Technically the title is correct since Google has deprecated PageRank for years. But it doesn't looks like the point of this article since it uses the majority of its texts on criticizing ad supported search business model in favor of subscription models which PageRank has no business at all. You can use PageRank (or not) regardless of the business model right? I'm still not sure what it is trying to achieve by bringing PageRank to the table. If you substitute "PageRank" with "Google" then it actually makes more sense though.
The Age of PageRank Is Over
291–300 of 380 posts
Re: The Age of PageRank Is Over
#292Earlier quoted context omitted.
The economic argument not being watertight is the problem. This is why tech companies keep pivoting to ads, they just didn't make enough money otherwise. Afaik [1], there's about 5 employees and the revenue only covers server expenses while they're still trying to get more headcount. Not an expert on bootstrapping but I'm pretty sure you don't want to expand faster than your revenue does otherwise you stop being able…
They mention that users can invest in them through SAFEs. This only makes sense if they plan an exit, either by selling or through an IPO, or am I missing something?
Is this some sort of hack towards a co-op? I couldn't find anything about it on their website
Re: The Age of PageRank Is Over
#293Earlier quoted context omitted.
Netflix doesn't have enough content, so they resort to these tactics. All major content providers left them years ago and started their own Netflixes. So they're left with a few movies from ten years ago, a couple of recent-ish releases, and their own content.
really, content creators should be banned from creating markets like Netflix (and eventually the other way around), but that would require the regulation to not be asleep at the wheel.
Are you really saying that creators shouldn’t be able to publish their own content on their own infrastructure?
Re: The Age of PageRank Is Over
#294Earlier quoted context omitted.
really, content creators should be banned from creating markets like Netflix (and eventually the other way around), but that would require the regulation to not be asleep at the wheel.
Are you really saying that creators shouldn’t be able to publish their own content on their own infrastructure?
Should've specified I meant movies and other large conglomerates that tend towards oligopoly. I mean things like Disney+ shouldn't exist, its extending the concentration of market power vertically too.
Re: The Age of PageRank Is Over
#295I've been using Kagi the last few months. I've never had a reason to complain about its search results - they seem to work plenty well enough day to day that I don't really 'notice' them. Like most, I now search reflexively, as an extension of the mind, so I only 'notice' search when it's bad. What really excites me is that is that I'm paying them. That sounds odd, but seriously. It's incredibly refreshing to know th…
>It's incredibly refreshing to know that the company providing my search results has an incentive to make things better for _me_ and not a legion of advertisers Cable television and netflix have made it quite clear that payment does not mean “no ads”, it just means “no ads, yet”. It still might be a better alternative in the short term, but the moment growth starts to peak, companies follow where the incentives lead…
Netflix is still ad-free for me (product placements in content aside). Multiple tiers is reasonable.
Re: The Age of PageRank Is Over
#296Earlier quoted context omitted.
The economic argument not being watertight is the problem. This is why tech companies keep pivoting to ads, they just didn't make enough money otherwise. Afaik [1], there's about 5 employees and the revenue only covers server expenses while they're still trying to get more headcount. Not an expert on bootstrapping but I'm pretty sure you don't want to expand faster than your revenue does otherwise you stop being able…
"This is why tech companies keep pivoting to ads" I think another factor is the paradox that the user who has enough money to be willing to pay to not see another ad is exactly the most valuable user to advertisers— they've pre-qualified themselves on multiple axes. So there is always going to be an enormous moral hazard here with the ad-driven-freemium model— always a temptation to run an occasional high-value ad to…
This showed up at an internal Twitter meeting this week. Mr. Musk proposed making Twitter ad free for 8$ accounts before being politely informed that 8$ accounts actually produce 50$ per month in ad revenue.
An angry bird informed me about this :)
Re: The Age of PageRank Is Over
#297In a word, no. I’ve spent a lot of time on SEO over the past couple years, and inbound links still matter a lot to search rankings and traffic. This is clear evidence that PageRank still matters. From a more macro perspective, I’ll believe Google is failing when a competitor starts eating their lunch. What I see right now are a bunch of would-be competitors who want to eat their lunch, including this company. The blo…
maybe I'm slow today, but I didn't get from their long rant what did they replace page rank with? I get it, ads suck, SEO spam sucks, PR is gameable, serving the user is noble. But, how did they solve the actual problem of ranking the search results?
Re: The Age of PageRank Is Over
#298Re: The Age of PageRank Is Over
#299Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you really saying that creators shouldn’t be able to publish their own content on their own infrastructure?
Should've specified I meant movies and other large conglomerates that tend towards oligopoly. I mean things like Disney+ shouldn't exist, its extending the concentration of market power vertically too.
I real wish that HN wannabe lawyers would stop throwing *poly words around with no legal justification.
In the streaming space in the US there is: Netflix, Disney+, AppleTV, Amazon Prime Video, HBO/Discovery, Paramount Plus, Peacock, STARZ, and a few other players. There is no “opoly” in streaming video.
Re: The Age of PageRank Is Over
#300Earlier quoted context omitted.
>It's incredibly refreshing to know that the company providing my search results has an incentive to make things better for _me_ and not a legion of advertisers Cable television and netflix have made it quite clear that payment does not mean “no ads”, it just means “no ads, yet”. It still might be a better alternative in the short term, but the moment growth starts to peak, companies follow where the incentives lead…
Can you add a poison pill to a company where a select group of people can decide you broke one of your founding principles and hand the company over to someone else? No VC startup would do that but if possible would allow trust.
Sure you could. Of course no serious investor would make the acquisition.