Softly, softly
I disagree with Dr David Harper (Feedback, August 9), in which he talks about Microsoft's "smart tags" and how they are "altering the content" of websites. Many people look at smart tags as another nasty Microsoft creation without fully looking at the evidence. I suggest readers visit Microsoft's website and the previews of Internet Explorer 6, and you will find the following:

• Smart tags can be switched on and off by the web page author and the user.

• Smart tag information is provided by non-Microsoft companies.

• Companies like to give users more information about their companies, which is for the user's benefit.

• Smart tags don't "alter" the original web page meaning at all. It is like having an extension over the top of the browser that is aimed to help users find more information. Anyone who has digital TV is used to being given program and film information by their digital provider, and this is just the same.

I think smart tags are a good thing. I am tired of search engines and the acres of superfluous information they present to me.

The real issue is the desire of website owners to continually increase "traffic", and create "sticky" websites that keep the users on their site. This means they don't link out of the site, which in turn is killing the true value of the web through reduced use of external hyperlinks. Website owners see external links as a bad thing rather than something that is good for your online business. Provide your visitors with good links to external sites, and they will come back again and again!!

Roll on Microsoft... at least they are thinking smarter.

For information about smart tags,visit: www.microsoft.com/Windows/ie/preview/smarttags/default.asp
Ben Powell
bpowell@addictivity.com

Back to school
I have just spent one year studying for the MCSE (the Microsoft Certified Software Engineer qualification). The course cost me £2,995 (which excluded exam fees) and for that I received two computers, a printer, a scanner (the idea is to have a network of your own on which to practise) and a series of Microsoft 2000 manuals. All of these I can keep. I also received a series of lectures and the promise of help from the lecturers. I was fortunate: I was eligible for a training grant that has now been discontinued. The true cost of the course, including the grant, was £3,995. The course was disappointing. The lectures were short and inadequate, providing no more than a very basic introduction to the subject matter covered in the Microsoft exams. These exams are designed to eliminate the so-called "paper MCSEs", those students without the thorough knowledge that Microsoft requires of Windows 2000.

Sometimes the lecturers would not be present when you wanted them or were not qualified to teach the classes. The majority of students work full-time and study in the evenings so it was annoying to turn up to classes only to find they had been cancelled.

After our first series of lectures, for Windows Professional and Server, we were told by one lecturer that "we were on our own". Small wonder that so many dropped out. Some of the few struggling on have had to buy an extension to their one year course.

The course providers are advertising the MCSE for £2,995: the period of tuition is now six months instead of 12. Can a complete novice, as many of these students are, master the intricacies of the MCSE course in so short a time? I doubt it.

I would be interested to know if any of your readers has had similar a experience.
Graham Main
mg104925@cs.com

Left behind
If the various plans to provide high-speed web access for individuals come to pass, will the servers and other communication links be upgraded to cope? Using a 56k modem, it seems to me that the bottleneck is often elsewhere. There can be long periods waiting for a page or a file when the modem link is idle, presumably because some other part of the web is too busy. It would be silly to concentrate on the local link if the rest of the system isn't going to be upgraded to match. Or don't other users find this a problem? Colin Liebenrood
cjlieben@waitrose.com

OK to be Flash
A letter to Feedback last week complains of "overcomplicated websites" and cites www.ippr.org.uk as a top offender. He points to its "flash[from Macromedia] and Java [Sun Microsystems] heavy website" (strange, since after the front two pages there seems to be little evidence of Flash or Java, rather a rich content, mainly text website). While I agree that websites (especially those of public institutions) should provide an alternative text-only version, I don't think that Flash or Java are intrinsically bad. Innovation is vital for the web to develop. Web content should not be aimed at only the highest spec systems, but neither should it restrict itself to the lower end of the spectrum. If the web is kept to text only viewing, a huge amount of its potential is being neglected, and we may as well not bother with it and stick to conventional media. As for the apparently random Microsoft bashing, it is perfectly possible to view the website with Netscape Navigator (I tried it) and probably many of the other non-microsoft products that support both Flash and Java.
Chris Sparks
chris.sparks@talk21.com

Google goggle
Just a quick note on Google's phrase searches - according to their FAQ at www.google.co.uk/intl/en/help/refinesearch.html you can search for phrases in a number of ways, using quote marks, hyphens, periods, slashes, dashes, equal signs and apostrophes. I have tried it using periods and it seems to work fine.
Matt Kilcast
crusoe@disinfo.net

Quote me on it
Google weakness with phrases? I have found it very effective if you enclose the phrase in double quotes. As a college lecturer, I have used this to nail suspicions of plagiarism in students' work. Gerry Cordon
g.cordon@cableinet.co.uk