251–260 of 357 posts
I'm not a web developer but my girlfriend needed a website to show her photography work so I decided to make it for her. It's the simplest thing in the world, basically just three columns with photo thumbnails and the only javascript is some simple image viewer to display the images full screen when you click the thumbnails. It's really, really basic but I was impressed with the feedback I received from it, many peop…
My site is otherwise marked up for the indieweb, I've got indieauth working, and it's a cool community.
What I miss most from the early days of the Internet is the content. It was all created with love. My theory is that the high barrier to entry of online publishing kept all but the most determined people from creating content. As a result, the little content that was out there was usually good. With today's monetized blogs, it is often content for content's sake. People don't try, or they write about topics which the…
People are still creating great stuff along these lines - you just won't find it through Google or Facebook or most of Reddit. Complex, interesting hypertext creations and web sites are still everywhere. But try typing "interesting hypertext" into Google or Facebook and see where it gets you. You can't search for something that's off the beaten track. This is where directories come back in. Check some of these out: *…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Many of us also choose to write it because it’s fun and the results can be excellent.
Nobody denies React and co. are excellent tools. The frustration occurs when people who enjoy these tools claim that, if you choose not to use them, or suggest they're not fit for a certain task, you're WRONG. In the case of React in particular, this happens a lot. Then of course the people who don't want to use a framework feel frustrated, and next thing you know it's a flame war. I've seen this happen multiple time…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What we really need is a new Google, built on open principles (decentralized / peer to peer, fully free software, backed by a nonprofit), and focused on indexing the long tail of insightful content that is neglected by Google because it lacks SEO, popularity, links, and other metrics that Google find interesting but we don't necessarily do.
For a long time I assumed that google indexed pretty much everything it, and it was only a question of providing a specific enough set of search terms to drag up older content. But what you hint at might be more correct these days. They are running a reverse wayback machine in that anything not changed in the last year gets removed. If you click the advanced search its "updated within" and the max timeframe is a year…
They did that for a long time, but some years ago the index grew so big, they started restricting it. I thing the general timeframe is 10 years or less till the last update.
> If you click the advanced search its "updated within" and the max timeframe is a year.
Because it makes no sense to go further. For older content you can define individual dateranges. And yes, it works fine for me. Tested a search for 2015 just now, first side had entries all from 2015.
> In fact it seems the date range example doesn't even work: https://developers.google.com/custom-search/docs/structured_....
All those examples are not working. Wasn't custom search retired some years ago?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People are still creating great stuff along these lines - you just won't find it through Google or Facebook or most of Reddit. Complex, interesting hypertext creations and web sites are still everywhere. But try typing "interesting hypertext" into Google or Facebook and see where it gets you. You can't search for something that's off the beaten track. This is where directories come back in. Check some of these out: *…
What we really need is a new Google, built on open principles (decentralized / peer to peer, fully free software, backed by a nonprofit), and focused on indexing the long tail of insightful content that is neglected by Google because it lacks SEO, popularity, links, and other metrics that Google find interesting but we don't necessarily do.
We have them, they suck.
> and focused on indexing the long tail of insightful content that is neglected by Google because it lacks SEO
How would you even define that? SEO is changing all the time. And google is fighting it all the time.
And how would you prevent SEO focusing on that new searchengine? If it becomes big enough, people will optimize for it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What we really need is a new Google, built on open principles (decentralized / peer to peer, fully free software, backed by a nonprofit), and focused on indexing the long tail of insightful content that is neglected by Google because it lacks SEO, popularity, links, and other metrics that Google find interesting but we don't necessarily do.
It's a pity the semantic web never took off. It might have greatly reduced the need for sophisticated centralised search-engines.
As an example go look at the tags on soundcloud. People tag their songs with whatever they think will get people to take a listen.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
developers who only know how to write fat JS frontends Yeah. This is often a big challenge for small companies / small teams. Nearly every web app is now two apps , and it's increasingly infeasible for any developer to have a mastery of both backend and frontend stacks. Not necessarily a terrible problem when you have dozens of developers, but a lot of dev teams are 1-3 people. Instead of web dev circa 2010 where you…
I don’t understand why members of a dev team back in the day would’ve been more capable of being full-stack than today... The front/back divide also existed back then, with barely any possibility of a front person ever touching the back-end (a possibility that exists nowadays, without going into its merits or demerits). For a reasonably ambitious and industrious individual nowadays it’s not unreasonable to become rea…
Because the stack in the old days was smaller and level of quality was far lower. In the '90s there was no css and javascript, nor did anyone care for accesability, multiple languages, security or interactive features. In the old days we had real documents with links and simple structure, not apps and mature frameworks. It was something on the level you get today with simple markup like markdown or org-mode.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What we really need is a new Google, built on open principles (decentralized / peer to peer, fully free software, backed by a nonprofit), and focused on indexing the long tail of insightful content that is neglected by Google because it lacks SEO, popularity, links, and other metrics that Google find interesting but we don't necessarily do.
1. The internet is far too large to use human curation, an algorithm is needed. 2. An algorithm can always be gamed. You're stuck.
You only need to choose an algorithm so that the amount of trash is less than you can handle.