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

Google Is Not God of the Web

bilge.world

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 306 posts

Re: Google Is Not God of the Web

#271

Post by slantyyz »

walshemj wrote: post #180
slantyyz wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know if it's a combination of overreliance on algorithmic rankings + seo or what, but if I search for something like "Panasonic GH5" (something I searched recently), I want to see the top two ranked items as the Panasonic product page, followed by the Wikipedia page. When I run that search on Google in Canada, there is a Panasonic link on the first page (third link), but it's for the US store listing, which h…

Depends maybe Panasonics enterprise SEO game is weak - you should rank your product pages on page one

From the perspective of a search engine's end user, Google should find those product pages and set them at the top of the results whether Panasonic's SEO is good or not, otherwise I'm going to switch to a search engine that can figure that stuff out.

The onus is on the search engine to produce good results, because they're the one providing the service. Hell, that's why I started using Google around 2000, they had the best first page search results.

Re: Google Is Not God of the Web

#272

Post by abricot »

slantyyz wrote: post #269
rawoke083600 wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree and will go further. I love YouTube, the content and the concept. I watch more YouTube than any other streaming service (except for Space-Force on NetFlix - damn it's good !). Sure not every video that is recommended will be what you like.. but it's quite a hard problem I think to recommend something in EVERY GRID POSITION that you will like.. Usually I'm willing to watch at least 2/5 to 4/5 videos being reco…

About a year ago, my Youtube front page feed was pretty good. Then it has slowly degraded since then. I went from Youtube being the service I used the most to watch stuff to becoming much less interested. Most of my recommendations don't even come from my subscriptions.

I like my recommendations not coming from my subscriptions. I check my subscriptions for new stuff often, so I want the recommendations to be other stuff.

But you're right, they outright sucks. They are definitely dynamic because I only have to show my son a single Roblox video to change it, but at the same times there are stuff that is repeatedly showing up that I have no interest in. Even stuff that I've told YouTube that I'm in no way interested in...

What I REALLY miss is a random category - for stuff that I would never otherwise see.

Re: Google Is Not God of the Web

#273

Post by bberenberg »

C1sc0cat wrote: post #233
bberenberg wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if my audience is people in the US on desktop devices? Does it make sense for me to build for data capped networks which aren't a thing for 99% of US desktop devices? Does it make sense that I now have to spend time and money optimizing my company site for an audience that I don't care about so we don't get down-ranked?

FYI for a huge consumer brand we see over 60% on mobile

100% understand. I am not suggesting that this is true for everyone, and I agree that this is a good goal for many. My point was that my site targets an audience (corporate employees on their work computers). These policies ask us to spend a lot of time and money building out a site for an audience we don't have.

Re: Google Is Not God of the Web

#274

Post by pwdisswordfish2 »

vbezhenar wrote: post #200
pwdisswordfish2 wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is sad that Microsoft would never acknowledge that some users might want to run older software on newer computers. IMO, it is easier to see the performance improvements in new hardware when running older software than it is when running "the latest" software. I would have run 3.11 for many years on newer hardware. However the goal of the company and the message pushed to its software users was/is always "upgrade".…

You can run many old operating systems including esoteric one using virtual machine. Modern computers use very little overhead for virtualization.

This is not a solution to avoiding the resource consumption of running a "modern" OS on a "modern" computer. Your comment completely misses the point.

Re: Google Is Not God of the Web

#275

Post by twic »

dreamcompiler wrote: post #159
gok wrote: post #93

> 22.82 Mbps will reliably download very complex web pages nearly instantaneously. The author may be unaware of how ridiculously huge web pages have gotten. I just loaded Wired.com, scrolled down and let it sit for a few seconds. It downloaded 96.2 MB, requiring over 33 seconds on one of those average connections. On a pay-as-you-go data plan, it would have cost about a dollar just to load that one page. The front pa…

25 years ago I used to read Texas Monthly magazine (on paper) because it was some of the best journalism around. I finally unsubscribed when I had to flip through 16 pages of ads to get to the table of contents, and several ads per issue contained scratch-n-sniff perfume samples which meant that reading an article required you to smell like a bordello afterwards. Wired is the digital equivalent of that now. There's s…

I used to get Wired in print in the late '90s, and i can tell you, Wired was the print equivalent of Wired.com now!

Pages and pages of ads before the contents, and then each article would usually be one or two beautiful full colour pages, before a 'continued on page 94' which took you to the remainder formatted as cramped commieblock-looking text at the back - which you got to by skipping over a few dozen more pages of ads.

Re: Google Is Not God of the Web

#276

Post by twic »

pdimitar wrote: post #235
rawoke083600 wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True, but i think the hosting cost is negligible against the time-invested-cost

Is it though? Nowadays you have plenty of good free CMS-es which integrate directly with Netlify. Sure, it might be half a centimeter more complex than WordPress admin but it's still really easy to grasp for many non-tech people (checked). But even if it was very complex -- which it isn't -- I still fail to see how that supports a model of an ad-supported web hosting.

I think the main cost is producing the content. Researching, creating, and editing the actual words and images.

Re: Google Is Not God of the Web

#278

Post by sergeykish »

pwdisswordfish2 wrote: post #195
userbinator wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find it ironic that you bring up Windows as an example, when the amount of data the parent comment mentioned - ~100MB -- is enough for a full install of Windows 3.11 and Office 4.3... and will yield many times more enjoyment than the front page of Wired.

It is sad that Microsoft would never acknowledge that some users might want to run older software on newer computers. IMO, it is easier to see the performance improvements in new hardware when running older software than it is when running "the latest" software. I would have run 3.11 for many years on newer hardware. However the goal of the company and the message pushed to its software users was/is always "upgrade".…

You are not market share Microsoft aiming for. But you are not obliged to use run Microsoft Windows either. Linux runs perfectly on old hardware.

42 MB RAM without graphical system

64 MB RAM with graphical system

You may run Windows applications on Wine. Or Windows 3.11 on virtual machine.

Netbook I bought in 2008 was underpowered for Windows XP but was perfect for Linux. I still have it around. With up to date Firefox and Chrome it feels slow but in console mode it's snappy.

No need for install with LiveUSB. Everything is here, countless people made it possible, would you use it?

Re: Google Is Not God of the Web

#279

Post by sergeykish »

downerending wrote: post #16
kickscondor wrote: post #2

> There is a very reasonable argument for essential services like search engines and news websites to conform to/adopt standards like AMP, but for the rest of The Open Web, ingenuity and risktaking should be encouraged, not discouraged, for the true good of all Peoplekind. Hadn't really considered this - because minimalist page size is often such a given - but, for instance, many amateurs often don't know yet how to…

Actually, I'd be interested in an alternative web where ingenuity and risk-taking would be utterly forbidden. Just HTML, and a very basic subset at that. No Javascript at all, no CSS. So much of the web would be better and more universally usable without "modern" cruft.

It exists right here and now. Disable javascript - almost everything works. You can disable CSS and images as well - just a few clicks in uBlock Origin on uMatrix [0].

People with Vision Lost browse the web. No need for separate web.

[0]

uBlock Origin (advanced user)

* * 1p-script block * * 3p block * * 3p-frame block * * 3p-script block * * image block * * inline-script block

uMatrix

* * * block * * frame block

Re: Google Is Not God of the Web

#280

Post by onemoresoop »

worble wrote: post #270
freediver wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Source? Take any query and it will mostly be carbon copy of Bing results. Haven't seen any Google results on DDG yet. An engine that did both would certainly be desirable.

https://help.duckduckgo.com/duckduckgo-help-pages/results/so... DDG has a number of sources, including it's own bot, although it specifically says Google is not one of them, contrary to the GP.

I was under the impression that google results are also used. I guess I was wrong about it. Does anyone know why google results are not aggregated as well? Technical or legal reason?
Post reply on HN