[deleted]
The man who killed Google Search?
151–160 of 939 posts
Re: The man who killed Google Search?
#152> Larry Page and Sergey Brin left Google in December 2019 (the same year as the Code Yellow fiasco), and while they remain as controlling shareholders, they clearly don’t give a shit about what “Google” means anymore.
Is he saying that the two of them together hold enough voting shares to completely control Google? Or is he using the phrase "controlling shareholders" in a different way?
Re: The man who killed Google Search?
#153The tech fluff pieces are wild. And that entire paragraph about how the execs for Yahoo failed horribly, hired a new one, and that one lied about his degrees, and they hired another . People failing with golden parachutes, and others failing upwards into even more lucrative roles. I think that's the thing that is eating away at the core of our society: basic contracts like "fail and you won't get rewarded" or "succee…
> People failing with golden parachutes, and others failing upwards into even more lucrative roles. I read stuff like this all the time, but this take is actually extremely reductive. (Otherwise, every moron out there would be making 7 figures, but they don't.) It's not as if these folks are utterly incompetent in their roles, but in fact they optimize for things you think don't matter (but actually do.) For example,…
Reminds me of the Bruce Willis/Kim Basinger movie Blind Date.
In that movie, Willis plays a hard worker that is unpolished, while his slick, suited co-worker just sails on through life.
Re: The man who killed Google Search?
#154It's April 23rd, 2024, and I am still looking for a good, reliable, honest and simple search engine. All I want to do is search. No AI. No ads. No shopping. Please don't "Answer my question." I enjoy doing my own original research, thanks. I'm entirely willing - wanting even - to pay for it. Currently Kagi has my $, but I'm saddened and frustrated that they're not even focused on Search, they're focused on AI[1] and…
I just want a search engine that prioritizes small sites again
I just don’t want to see another webmd fluff article when I search for a medical query or some gigantic news site’s affiliate section when I search for a product
Half my searches have site:reddit.com appended to them
Re: The man who killed Google Search?
#155It's April 23rd, 2024, and I am still looking for a good, reliable, honest and simple search engine. All I want to do is search. No AI. No ads. No shopping. Please don't "Answer my question." I enjoy doing my own original research, thanks. I'm entirely willing - wanting even - to pay for it. Currently Kagi has my $, but I'm saddened and frustrated that they're not even focused on Search, they're focused on AI[1] and…
At this point I’m not even sure there is anything to find. The web as we remember seem to have withered away, suffocated by SEO optimized content farms
Re: The man who killed Google Search?
#156Google is doing something similar now[0], both from a searchers and a site owners perspective. Barry Schwartz regularly posts Google updates on his site[1], for over a decade no less. Since August 2023, those updates have been reaching the 500 mean comment range with many updates reaching 700-900 comment range. And this has been happening for 8 straight months! People have been robbed of their livelihoods and many ha…
> People have been robbed of their livelihoods That's absurd. People gambled with their livelihood, some got rich, and most lost.
Those people did everything according to Google's guidelines then Google changed everything and screwed them over. That's what has been happening all the way since 2010 when they issued their first update and penalized all the small sites for following their guidelines. They are screwing everyone for their shareholders' sake.
> gambled with their livelihood
Google owns ~90% of search. Its basically a public utility at this point. On which every small business owner has to rely. There is no saying "Go use a competitor" when using a competitor means you will lose access to ~90% of world search traffic. Imagine your salary being cut down to 10% of what it was last month - that's what using an 'alternative' to google for your business means.
These tech giants have been holding literal unregulated power over the livelihoods of people for decades now. And as we have recently come to see in many examples, they use that power to screw over everyone for shareholders.
The situation we have today is a situation that is as crazy as privatizing the entire road network and allowing an unregulated company to do whatever with the traffic that runs on it.
Re: The man who killed Google Search?
#157Anybody have a better title? 'Better' here means (1) less baity; (2) more accurate and neutral; and (3) preferably a representative phrase from the article itself. "The man who killed Google Search" is too baity. See the 'unless' in https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html : " Please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait " Edit (since there are objections): I'm not taking a position for…
"Linkbait" implies it's hyperbole, but I would argue that the headline is a perfect description of the argument being made here.
Linkbait is about using tricks to grab attention rather than providing neutral information. Hyperbole is only one way to do that.
In this case "The man who" is a linkbait trope and "killed" is a sensational attention-grabby word. Composing them into "the man who killed" is linkbait.
Re: The man who killed Google Search?
#158It's April 23rd, 2024, and I am still looking for a good, reliable, honest and simple search engine. All I want to do is search. No AI. No ads. No shopping. Please don't "Answer my question." I enjoy doing my own original research, thanks. I'm entirely willing - wanting even - to pay for it. Currently Kagi has my $, but I'm saddened and frustrated that they're not even focused on Search, they're focused on AI[1] and…
Kagi is sure interested in the role of AI in searching, but the fact is that their product works great, so why the negativity?
Re: The man who killed Google Search?
#159Anybody have a better title? 'Better' here means (1) less baity; (2) more accurate and neutral; and (3) preferably a representative phrase from the article itself. "The man who killed Google Search" is too baity. See the 'unless' in https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html : " Please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait " Edit (since there are objections): I'm not taking a position for…
That's what the article is arguing though. That a certain individual is 'killing' (not killed yet) Google Search. A different title would be misleading.
Since killing != killed, your comment already shows that the title is misleading.
Re: The man who killed Google Search?
#160Earlier quoted context omitted.
honestly, 99% of the time I don't need search. I want AI. I don't want to have to use a weird syntax to 'talk to a search engine'. sometimes I don't even know what the word is that I am searching for. I want something I can just ... talk to. I use to use search every day, now I use it about once a month.
As somebody who uses "weird syntaxes" to create applications every day, I like having the option to use a specific language that offers the ability to more precisely describe the parameters of my search.
I would like it if they would actually respect the weird syntax consistently