Live data from Hacker News

More content by people, for people in Search

blog.google

251–260 of 320 posts

Re: More content by people, for people in Search

#251
post #165
post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly, a researcher should know better to not plagiarize or to give attribution better than that. This is core in their job. If they do exactly this in their papers, it's going to be bad for them and they know it. It's good they linked to the original post and that the link is the first thing we see, but nothing says that it's the source, and no paragraph explains that the content comes from elsewhere. I also don'…

> I also don't see why the content should be copy-pasted instead of just a link. Quite possibly an easy way to preserve the content in case the original goes offline and to share it with colleagues. Perhaps they wanted to link to it from some long-lived or even printed material. Not saying it’s the best way to do so, but it’s plausible and not malicious.

That's utterly illegal though

Re: More content by people, for people in Search

#252
post #32

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…

The dissonance is between Google's native perception and external reality: reality 1 : The www exists. Google indexes it, analyzes it and delivers it to users. Users like certain things, like original content. reality 2 : Google's ranking policies/algorithms influence the web. The "original content" that exists in a world without Google is different to the content that exists in a world where Google ranks such web pa…

I think it’s more that nobody knows the policy. It’s all ML changes few people understand or can even communicate. I don’t expect google would explain if they knew how it worked, but they also cannot explain how their technology works.

Re: More content by people, for people in Search

#253
post #32

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…

This is especially annoying with recipes. There's usually a massive backstory that takes up 90% of the page. Some recipe websites even post a button to jump directly to the recipe, at least they're self-aware.

Re: More content by people, for people in Search

#254
> With this update, you’ll see more results with unique, authentic information, so you’re more likely to read something you haven't seen before.

This phrasing sets off a little alarm in the back of my brain. Overall, I agree with the intent of the update and I think Google is maybe internally realizing that their questionable search quality combined with legitimate and privacy-focused competitors (DDG, Neeva [1]) could turn into a serious and existential threat to them.

That said, this is not quite the issue a lot of people have with Google search results. For me, when I search a movie for reviews, it’s not that I want new reviews to show up from smaller sites. It’s that I don’t want the whole screen filled with Google’s own little special sideshow for movie reviews. I can easily see this becoming even more frustrating actually if I search for “x reviews” and rather than get the usual Rotten Tomatoes, IMDB, newspaper reviews, I get RandomGuy.com. If I want RandomGuy.com, that is actually what a social media-esque site like Rotten Tomatoes or Letterboxd is for, not a search engine.

Hopefully this will be what we want it to be and not, for example, the TikTok-ization of Google search results, constantly and algorithmically showing you something “new.”

[1]: That said, the game is still very much for the taking and no one is still able to easily answer one of my most common queries for work: “python regex.” Seriously, it feels like a battle to get a simple example showing how to use groups/named groups to extract specific information. I don’t want a reference guide to common RegEx wildcards, I already know about \d and +! I don’t want a toy example showing how to use RegEx for seeing if “rain” is in “The cat is in the rain” (that’s using a hammer to kill a fly - you would just use “if rain in string” for example). I want a helpful and succinct guide on the specifics of Python’s RegEx so I can stop fiddling with it ASAP!

Re: More content by people, for people in Search

#255

For medical advice I would see more serious articles/blog posts in search results and fewer listicles. For meal recipes I would just like to see the recipe and not a blog post with dozens of ads. For programming questions I don't want to see the sites that just scrape and repackage stackoverflow questions; for a company run by software developers they have to know about this problem lol.

> For programming questions I don't want to see the sites that just scrape and repackage stackoverflow questions; for a company run by software developers they have to know about this problem lol.

This fact alone tells me they're not willing to take search result quality seriously. I'm sure medical professionals feel the same way about relevant content that is scraped and republished.

Re: More content by people, for people in Search

#257
post #151
post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's reminiscent of socialist realism -- with a modern, tech twist. The favored art-style of woke companies. It's their vision of utopia: a rainbow of skin tones, but everyone belonging to the same global monoculture.

Reminds me of the hyper capitalist predecessor to corporate memphis: http://clipart-library.com/data_images/177477.png Guys in baggy suits and ties running through fields. You probably remember it from things like manual covers of scanners and stuff.

There's something very ominous about this kind of art.

Re: More content by people, for people in Search

#258

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...

A tool that records the sites you visit and makes their content searchable locally would be pretty nifty. It'd be a MITM, which isn't awesome, but if it's not a managed service that might not be so bad.

Re: More content by people, for people in Search

#259
post #103

Reading through the comments here (and very much feeling the pain they describe), this idea came: Shouldn't we have a search engine that heavily favours the types of websites that we typically look for? You know, the classic 90s style tech blogs, the plain HTML documentation pages. Ignoring websites with ads, sites with lots of baggage (fonts, scripts, whatnot), sites with lots of images. Maybe increase the ranking o…

Remember Hotbot? They had a way to limit searches to those that used JavaScript. ha!

https://wikieducator.org/File:Hotbot.gif

Re: More content by people, for people in Search

#260
post #224

I am so sick and tired of sites that have a bunch of filler content in them just to appear higher in search results. You search for something, say "How to change a light bulb" and you get all this front loading with sections on "what is a light bulb?" "Why do light bulbs need changing?" "Picking a light bulb" and then finally the answer. Maybe a search engine that could prioritize getting to the point would be good.

Basic queries like "how to change a light bulb" are better answered on Youtube; it's not 1995 anymore, a web page explaining that with text and pictures is slower than creating a video. The only ones still writing web pages for things like that are trying to sell you something. If they weren't, they'd also just make a video.

> Basic queries like "how to change a light bulb" are better answered on Youtube

Hard disagree. If the best content for the problem is a video, then sure, bubble that up to the top of the search results. But to limit yourself to only one medium is ridiculous.

Post reply on HN