Search, Filter, View

This page shows a way to quickly discern and filter Internet articles and videos that have low value for serious readers

I'm not selling anything, so my Info filter method is free for anyone to use and adapt for their own use. If you use my ideas, however, an acknowledgement would be appreciated thanks

My Page Filtering Tool

My assumption is that there is certainly some credible information available in the public domain but it's obscured by a large amount of irrelevant or misleading material. My aim is to improve the 'information-to-junk' ratio. It's a simple filter tool that highlights trashy stuff rather well and allows me to sort relatively reliable information from distracting infotainment pages

data differentiation model

1 Credible & Reliable

This #1 category has material that is as good as it gets for anyone who is not an insider with access to classified material. Surprisingly there's a lot of information that filters through to arrive here

2 Errors & Speculation

This category has material that is speculative, or replicated from other URLs and republished. People who replicate information from other sites will copy parts of published material, often without acknowledgement, put a personal spin to it, and then publish it on their own site or as a YouTube video

Clues to these type #2 sites include the wide use of adverts, digitized voices, and inconsistency between the site images and the message. You'll frequently notice the original site and the clones show up together in search results. There are many of these semi-clone sites so if it's clear that a site is mirroring a section of someone else's work, without adding any new value, then the page is probably a type #2. It's better to save your time and read the source site directly

3 Hoaxed or Commercialized

Type #3 is a large category that includes Hollywood style presentations, cleverly created hoax material, and well crafted fiction. The clues to look for include obvious sensationalism, gaudy colorful web pages, images that could easily be products of Photoshop, lots of adverts that are unrelated to the content, and an insistence that viewers do something like add an email address, or subscribe

The Matilda MacElroy book is an example. The story has been carefully researched and is presented in a convincing manner. The details, however, are inconsistent with other credible reports of the same incident, none of the supposedly source material can be verified, the writer is a professional author and he sells the text online as a book! The Matilda MacElroy story is good if you need something to read for an hour or so, but as a source of reliable information it's type #3 fiction and of no value

4 Denigrated & Ridiculed

Category #4 is for highly critical and emotional comments, agnotology articles designed to muddy the water, and for obvious disinformation that introduces doubt to otherwise credible reports. Often the comments use low social level language and attempt to link information to disreputable sources. The writers frequently display an absence of spiritual awareness and may not realise that their word choice projects negative dark side energy. Sensitive readers will sense this and hopefully leave such sites quickly

Some Positive Energy

Since I've mentioned negative dark side energy you may like to listen Michiru Oshima's Brothers composition. It's an example of positive light and love energy. The fine art includes forest nymphs, cherubs, and whimsical garden fairies in idealized settings. Enjoy the positive energy ...

Michiru Oshima, Brothers

If you are interested in Qi you may also like this. It's not spiritual. In fact it's an example of a very undesirable use of cosmic energy, but it does demonstrate the power of Chi in what appears to be a genuine situation

Qi Contest

James image James

James9 top spot