401–410 of 427 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are 10 years too late for that concern. I often wonder if there are any real people commenting, submitting, or upvoting left on Reddit.
10 years later Users: Now if I want good results, I append site:news.ycombinator.com before every query. Advertisers: Hmmm...
Ditto for wikipedia and wikitionary, which are hopefully immune to advertising..
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I literally append "site:reddit.com" like in the article whenever I'm looking for reviews and comparisons. Google is nearly useless for finding content among the sea of crap and autogenerated near-crap (like Slant). I might click on the links going to sites that I half-remember by name, but for open-ended searches it's a lost war.
Google modified the algorithm a while back to ignore such flags at times.
The commercial opinion bit is incredibly annoying. Ask for an opinion and you’ll get 5 pages of custom built “review” sites that offer nothing useful besides copious ads and paid click-through to Amazon. Even when Google knows where I go with my searches, they still refuse to show those sites for anything that might have commercial interest. So much for customized search. I get tired of being the product. Can we get…
How about p2p FLOSS search engine: https://yacy.net ?
The commercial opinion bit is incredibly annoying. Ask for an opinion and you’ll get 5 pages of custom built “review” sites that offer nothing useful besides copious ads and paid click-through to Amazon. Even when Google knows where I go with my searches, they still refuse to show those sites for anything that might have commercial interest. So much for customized search. I get tired of being the product. Can we get…
I literally append "site:reddit.com" like in the article whenever I'm looking for reviews and comparisons. Google is nearly useless for finding content among the sea of crap and autogenerated near-crap (like Slant). I might click on the links going to sites that I half-remember by name, but for open-ended searches it's a lost war.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Google page ranking depends on how long people spend on the webpage, so if you have to wade through longform text, it mistakenly assumes that the content is quality. Is this true? I have a hard time believing it because it's a pretty naive assumption. A site that lets me get what I'm after quickly is generally going to be what I want.
I sincerely doubt it. How many people keep open 50+ tabs, or open a page and walk away? I'm sure that time spent on a page, if it's given any weight, is given barely any. I'm sure returns to search to click a new link is a much higher indicator that the user didn't find what they wanted.
The commercial opinion bit is incredibly annoying. Ask for an opinion and you’ll get 5 pages of custom built “review” sites that offer nothing useful besides copious ads and paid click-through to Amazon. Even when Google knows where I go with my searches, they still refuse to show those sites for anything that might have commercial interest. So much for customized search. I get tired of being the product. Can we get…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They did a bad job then, since they still work.
They still use the flags, just not in every instance. I recall the quotes for inclusion of strings and the "-site" flag failing for me as early as last year.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why does the system charge men and pay women to message, instead of just charging everyone to message? I would have thought that of all places Scandinavia would not price-discriminate users based on their gender ...
It might be because men unfortunately, as a group, disproportionately misbehave in these situations. Sending unwelcome dick pics, sending aggressive messages to people who don’t show any interest in them etc. I’ve wondered myself if charging us to send messages might rein in the antisocial behaviour a bit.
The problem is that google created a negative feedback loop with the web. People have a tangible interest to game google, which worsens the quality of their AI datasets, which makes their AI suggestions terrible. There was the expectation that google's AI suggestions and info boxes would improve over time, but i 've noticed them getting worse and consider them a permanently broken gimmick now. They probably have the…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Just presume an efficient market of such companies And those companies are in the business of matching spherical cows in a vacuum. Efficient markets are useful as a simple model, but you don’t get to wish away real-world problems by pretending the world conforms to that model.
I’m talking about a game-theoretic dynamic that’s easily observed in real world professions (e.g. plumbers, cleaners, art conservators, etc.), and even in exactly the same industry (human professional matchmakers.) The “presumption” here isn’t really much of a stretch. It just-so-happens that dating sites don’t currently follow this model, because an external force (Match Group) came in and explicitly chose to consol…