Live data from Hacker News

Does anyone remember websites?

tttthis.com

371–380 of 386 posts

Re: Does anyone remember websites?

#371

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 recently tried to search for certain Nintendo 64 ROMs because I wanted to try out an emulator. The first couple of results on Google all lead to horrible, ad-infested websites that claimed to offer a download but either kept on redirecting me to more ad-filled sites, or tried to get me to download some sort of "download helper", "media codec" or "PC cleaning software". Then there were the sites with dozens of fake…

This was the case back in 1997 as well.

The only thing that's changed about shady emulation sites in the last 20 years is that they no longer give you ill-conceived legal advice about ROM ownership being legal if you delete the ROM within 24 hours and/or are not affiliated with law enforcement.

Re: Does anyone remember websites?

#372
post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My favorite website: http://www.otherhand.org/ And my favorite article on it: http://www.otherhand.org/home-page/search-and-rescue/the-hun... (No association)

I guess these days unless you are located in EU or North America or not from VPN you get to suffer messages like: Your access to this service has been temporarily limited. Please try again in a few minutes. (HTTP response code 503) Reason: Access from your area has been temporarily limited for security reasons

It is also limited in the EU.

Re: Does anyone remember websites?

#373
post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Useful? I would argue that it's actually a lot less useful today.

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

Okay, I'll clarify. Is it more useful? Yeah, depending on what you want to do. But it's also a hell of a lot more dangerous. It's especially more dangerous if you're not careful.

+ Google Search is about as good now as it was back in 2007. I like that its interface has (largely) changed.

+ Google Maps with smooth scroll is nice, and its integration to 3d street view is nice too.

+ 1990s MapQuest without AJAX was nice though, in its own way. Even with Google's smooth scrolling, the only real thing Google Maps has going for it is IMO a cleaner display.

+ Wikipedia's generally better today than 10 years ago, yes.

+ Airline websites are a nightmare to use. Try getting an optimal route that doesn't use a single airline; and try getting that optimal route without ended up getting spammed or surcharged.

+ Youtube having virtually every song is nice for some people. It's not so nice for me. The songs on there are usually pretty boring or low quality audio or video or both. I pay for a music service (di.fm) for a reason.

+ Reddit/HN are pretty neat.

Okay, that's about where we agree (along with your comment on Facebook).

Let's look at some of the downsides.

- Personally, I find Reddit's method of linking to articles vs loading comments to be counter intuitive and confusing.

- Ebay is still about as trustworthy as you can spit.

- Amazon.com is among the crappiest web interfaces I've seen, and that's ignoring the company's history of abusing compensation and livelihoods of their employees and contractors. It's slow, extremely noisy (which contributes it to being slow), difficult to navigate, and I definitely never intend to buy from the marketplace specifically because I might as well have bought stuff from ebay.

- Just about every website has tracking up the wazoo. That contributes to a slower web experience both in bandwidth cost as well as hardware performance. Not everyone has a wonderfully new computer to handle all that. And if you're in America, chances are pretty good that your bandwidth is sub-par as well.

- Email. Why do we still have to deal with phishing and tracking? This is something that has been around pretty much since HTML was introduced to email.

- Instant Messaging. Slack and Discord are the newcomers but they're also somehow the best. They're popular because they get it "right"; it's super easy to text, talk, video, share files, share screens, etc. But they also get it wrong. That Electron UI has got to be the one of the biggest memory behemoths I've ever seen. Both are yet more walled gardens.

- The newer versions of Skype are absolutely dysfunctional compared to the older versions, MSN was better, AIM is (was) better, even IRC does file transfer better more reliably (although optional and clunkier).

- Mobile Apps. JFC banks going to mobile apps when the marketplaces are full of fake apps. This is absolutely not user friendly. Build on top of that the fact that phone numbers are super easy to fake or steal and you've got a clusterf!@# personal security nightmare just waiting to happen.

- Phones, operating systems, applications which track absolutely everything you do. It eats up my bandwidth, my system resources, and provides no visible benefit to me whatsoever. What happens when someone figures out how to track what I say to whom and when, and use that to "guide" me to buy things?

I could go on and on about more stuff but I don't care to at the moment.

Re: Does anyone remember websites?

#374
post #193

Another thing is people often just go to Wikipedia, Wikipedia replaced the need for many fan sites. I had things copied from my sites and put on Wikipedia and tired to get a link back or a source mentioned and it was removed each time. So I lost motivation to even update fan sites, since whatever I type is going to get pasted onto Wikipedia with no link back.

Even when Wikipedia does link to the original source, that has minimal benefit to the original source. Very few Wikipedia readers follow the links through to the source, so Wikipedia essentially replaces the original.

I have no doubt mobygames is banking on links from Wikipedia, they are like the only commercial site that seems to be allowed to have links on Wikipedia en masse. A link from Wikipedia is very good for seo and they have tons.

Re: Does anyone remember websites?

#375
post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My favorite website: http://www.otherhand.org/ And my favorite article on it: http://www.otherhand.org/home-page/search-and-rescue/the-hun... (No association)

I guess these days unless you are located in EU or North America or not from VPN you get to suffer messages like: Your access to this service has been temporarily limited. Please try again in a few minutes. (HTTP response code 503) Reason: Access from your area has been temporarily limited for security reasons

Yep, I'm on VPN right now, and I'm blocked.

But thank goodness for the Internet Archive! (FWIW, I've donated several times, it has helped me out so many times)

The article of interest is here: https://web.archive.org/web/20170920090047/http://www.otherh...

Re: Does anyone remember websites?

#376
post #349
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…

> But finding things you didn't know you wanted to know... ... is exactly the thing that I'm most worried about losing. Especially when I hear about all sorts of "adaptive" crap that learns about what I do and adjusts my daily feeds, search results etc. accordingly. It probably works great for most people, but I'm definitely not one of them and I want to opt out of the adaptiveness of modern Web. Most of the time the…

I really dislike youtube's 'recommended videos' for exactly this reason. It will never show me anything interesting, because it thinks I only want to watch things that I've already watched.

Re: Does anyone remember websites?

#377
post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for that! Superbly informative website. Someone, quick - point Ukraine and the Baltic states to this article "The Tank is Dead": http://g2mil.com/Anti-armor.htm

Aand, come Russkies (that's what you meant, right?), Ukraine and the Baltic states would be dead by frontline bombers (look at Syria, American and Russian tactics are not all that different in that respect) and advanced artillery. Look, ma, no tanks!

Well, it's (literally!) a disruptive technology introduced into the mix...

"US and Baltic troops — and American airpower — would be unable to halt the advance of mechanized Russian units and would suffer heavy casualties in the process" (https://en.delfi.lt/lithuania/defence/russia-could-occupy-al...)

BTW, this was a study from Rand Corporation!

Re: Does anyone remember websites?

#378
post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Yeah! It's pretty good IMO, are you a fan? The links are Amazon referral links (same with Wirecutter) so I still try to be heathily skeptical but I've found both to be reliable...

I just googled it. Can't say I'm a fan, I didn't even know about it. It seems very focused on home-maintenance and tools, which I know nothing about, but I'll certainly check it out in greater depth ;)

Re: Does anyone remember websites?

#379

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That to an extent, and also the fact that _real_ artificial intelligence - the kind that you could share exactly where you're up to with programming and it could tell you exactly what site to read next - that doesn't exist yet. I once read that Google indexes 0.5% of everything publicly known.

That figure (0.5%) would suggest to me like theres a lot more room for disruption.

Yup. Google are doing everything they can to ensure their future. They know this.

Re: Does anyone remember websites?

#380

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Usually, the next page also has interesting links, and the tree quickly becomes painful to traverse.

You click an interesting link, read it, click the back button, then click the next unvisited link. Where's the pain and how would tabs make it less?

Because what actually happens is I click an interesting link, read it, find a couple interesting-looking links, click them, read the first, see another 3 interesting links (on the now 2 levels-deep nested page), click them, notice that one of them links to a category or tag that's relevant to what I'm looking at (which has, on most wikis, dozens of pages)...

In short, sufficiently high branching factor means that neither depth first nor breadth first search can keep up without a lot of memory.

EDIT: Note that, at over 100 tabs per browser session, I am probably an extreme edge case. :)

Post reply on HN