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

151–160 of 278 posts

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

#151

Post by paradroid »

otterley wrote: post #148
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).

(thumbsup). But that's my overall take.

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

#152

Post by donohoe »

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.

Agree. On my profile page I have option to make it ‘public’ but still requires login to be seen. It’s completely deceptive imho.

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

#153

Post by manigandham »

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.

Yes, 100s of millions of people around the world.

Millions of new posts, job searches, private messages and other activities take place everyday. They do have plenty of spam and a terrible UX but that doesn't mean the site and community is anywhere near empty or useless.

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

#154

Post by jcranmer »

twblalock wrote: post #114
purerandomness wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "Google search results reflect content on the web" That's what's being violated. The GoogleBot gets the content, but not a human visiting the site. That's not what a user expects. That's why Pinterest and LinkedIn should be removed from Google search indexes. Addendum We're not even talking about violating Google's T&C here. It's about how their ranking algorithm works. Try building a site and applying similar blac…

You could make the same argument about the New York Times, WSJ, the Economist, FT, and many other newspapers of record: the Googlebot gets the content, and the users get a login page if they don't have an account. Should Google get rid of those as well? How can a search engine be useful if it doesn't include the most popular sites?

Most newspaper websites let you read N articles for free every month (/week/whatever). The WSJ is the major exception I'm aware of, but IIRC, they do actually show you the content if you click from the google results directly.

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

#155

Post by gkya »

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...

The examples w3schools have are useful, and MDN has less of them. But maybe that's my subjective experience. Still, I've made lots of use from both of them, and looking past the first hit should not be that difficult, especially for us programmers.

Edit: funny that people downvote this.

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

#156

Post by gkya »

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.

People take spam for granted. Most people have more unread spam in their gmail mbox than _all_ of my mail archive.

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

#157

Post by newnewpdro »

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.

They didn't used to require this, unless I'm mistaken that started post Microsoft acquisition.

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

#158

Post by qbrass »

jkaplowitz wrote: post #93
fragmede wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the version of Internet from the 90's? Totally. Could anything like that happen on the CommerceNet, post EME (Encrypted Media Extensions)? (Sept, 2017) Hardly. (And your name is now on a list for suggesting something so subersive, citizen.)

Google didn't exist on the version of the Internet from most of the 90's. :)

Those few years of overlap were epic.

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

#159

Post by adrianmonk »

I don't see why Pinterest does this to themselves. My main exposure to them is through Google image search and links to their site.

So my first several experiences were like this. It left me with a terrible first impression. It makes me wonder if the whole site plays games and tries to waste my time.

I usually don't sign up for an account the first few times I encounter a site, so in my mind it's a pretty critical time to make a good impression. Instead they annoyed me so much I've practically decided never to create an account.

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

#160

Post by koboll »

tambourine_man wrote: post #143
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...

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.

It's "to the point" in the sense of being a more concise basic introduction. But MDN hits the right balance of being comprehensive yet accessible in a way nothing else does.

Plus W3Schools' very name is an SEO hack, so their Google rank is built upon fundamental dishonesty.

Post reply on HN