Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Does anyone remember websites?

tttthis.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 386 posts

Re: Does anyone remember websites?

#291

Post by mattkevan »

rayiner wrote: post #98
userbinator wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nowadays, anyone with a basic understanding of search engines can find almost anything they want within seconds. Almost anything popular and rather insipid, yes. Try to find more detailed information on very specific topics, however, and you'll discover that search engines like Google have been optimising more and more for the former content, making it harder to find the latter. I don't think that's a good thing at a…

Google is not great for finding stuff. I’ve complained at length about how bad it is for doing research, but recently I’ve also found it’s totally useless for finding things like reviews of products (unless it’s something like the new iPhone). It’s like legitimate reviews are a casualty in the war between Google and clickbait SEO crap.

It's also useless for finding specific product information.

I was trying to find troubleshooting advice for a particular model of printer and no matter what keywords or modifiers I tried all the results were for low-quality shopping or review sites. Impossible to find actual information over the flood of SEO 'content'.

Re: Does anyone remember websites?

#292

Post by keypress »

ambrosite wrote: post #30

I do remember those websites. For me, the difference is that now the Web is much more useful, but back then it was a lot more fun. True, you could sometimes waste hours following random links hoping to find something good, but the thrill of discovery when you stumbled across a gold mine of information was a huge part of the appeal. Nowadays, anyone with a basic understanding of search engines can find almost anything…

I remember the days pre-google when Yahoo was king. And most sites were filed under a topic/category. That was the default way to find a group of somethings. It's also a little suggestive and explorative, whereas keyword based search engines relied more on you being more specific. Crowd stoked search results and AI have bridged the divide these days. What the author failed to mention was web rings. Basically authors with like minded material would link to each other. So once you found something you could hop to something else and bypass the search engine. These days you are almost crippled without the search hand.

Re: Does anyone remember websites?

#293

Post by pluma »

userbinator wrote: post #80
ambrosite wrote: post #30

I do remember those websites. For me, the difference is that now the Web is much more useful, but back then it was a lot more fun. True, you could sometimes waste hours following random links hoping to find something good, but the thrill of discovery when you stumbled across a gold mine of information was a huge part of the appeal. Nowadays, anyone with a basic understanding of search engines can find almost anything…

Nowadays, anyone with a basic understanding of search engines can find almost anything they want within seconds. Almost anything popular and rather insipid, yes. Try to find more detailed information on very specific topics, however, and you'll discover that search engines like Google have been optimising more and more for the former content, making it harder to find the latter. I don't think that's a good thing at a…

Oh god yes.

The other day I saw a marabou bird in a wildlife documentary and was surprised by the hair-like stuff on its gular sack (the pink bag hanging from its neck). Wikipedia doesn't mention it and if you search for "marabou feathers" you only find that the world apparently obsesses about the fuzzy white crest on its neck that inspired fashion some decades ago. "Marabou hair" and "marabou hair feathers" likewise only yield information about fashion accessories. Even if you explicitly include "gular sack" Google unhelpfully tries to lead you towards information about the crest feathers.

This is definitely a case where even if you think you know all the relevant words you're unable to phrase a search query in a way that convinces Google you're not interested in the generic results everybody else is likely looking for.

And this isn't even a case that matters much. I was just trying to find out whether those feathers are actually a different type or just look more hair-like for some reason. It reminded me of a video I once saw about primitive proto-feathers we now know some dinosaurs had (affectionally called "dino fuzz").

Re: Does anyone remember websites?

#294

Post by jgtrosh »

shliachtx wrote: post #48
jgtrosh wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please do ! I'll gladly remove this comment if you give an outline to your argument.

This is kind of meta, but I think we'd be better served if you wouldn't remove the comment even if proven wrong. It serves everyone better to see both sides of the argument. It would be more appropriate to reply conceding that your initial argument was incorrect, or to add a note on the bottom of your original comment indicating the same.

Sorry, "this comment" referred to itself, I did not post the parent comment. The conversation should not be hidden, just this barely useful meta comment.

Re: Does anyone remember websites?

#296

Post by HelloNurse »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #211
pier25 wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd go further and say: browsing vs scrolling. I remember 10+ years ago we designed websites so that important content was "above the fold". Today people are addicted to scrolling their Facebook feed.

Sites that cared about "above the fold" were part of the problem, not part of the solution. The primary reason one would be actively interested in putting content "above the fold" was if one wanted to "capture audience", which is generally not the first thing on the mind of a person posting deep information as a labour of love.

The Facebook feed is necessarily long (in fact infinite) and low-density, so scrolling it is a necessity.

But individual entries are definitely advanced examples of "above the fold" design that is good for advertisements, not for pages.

Re: Does anyone remember websites?

#297

Post by dualogy »

wolco wrote: post #46
kaoD wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the old html sites I write about here have a different type of construction, material, and value. These still exist. They are prettier and more content packed than the 90s ones you're reminiscing about, and there are many, many more than there used to. I honestly think you're seeing the early web with rose-tinted nostalgia glasses. Unless you liked the DIY amateurish hacker feel of it (which I agree has its value o…

Mobile changed websites into displaying less content. Are we better off? Scrolling forever vs clicking next page / last page. I think scrolling is worse if you ever want to find that piece of content again.

For developers, information breadth and quality was excellent when I first onlined in '98, and has improved by leaps and bounds year by year.

For other stuff, I agree with that OP article, that was a uniquely rich caleidoscope that got "blandened" (now lost/gone/fully-transitioned) as the types of folks who'd craft such little labour-of-love sites mostly did so for lack of easier / more-convenient options that soon popped up first with prefab forums and prefab Wordpress / Blogger, then Tumblr/Medium/social-media.

Re: Does anyone remember websites?

#298

Post by neurolit »

Lordarminius wrote: post #142
edflsafoiewq wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google is excellent at giving the appearance of finding everything. The fact that there is an enormous world of which Google remains completely ignorant is a fact of which we seem increasingly unapprised.

Care to expantiate on this ?

As far as I know, Google isn't very accurate with Chinese content.

Re: Does anyone remember websites?

#299

Post by ikurei »

JohnBooty wrote: post #116
rayiner wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google is not great for finding stuff. I’ve complained at length about how bad it is for doing research, but recently I’ve also found it’s totally useless for finding things like reviews of products (unless it’s something like the new iPhone). It’s like legitimate reviews are a casualty in the war between Google and clickbait SEO crap.

This is true. The only way I can find product buying advice is: 1. To find a community of enthusiasts and see what they have to say about products in that space. This works pretty well for products that actually have enthusiasts. 2. Go to Amazon and read a product's bad reviews. The good reviews are nearly useless. But, with bad reviews, you have to weigh the number of bad reviews against the product's popularity. If…

Do you mean this [Cool Tools](http://kk.org/cooltools/) (http://kk.org/cooltools/)?

Re: Does anyone remember websites?

#300

Post by bazoiks »

dogcow wrote: post #167

Check out the search engine at http://wiby.me From their about page: Search engines like Google are indispensable, able to find answers to all of your technical questions; but along the way, the fun of web surfing was lost. In the early days of the web, pages were made primarily by hobbyists, academics, and computer savvy people about subjects they were interested in. Later on, the web became saturated with commercia…

Webrings were really a golden age in that area. Rings of interconnected hobby sites around a particular subject. I miss those days.
Post reply on HN