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

“Pinterest needs to be removed from Google IMO”

reddit.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 278 posts

Re: “Pinterest needs to be removed from Google IMO”

#141

Post by colanderman »

stagbeetle wrote: post #136
vilius wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh and w3schools.com needs to go below MDN because it's less informative. Even today I wanted to read about transform-origin and landed on w3schools [0], where MDN article [1] is clearly superior. [0] https://www.w3schools.com/cssref/css3_pr_transform-origin.as... [1] https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/CSS/transform-o...

While we're in the same vein, Google should remove the dumbed-down content altogether for anyone flagged as a "developer" by their algos, and replace it with man pages and source docs. MDN is a step up, but I usually skip past it, because the actual specification papers are most always better (except for ATOM and OpenLayers!).

Generally I prefer specifications too, but ever since the WHATWG-W3C split, it's become a choice between stuff that isn't yet implemented (WHATWG), and stuff that never was implemented (W3C). At least MDN documents accurately what one major browser supports, and includes compatibility tables for others.

Re: “Pinterest needs to be removed from Google IMO”

#142

Post by m-p-3 »

adventured wrote: post #122
shiado wrote: post #39

While they are at it please remove LinkedIn. You can't actually view anything on any page without logging in. Why is it listed at all? Seems pretty deceptive to me.

And how about Google finally do something about Quora's aggressive abuse of their quality guidelines: https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/35769?hl=en Quora presents a very different site to Google than it does to the reader ultimately. Google intentionally, knowingly ignores this fact and has for years. They could manually penalize Quora for breaking Google's search quality guidelines in numerous ways and th…

Quora is shit anyway, StackOverflow&Co is the superior platform.

Re: “Pinterest needs to be removed from Google IMO”

#143

Post by tambourine_man »

vilius wrote: post #108
shiado wrote: post #39

While they are at it please remove LinkedIn. You can't actually view anything on any page without logging in. Why is it listed at all? Seems pretty deceptive to me.

Oh and w3schools.com needs to go below MDN because it's less informative. Even today I wanted to read about transform-origin and landed on w3schools [0], where MDN article [1] is clearly superior. [0] https://www.w3schools.com/cssref/css3_pr_transform-origin.as... [1] https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/CSS/transform-o...

I know it’s not a popular opinion, but I actually like W3schools. Most of their infamous errors are gone and they are usually more “to the point” than Mozilla docs, which are a sometimes too prolific and not as clear.

Re: “Pinterest needs to be removed from Google IMO”

#144

Post by stordoff »

vbezhenar wrote: post #115
vilius wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh and w3schools.com needs to go below MDN because it's less informative. Even today I wanted to read about transform-origin and landed on w3schools [0], where MDN article [1] is clearly superior. [0] https://www.w3schools.com/cssref/css3_pr_transform-origin.as... [1] https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/CSS/transform-o...

Does Google manually adjust weights? While I agree with you, I always supposed that Google weights websites according to their own algorithms, not because some moderator thinks that it's less informative. If w3schools is higher, probably there are technical reasons, for example more users prefer it (may be content is easier to understand).

> The Manual Actions report lists instances where a human reviewer has determined that pages on your site are not compliant with Google's webmaster quality guidelines. Google's algorithms can detect the vast majority of spam and demote it automatically; for the rest, we use human reviewers to manually review pages and flag them if they violate the guidelines. Flagged sites can be demoted or even removed entirely from Google search results.

https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/2604824?hl=en

Specifically mentioned on that page is "Redirecting users away from the image on the site when the user clicks "view image" in Google search results" as an example of "image cloaking behavior".

Re: “Pinterest needs to be removed from Google IMO”

#145

Post by adventured »

m-p-3 wrote: post #142
adventured wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And how about Google finally do something about Quora's aggressive abuse of their quality guidelines: https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/35769?hl=en Quora presents a very different site to Google than it does to the reader ultimately. Google intentionally, knowingly ignores this fact and has for years. They could manually penalize Quora for breaking Google's search quality guidelines in numerous ways and th…

Quora is shit anyway, StackOverflow&Co is the superior platform.

I agree generally speaking. Quora has raised $452 million in venture capital. It's incredible frankly. There's no actual sound business model there and never has been (which is why eight years later they still don't have a functioning business and are living on VC, while being subsidized by Google abusing its own search policies).

Re: “Pinterest needs to be removed from Google IMO”

#147

Post by taneq »

Lxr wrote: post #119
shiado wrote: post #39

While they are at it please remove LinkedIn. You can't actually view anything on any page without logging in. Why is it listed at all? Seems pretty deceptive to me.

It’s also a trap if you forget you’re logged in and the user immediately gets notified you viewed their profile.

There's an 'anonymous mode' setting which doesn't tell people when you view their profiles. I'm not sure how it works vs. the 'see who viewed your profile' perk that they offer in their premium accounts.

Re: “Pinterest needs to be removed from Google IMO”

#148

Post by otterley »

paradroid wrote: post #146

LinkedIn requires logging in because the Supreme Court rules they couldn't really stop us from scraping public profiles. Forcing us to login makes it easier for them to control who has access to what content.

IAAL. There's been no Supreme Court ruling on the matter, only a district court decision ruling that the CFAA can't be used to charge scrapers with a crime. And that case is currently being appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (hiQ Labs v. LinkedIn, case no. 17-16783).

Re: “Pinterest needs to be removed from Google IMO”

#149

Post by lokedhs »

lostlogin wrote: post #132
manigandham wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

LinkedIn is one of the top sites for dark UX patterns. It is 100% purposeful, just like Pinterest, and designed to increase the all important "engagement" metric.

Does anyone actually ‘engage’ in way other than trying to block their spam? Every 6 months or so they seem to break through and the crap piles up. I was just fighting them off this morning.

I think so. Not many, but I have seen friends make posts on Linkedin.

IIRC, they were about some technical topics, similar to what you'd expect to see in a blog. Why they close to use Linkedin I don't know, but apparently it does happen.

Post reply on HN