101–110 of 320 posts
It got so bad that I'm actually taking my own notes on topics again and trying to build up a personal knowledge database. Maybe it's not such a bad thing...
On YouTube, there is an option called "Don't recommend channel". I wonder why Google doesn't have a similar option. Or even better, a "Recommend me this website as the first option" button. It would useful to avoid spammy sites and to benefit the good ones. To avoid gaming the algorithm, Google can't take this data into account to benefit/punish websites on search results. The button has the only purpose to customise…
Cool, so will the relevant wiki page, which is almost certainly both the most linked to and most desired page for almost all "thing" searches, go back to being result #1 instead of buried under content farms, copyspam, and Medium trash?
This translates to "more YT videos made by our content-creators", right? Searching for "macbook pro m2 reviews" gives me 5 YT videos at the top, all repeating the same stuff over and over again and (no offense) made by people who aren't really experts. Or are they?
> Last year, we kicked off a series of updates to show more helpful, in-depth reviews based on first-hand expertise in search results. I find myself searching + "review reddit" to find real honest reviews. My anecdotal experience is that everything else is written by content creators who are given the product for free to use for a few days/weeks/months w/o going in depth.
Another one is + "forum" or + .
I train myself to use DDG, but, to my own dissapointment, I end up with "!g site:something-trustworthy.com" way too often.
For regular Google searches, I've had the feeling of being "scammed" for years, though. The "fishing devil" on the no-results page also feels like buttering up the user. I always subconsciously interpret this as a lightly humiliating, but cowardly way to say "we decide what you see, bro". But, YMMV.
Never wanted to bash anybody, but this has got to be the most negative post I've ever written on HN. Please, please, please, Google, give me the search results of around 2008-2010. Pages, pages, pages of results for almost any query. I worked as a journalist then, and googling was actually useful, even educational, in real life.
> More helpful product reviews written by experts This translates to "more YT videos made by our content-creators", right? Searching for "macbook pro m2 reviews" gives me 5 YT videos at the top, all repeating the same stuff over and over again and (no offense) made by people who aren't really experts. Or are they?
(/s, if it wasn't blatantly obvious.)
>Better ranking of original, quality content Hah. Just another day, someone sent me this link[1] which took images and text from my page[2] for the Google query "linux check disk space". Here is the thing my page doesn't even appear on Google. The ripped page points to the source[2] and has a link back to the original images. These scammers know how to game Google with their AI-driven sites, and they adopt it faster…
My Google experience would be improved immeasurably if there was a way for me to block domains after I decide I never want to see them in my search results again.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe the bootleg page could be a source of inspiration? It has a garbage/content ratio of 32 (the browser downloads 32 bytes for every byte of content) while the original page has a 400 ratio (the browser downloads 400 bytes for every byte of content). It's borderline denial of service attack against the visitor. The original also has a slow aggressive cookie box that is unnecessary as visitors can be spied on using…
> Also if google starts ranking such pages up they may expose themselves to class action lawsuits as users could ask for a refund for the power, hardware and telecom bills incurred in being lead to load them? Sorry, but this is completely insane. Search engines should most certainly and definitely not ever be liable for linking to original sources for such a stupid reason. This American pro-litigious attitude has to…
I'm not sure this whole drive towards 'original content' makes sense. It encourages people to make long rambling pages that don't get to the point In fact it seems like Google worked better when wikipedia was almost always the first result on various topics What I mean by rambling is if you type something like "types of oranges" and suddenly land on a page where some dude is clearly just filling up paragraphs for goo…