwash you, but I think that you need to read the entire archive as well as the current discussions more thoroughly before finalizing your decision.

First of all, I just can't help but be enraged by some of the editors who side with Takeshima or Liancourt Rocks because they try to make my statements false or misleading by making obviously stupid or wrong statements. That is, even though I answered all of their points thoroughly, to the degree that they cannot answer back intelligibly on most of the conversations, they just slam the desk with "That's POV!" or "Your search method is flawed!"

Second, Macgruder was trying to make what was not a tie at all but complete dominance for Dokdo (and probably even after the final revision of the data to be finalized in couple of days) into a tie. He argued for simple Google searches, which include similar pages that do not contain the term Dokdo but are related to the site containing the term Dokdo. Obviously, this will lead to misleading results. The way to avoid similar pages is by going to the last page of the search result. However, Macgruder argued for the inclusion of similar pages, saying that "simple Google test" is what Wikipedia requires. I answered this by pointing out that WP suggests a simple Google test, but that doesn't limit improvising the search method further in order to adapt to the different problems different search attempts pose.

Third, all Google searches have flaws no matter what. Parsecboy might say that the search result for Dokdo has too many spams. But in Google searches, you assume that all search candidates receive the same amount of spams because it is impossible to determine the exact number of spams each search candidate receives. Then it's not only Dokdo but also Takeshima & Liancourt Rocks that receive spams as just as much as Dokdo. That's part of the Google test. Note, in Wikipedia's naming convention, that a Google test is enough to settle naming disputes, despite its problems.

Fourth, in response to the spams, I'm planning to perform statistics on large search results& manual counts on small one. Thanks. (Wikimachine 03:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC))

Hi Seoyoon, I saw your vote on Dokdo. I think, too, it would have been better for you to delve into the issue bit more before you voted. Just for your information, Macgruder's or Kusunose's arguments are largely based on old day legacies when practically Korea didn't existed in the international world and Japan's influence or opinion were the word for issues relating Japan/Korea. However, they don't reflect the current situation any more and what is more problematic is Liancourt Rocks is an outdated term and is used less and less. Please check how did things go for Senkaku islands. Why is Senkaku islands the most common english name for the islets between Japan and China even though its english name is Pinnacle islands and why is Liancourt Rocks the most common english name for the islets between Japan and Korea? Maybe it was so before, but it is not so any more. Cheers, Ginnre 05:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)