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

Google backtracks on search results design

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 356 posts

Re: Google backtracks on search results design

#81

Post by tempodox »

userbinator wrote: post #68
svnpenn wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Blocking 3rd-party scripts, 1st-party scripts and even inline scripts doesnt do what you say it does. It not as easy as you say it is, theyre using server side scripts to mangle the URLs.

A filtering proxy can still fix the results by substituting the real URLs, since they are still unmolested in the href= attribute of the anchor tags.

I'd still rather vote with my feet than putting effort into repairing what Google fucked up. That would seem like a pointless arms race to me.

Re: Google backtracks on search results design

#82

Post by thomasahle »

sgc wrote: post #21
supersrdjan wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I tried using duckduckgo but gave up after I kept getting irrelevant results for simple queries

After many tries at ddg, I am using startpage.com since it uses anonymized google results. Still far from perfect, but the best I have found for now.

Did you actually try Startpage without an adblocker?

https://i.imgur.com/KAZWb9i.png

The Ad maker on Startpage is way less visible than it ever was on Google or even DDG.

Re: Google backtracks on search results design

#83

Post by tempodox »

pieterk wrote: post #17

When will we realize that adwords and everything it inspired was a wrong turn for the internet? I’d much rather pay a monthly fee to get the services I want. I understand that Google and Facebook have gone too far down this path, and they will say such a service is not as profitable, but ultimately their business model seems unsustainable. People search for the truth, and while you can sell anybody anything, the trut…

> their business model seems unsustainable

I do agree, but if you're unscrupulous enough you can still get rich before such a business model eventually folds.

Re: Google backtracks on search results design

#85

Post by catalogia »

tempodox wrote: post #83
pieterk wrote: post #17

When will we realize that adwords and everything it inspired was a wrong turn for the internet? I’d much rather pay a monthly fee to get the services I want. I understand that Google and Facebook have gone too far down this path, and they will say such a service is not as profitable, but ultimately their business model seems unsustainable. People search for the truth, and while you can sell anybody anything, the trut…

> their business model seems unsustainable I do agree, but if you're unscrupulous enough you can still get rich before such a business model eventually folds.

Unsustainable businesses can be profitable for generations. Particularly if the law doesn't force them to deal with the externalities. Coal mining seems like an appropriate example. It's doubly unsustainable; coal is finite and burning fossil fuels is fucking up the climate, but coal mining remains profitable.

Re: Google backtracks on search results design

#87

Post by Zebfross »

joshbaskin wrote: post #84
bit_logic wrote: post #51

It's too late, lasting damage has been done. This redesign made me seriously look at DDG and I'm impressed with what I found.

I switched out to DDG as well today. See how it goes. Any takers for trying out Bing?

I’ve been using Bing for years with no regrets, but I live in the U.S. (and speak English) where I hear it is best.

Re: Google backtracks on search results design

#88

Post by rahidz »

joshbaskin wrote: post #84
bit_logic wrote: post #51

It's too late, lasting damage has been done. This redesign made me seriously look at DDG and I'm impressed with what I found.

I switched out to DDG as well today. See how it goes. Any takers for trying out Bing?

I've switched to Bing for images (more filters and less safe-search) and recipes (so many options!) , but for general search I find their index to be smaller and their results less relevant than Google's.

Re: Google backtracks on search results design

#89

Post by thenewnewguy »

rapnie wrote: post #62
harry8 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every single time someone im's me some url with a bunch of tracking garbage after the ?

I don't use Chrome but you have tracking token stripper plugin: https://github.com/jparise/chrome-utm-stripper

I'll get right to installing that extension on Chrome for Android...

Re: Google backtracks on search results design

#90

Post by wruza »

dangrossman wrote: post #47
pieterk wrote: post #17

When will we realize that adwords and everything it inspired was a wrong turn for the internet? I’d much rather pay a monthly fee to get the services I want. I understand that Google and Facebook have gone too far down this path, and they will say such a service is not as profitable, but ultimately their business model seems unsustainable. People search for the truth, and while you can sell anybody anything, the trut…

As long as you realize the web without ads is a much smaller and less commercial one. That may be fine with you. But a lot of things hundreds of millions of people use every day would have to go away. Subscriptions can't replace ads, as individuals don't have nearly as much discretionary money to spend as companies have in their advertising budgets. We've already given them that money when we bought our groceries, an…

>Subscriptions can't replace ads, as individuals don't have nearly as much discretionary money to spend as companies have in their advertising budgets

Search ought to be a replacement. Imagine a site that makes a snapshot of other sites and then anyone can type a search request in it and follow the relevant link. That would replace ads since you get your clients for free. Just build the best electronic marketplace and everyone will visit it by themselves.

This worked to some extent and then stopped because people have what they think themselves they need, and the “commercial” part means someone pushing unnecessary crap down their throats. Losing that part is fine for everyone except these wandering commivoyagers.

Subscriptions do not work for most content makers because the content they make is consumed out of boredom instead of need.

Post reply on HN