181–190 of 236 posts
For google you can use this https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/g-search-filt... , just drop in your list of those 500 URLs, once you've decided on what the top 500 is. For other engines you can use https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/greasemonkey/ with this script https://greasyfork.org/en/scripts/1682-google-hit-hider-by-d...
For > Ask HN: Is there a search engine which excludes the world's biggest websites? > Discovering unknown paths of the web seems almost impossible with google et al.. > Are there any earch engines which exclude or at least penalize results from, say, top 500 websites? Let's back up a little and then try for an answer: Some points: (1) For some qualitative exclamation , there is a LOT of content on the Internet. (2) T…
Looking forward to it. You got a name?
But thanks for your interest.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't believe I did. Genera -- as in SARS-CoV-2's genus is Betacoronovirus -- don't have "strains." Only families -- such as the SARSr-CoV family -- have strains.
To GP's point, your initial reply said: > SARS-CoV-2: strain of SARS-CoV GP was pointing out that this was incorrect, and you just made that point by stating it yourself. Assuming you are intending to engage in the conversation and not be a pedant, I might let you know that your replies are coming across quite coarsely. More specifically, as to prefaces on earlier comments, there is no need to excuse incivility, beca…
At least this did not fall into the category of "Cold regurgitation of data" (quite popular it seems) and had a level of warmth that was an indication of passion, more than anger (from all parties).
If they added a temperature social cue to HN comments..... That would be funny.
Reminds me of this classic pg essay: http://www.paulgraham.com/ambitious.html Specifically this quote: "The way to win here is to build the search engine all the hackers use. A search engine whose users consisted of the top 10,000 hackers and no one else would be in a very powerful position despite its small size, just as Google was when it was that search engine." There has been a lot of grumblings about the state o…
I've wondered if this can be built with a limited budget, in terms of cloud costs. At least it feels like you'd need a lot of hosts to satisfactorily index the web, and store the results so that you can return results instantaneously.
There is Million Short which allows you to search without the top 100, 1k, 10k, 100k, or 1m sites. Personally what I'd like to see is a search engine that only indexes webpages without ads since that should eliminate lots of the SEOd garbage. It would also be nice to use the text to code ratio to derank JS heavy sites. https://millionshort.com/
Very surprised where I see those these days, and they always make me run away.
My hobby project is https://random.surf (works better on desktop than mobile). I share that same desire to visit the web less travelled. I want to discover interesting sites that deserve to be bookmarked because they will never show up in a search engine.
On a daily basis your brain use shortcut to get to the point. Open Firefox (of course) ALT+B. Then add a new bookmark for instance :
Name : Stack Overflow
Location : https://stackoverflow.com/search?q=%s
Tags :
Keyword : st
Now if you want to search "javascript timer", just type : st javascript timer
Add "%s" to all your favorites website search url.
Example : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%s
To discover some new website content, apply the same trick to Hacker news, Reddit or any RSS River.
Voila, bye bye GG.
For > Ask HN: Is there a search engine which excludes the world's biggest websites? > Discovering unknown paths of the web seems almost impossible with google et al.. > Are there any earch engines which exclude or at least penalize results from, say, top 500 websites? Let's back up a little and then try for an answer: Some points: (1) For some qualitative exclamation , there is a LOT of content on the Internet. (2) T…
Before you can even do a keyword search, you obviously need an intent to do so. But that means keyword search is pretty useless when you don't know what you don't know.
Encoding that intent...maybe doesn't matter for common searches, but everyone has heard of the concept of "Google-Fu". English text is a pretty lossy medium compared to the thoughts in people's heads...Shannon calculated 2.62 bits per English letter, so the space of possibly-relevant sites for almost any keyword is absolutely enormous (e.g. there are about 330,000 7-letter english keyword searchs...distributed across how many trillions of pages, not even counting "deep web" dynamically generated ones?). So we punt on that and use the concept of relevance for sorting results, and in practice no one looks beyond the first 10. I don't know what an alternate encoding might look like though
Imagine if sort results had table filters and sort. Popularity, Relevance, Age, Type, etc. type could be blog, forum, site, or video. Or like it used to be.
I have been finding recently that Google has been breaking their existing "sort", "time" filters. Try searching for something with site:reddit.com prefix for example and set the time filter to be lets say "Last year". Google still shows you results from 4-5 years ago.
Control is being forfeited to steer users back to more profitable content in order to capitalize on a captive market.
I wonder if being open about it would be so bad for business, instead of the attempt to manipulate users into enjoying the ratcheting-up of their impotence.
Now, Youtube truncates search results and loads the recommendation stream instead, long before hits are exhausted.
At least it's been a while since Silicon Valley was keeping the mythical personalized advertising spiel in active circulation.