Advertisement

Distance in the Internet

  • Aharon KellermanEmail author
Chapter
Part of the SpringerBriefs in Geography book series (BRIEFSGEOGRAPHY)

Abstract

Distance has been considered as a primal geographical notion for physical space, possibly with some declining importance in the information age. This view will, first, be elaborated on, followed by specific discussions on the possible extension of the notions of distance, distance decay, distanciation, and proximity, for the analysis of the Internet. In Internet surfing, access duration increases with growing physical distance to hosting servers. Such servers may be viewed as centers, with users located around them along increasing physical distance/access time. In website searches via search engines, the order of search results presented on Internet screens is of special significance, since users prefer the first result, which serves, therefore, as a center on the Internet screen, with declining uses of lower ranked results. From yet another dimension, communications and networking permit contacts among Internet users without regard to distance. Still, users, as centers, keep more Internet ties with physically closer people.

Keywords

Distance Distance decay Distanciation Proximity 

References

  1. Adams, P. (1998). Network topologies and virtual place. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 88, 88–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alexa. (2016). Top sites. http://www.alexa.com/topsites.
  3. Alonso, W. (1964). Location and land use: Toward a general theory of land rent. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Amin, A. (2002). Spatialities of globalization. Environment and Planning A, 34, 385–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ash, J. (2009). Emerging spatialities of the screen: Video games and the reconfiguration of spatial awareness. Environment and Planning A, 41, 2105–2124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Avidan, I., & Kellerman, A. (2004). Distance in the Internet by time and route: An empirical examination. Contemporary Israeli Geography: Horizons, 60–61, 77–88.Google Scholar
  7. Baker, R. G. V. (2005). Instantaneous global spatial interaction? Exploring the Gaussian inequality, distance and internet pings in global networks. Journal of Geographical Systems, 7, 361–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Boden, D., & Molotch, H. L. (1994). The compulsion of proximity. In R. Friedland & D. Boden (Eds.), NowHere Space, Time and Modernity (pp. 257–286). Berekeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  9. Cairncross, F. (1997). The death of distance: How the communications revolution will change our lives. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  10. Chitika Insights. (2013). The value of Google result positioning (https://chitika.com/google-positioning-value).
  11. Couclelis, H. (1996). Editorial: The death of distance. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 23, 387–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dearringer, J. (2011). A tale of two studies: Google vs. Bing click-through- rate. Moz Blog (https://moz.com/blog/a-tale-of-two-studies-google-vs-bing-clickthrough-rate).
  13. Giddens, A. (1990). The Consequences of Modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  14. Glick, M., Richards, G., Sapozhnikov, M., & Seabright, P. (2014). How does ranking affect user choice in online search? Review of Industrial Organization, 45, 99–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Goodman, E. (2008). Winning results with google AdWords (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
  16. Gopal, S. (2007). The evolving social geography of blogs. In H. J. Miller (Ed.), Societies and Cities in the age of instant access (pp. 275–293). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Held, D. (1995). Democracy and the global order. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  18. Herring, S. C., Scheidt, L. A., Wright, E., & Bonus, S. (2005). Weblogs as bridging genre. Information Technology and People, 18, 142–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Internet live stats. (2015). Total number of Webites. http://www.internetlivestats.com/total-number-of-websites/).
  20. ITU (International Telecommunication Union). (2015). ICT Facts and Figures: The World in 2015 (http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Statistics/Documents/facts/ICTFactsFigures2015.pdf ).
  21. Kellerman, A. (1983). Economic and spatial aspects of von Thunen’s factor intensity theory. Environment and Planning A, 15, 1521–1530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kellerman, A. (1989a). Agricultural location theory 1: Basic models. Environment and Planning A, 21, 1381–1396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kellerman, A. (1989b). Agricultural location theory 2: Relaxation of assumptions and applications. Environment and Planning A, 21, 1427–1446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kellerman, A. (2012). Daily spatial mobilities: Physical and virtual. Farnham and Burlington, VT: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  25. Kellerman, A. (2014). The internet as second action space. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  26. Kellerman, A. (2016). Image spaces and the geography of internet screen-space. GeoJournal, 81 (forthcoming), doi: 10.1007/s10708-015-9639-1.
  27. Kwan, M.-P. (2001). Cyberspatial cognition and individual access to information: The behavioral foundation of cybergeography. Environment and Planning B, 28, 21–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mok, D., Wellman, B., & Carrasco, J. (2010). Does distance matter in the age of the internet? Urban Studies, 47, 2747–2783.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Moran, M., & Hunt, B. (2014). Search Engine Management Inc: Driving search traffic to your company’s website (3rd ed.). Indianapolis, IN: IBM Press.Google Scholar
  30. Murnion, S., & Healey, R. G. (1998). Modeling distance decay effects in Web server information flows. Geographical Analysis, 30, 285–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Nashleanas, K. (2011). Metageographic communities: A geographic model of demassified societies. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 101, 625–649.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Netmarketshare. (2015). Desktop search engine market share https://www.netmarketshare.com/search-engine-market-share.aspx?qprid=4&qpcusto.
  33. Novaco, R., Stokols, W., & Milanesi, L. (1990). Objective and subjective dimensions of travel impedance as determinants of commuting stress. American Journal of Community Psychology, 18, 231–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Nunes, M. (2006). Cyberspaces of everyday life. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  35. Obren, M., & Howell, B. (2014). The tyranny of distance prevails: HTTP protocol latency and returns to fast fibre internet access network deployment in remote economies. Annals of Regional Science, 52, 65–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. OED (Oxford English Dictionaries). (2015a). Distance. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/distance.
  37. OED (Oxford English Dictionaries). (2015b). Proximity. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/proximity.
  38. Pan, B. (2015). The power of search engine ranking for tourist destinations. Tourism Management, 47, 79–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Paterson, M. (2006). Feel the presence: Technologies of touch and distance. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 24, 691–708.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Petrescu, P. (2014). Google organic click-through rates in 2014. Moz Blog https://moz.com/blog/google-organic-click-through-rates-in-2014.
  41. Pons-Novell, J., & Viladecans-Marsal, E. (2006). Cities and the internet: The end of distance? Journal of Urban Technology, 13, 109–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Rainie, L., & Wellman, B. (2012). Networked: The new social operating system. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  43. Rheingold, H. (1993). A slice of life in my virtual community. In L. M. Harasim (Ed.), Global networks: Computers and international communication (pp. 57–82). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  44. Schrag, Z. M. (1994). Navigating cyberspace—maps and agents: Different uses of computer networks call for different interfaces. In G. C. Staple (Ed.), Telegeography 1994: Global telecommunications traffic (pp. 44–52). Washington, DC: Telegeography Inc.Google Scholar
  45. SEJ (Search Engine Journal). (2015). 24 eye-popping SEO statistics. http://www.searchenginejournal.com/24-eye-popping-seo-statistics/42665/.
  46. Sui, Z. S. (2004). Tobler’s first law of geography: A big idea for a small world? Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 94, 269–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Tobler, W. (1970). A computer movie simulating urban growth in the Detroit region. Economic Geography, 46, 234–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Turkle, S. (2011). Alone together: Why we expect more from technology and less from each other. New York: BASIC BOOKS.Google Scholar
  49. Urry, J. (2002). Mobility and proximity. Sociology, 36, 255–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Wang, Y., Lai, P., & Sui, D. (2003). Mapping the Internet using GIS: The death of distance hypothesis revisited. Journal of Geographical Systems, 5, 381–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Warf, B. (2013). Global geographies of the internet. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Weinberger, D. (2002). Small pieces loosely joined {a unified theory of the web}. Cambridge, MA: Perseus.Google Scholar
  53. Yu, H., & Shaw, S.-L. (2008). Exploring potential human activities in physical and virtual spaces: A spatio-temporal GIS approach. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 22, 409–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of HaifaHaifaIsrael

Personalised recommendations