111–120 of 134 posts
The problem is not google. It’s trip advisor itself. It’s simply not helpful anymore. Fake reviews, and they’re pushing paid events etc using dark patterns.. it wasn’t like that some years ago Love the lonely planet
I find Google ratings slighly better.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Amazon (and most successful middlemen) employ this strategy too, so aggressively. Get all the data flowing through you, use that data to screw those who you can profit from replacing. Like the people who made sites with public holidays, clocks, converters, calculators that Google has stolen all traffic from for years. Gradually it expands to larger prey, and it feels like a good experience for consumers so it works.…
> Not sure what can be done though. Antitrust stuff is really the last resort, and it's not a guarantee that it will even happen. In the EU it probably will I guess. USA not do sure. Most regulations seemingly aimed at taming monopolies only end up reinforcing them, because megacorps have the means to circumvent/malleate regulations, while small firms do not. The common-sense implicit mental model of the commercial p…
Microsoft was so close to being broken up for this long ago but now everyone does it...so why do we allow it?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One of the sites I maintain has a collection of recipes. It was only when Google started sending me email because they lacked calorie counts that I realized what a terrible idea microdata is for everyone but Google. I have since taken all of the microdata out of the HTML. If google wants it, it can pay for it.
> everyone but Google ... and the users of Google. Being able to see things like calorie counts directly in search results is awesome. Seriously, if you Google "banana bread" you get recipe ratings, cooking time, and calories right in the list of results. The UX is exceptional.
why do people keep having their content for free for google to use? it doesn't make sense anymore. the google web social contract is broken, there is no tit for tat anymore. only paywall sites get it right now.
But, I always contribute similar content to Wikipedia/Wikicommons. Because I see that as a more fitting philosophy for sharing knowledge. The type of information and the format is not the same, thou.
Google is just practical. It is frustrating to plan a visit to a museum in a city that I will spend one day to find out that has been closed for half a year.
So, I agree as I have my own self-doubts about giving things for free to Google when they are going to use that data to send me or others more targeted advertisements.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's been going on a long time, Google's been killing off aggregators by cannibalising their market for almost a decade now. I do wonder how sustainable it is, previously these aggregators did lots of things at Google's request, cleaning the noise out and laying everything out in nice data-annotations. More fool them, it turns out. Google cross-references them all, builds their 'own' data and drives them all out of b…
"Nationalised search service" ... interesting thought. Legions of Librarians, finally compensated justly and lauded for their heroism. Wonder if they'd get uniforms and "be all you can be" recruiting campaigns too.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not to get too off topic, but it's clearly a self inflicted problem, where nobody would complain about spending money on space force uniforms if space force's existence made any sense.
Why does militarization of space not make sense? It makes a lot of sense unless you're a pacifist.
why do people keep having their content for free for google to use? it doesn't make sense anymore. the google web social contract is broken, there is no tit for tat anymore. only paywall sites get it right now.
Google is pretty much taking your shit nowadays and there is nothing you can do about it. That shit is either a company you built or a product of theirs that you used. They are not a search company, they are a conglomerate. They'll buy you or break you. It's funny when they fail though isn't it? Remember Google+? Who lead that initiative? What a travesty that was. Outside of Gmail, Google's UIs really do suck. But ba…
>Remember Google+? Who lead that initiative? What a travesty that was. Outside of Gmail, Google's UIs really do suck. I don't think that was an issue with the UI. Their UI was quite nice and the overall UX was too. Thing was they started by driving up hype, then letting a lot of people in but not everyone. Those lots left because it didn't have the main drive of a social media platform. Users. Their friends weren't a…
No their UI sucked. One third of the page was occupied by a stupid header you couldn't even reduce or remove with a CSS hack. I hated it. Fortunately now, most websites doing that tend to disappear.
Also, the content of the page itself was 1/3 wide, which is ridiculous when one is trying to read a long blog post.
The Google+ was a disaster UI wise, I would not be surprised it highly contributed to its demise.
why do people keep having their content for free for google to use? it doesn't make sense anymore. the google web social contract is broken, there is no tit for tat anymore. only paywall sites get it right now.
I have added from pictures to missing places into Google. For me, the tit for tat is to help other travellers to find interesting places, to not get lost or to know what to expect when in a foreign country/city. But, I always contribute similar content to Wikipedia/Wikicommons. Because I see that as a more fitting philosophy for sharing knowledge. The type of information and the format is not the same, thou. Google i…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Google launched a service consumers preferred. What's the issue? That they have a sustained competitive advantage?
Imagine if 70% of roads were privately owned by one company. That company, call it roadle, opened a restaurant chain. There is free parking in front of all roadle restaurants. There are always roadworks around all non roadle restaurants. This is what search is like today.