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

How to live without Google (2017)

spreadprivacy.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 121 posts

Re: How to live without Google (2017)

#111

Post by sgjohnson »

auslander wrote: post #61
nottorp wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uh... I'm not sure I trust Apple's online services. Technically, I mean. How many times did they change their email solution in the past 10 years? I think it was called mobile.me at one point? And before anyone goes into Apple fanboy mode, I'm typing this on a macbook pro, my phone is an iPhone, and my desktop is a Hackintosh ;)

I have a hack too :) iCloud will stay. And I'll bet all old adresses are still working.

I have an old @me address. It was just migrated into iCloud.

Re: How to live without Google (2017)

#112

Post by sgjohnson »

auslander wrote: post #58
nottorp wrote: post #57

Gmail is the main problem. I use it as a backup email and as an ID for registering about everywhere. Thing is, what is a reliable email alternative that is certain to be around long term, that I can use to register? Google can afford to keep gmail up for my foreseeable life time, what other email services (free or paid) can I trust with that? Edit: I do have my own domain, but I don't consider that as reliable as som…

> what is a reliable email alternative that is certain to be around long term iCloud email

Or Outlook

Re: How to live without Google (2017)

#113

Post by auslander »

sgjohnson wrote: post #111
auslander wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a hack too :) iCloud will stay. And I'll bet all old adresses are still working.

I have an old @me address. It was just migrated into iCloud.

Yup, all of them, @me.com, @mac.com are still working. https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT201771

Re: How to live without Google (2017)

#114

Post by SquareWheel »

Const-me wrote: post #100
SquareWheel wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A search for "site:karmadecay.com" brings up some results. (warning: mostly nsfw)

Right, I have wrote that in my first comment: > Google will only show result from that domain if you limit search to that domain with “site:karmadecay.com” The question is, why doesn’t normal image search show that site ever, despite tons of content? I know technical reasons are still possible, but so is google breaking laws, they have quite a history of unlawful behavior and have paid billions in fines for that.

>Right, I have wrote that in my first comment

My mistake.

>I know technical reasons are still possible...

It could be as simple as a penalty for breaking one of their webmaster guidelines.

Re: How to live without Google (2017)

#115

Post by masonic »

phil9987 wrote: post #3

For a couple of month I have set duckduckgo as my standard search engine, but I often do not get satisfactory results. Is this because I am used to the Google results or does duckduckgo indeed not prioritize in a good way?

You can precede your query on DDG with !g to get Google results.

Re: How to live without Google (2017)

#116

Post by auiya »

vagab0nd wrote: post #110
auiya wrote: post #95

Swapping out a select few of Google's products isn't the same as "living without Google". Until you've blacklisted their entire netblock range from your usage[1], you don't realize just how many tendrils they have in every aspect of your Internet experience. And good luck getting around the other tech giants' oligopoly of the web as well[2]. The Internet isn't a fun "wild-west frontier" anymore, it's now completely c…

Reminds me of this xkcd: https://xkcd.com/2105/

Google created TCP Vegas, Chrome, and extend OAuth 2; so they're likely in the transport, presentation, and session layers too.

Re: How to live without Google (2017)

#117

Post by Const-me »

SquareWheel wrote: post #114
Const-me wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, I have wrote that in my first comment: > Google will only show result from that domain if you limit search to that domain with “site:karmadecay.com” The question is, why doesn’t normal image search show that site ever, despite tons of content? I know technical reasons are still possible, but so is google breaking laws, they have quite a history of unlawful behavior and have paid billions in fines for that.

>Right, I have wrote that in my first comment My mistake. >I know technical reasons are still possible... It could be as simple as a penalty for breaking one of their webmaster guidelines.

> could be as simple as a penalty for breaking one of their webmaster guidelines.

Agree. Could also be for not having a mobile-friendly version, or for not using AMP.

Still, even if google does nothing illegal here and acts in good faith, do you think it’s OK to de-prioritize relevant search results based on these technicalities?

As a consumer, when I search stuff in a desktop browser, I don’t give a damn about mobile versions nor webmaster guidelines. I want search results relevant to my search query. Arbitrary limitations imposed on web masters by search engine decrease quality of results.

Re: How to live without Google (2017)

#118

Post by vinni2 »

GuB-42 wrote: post #104
vinni2 wrote: post #49

For me where I live (Northern Europe) apple maps and open street maps or any other maps for that matter suck big time. Google maps is the only app which can search for places in a meanfingul way. I search for an ATM nearby but I get results which are 400kms away in apple maps.

Did you try HERE WeGo? Originally made by Nokia. I tried it on a trip to Helsinki in 2015 and IIRC, it worked better than Google Maps.

Yes I have. It is a bit better but unfortunately it is most of the times outdated. It doesn’t keep up with changes in the road network. I also bike a lot and finding bike routes is especially hard in HERE WeGo or other maps. Google maps is the only reliable one.

Re: How to live without Google (2017)

#120

Post by SquareWheel »

Const-me wrote: post #117
SquareWheel wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Right, I have wrote that in my first comment My mistake. >I know technical reasons are still possible... It could be as simple as a penalty for breaking one of their webmaster guidelines.

> could be as simple as a penalty for breaking one of their webmaster guidelines. Agree. Could also be for not having a mobile-friendly version, or for not using AMP. Still, even if google does nothing illegal here and acts in good faith, do you think it’s OK to de-prioritize relevant search results based on these technicalities? As a consumer, when I search stuff in a desktop browser, I don’t give a damn about mobil…

>Still, even if google does nothing illegal here and acts in good faith, do you think it’s OK to de-prioritize relevant search results based on these technicalities?

I do. That's actually the job of a search engine. If it wasn't choosing ranking factors, then it would just be a directory search.

Search engines are far more useful and relevant because they give more context to their results.

>when I search stuff in a desktop browser, I don’t give a damn about mobile versions

Desktop SERPs are actually different than mobile SERPs. They're crawled and indexed independently. A bad mobile site won't affect desktop results.

Post reply on HN