Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The man who killed Google Search?

wheresyoured.at

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 939 posts

Re: The man who killed Google Search?

#251

Post by ljm »

grugq wrote: post #189
dang wrote: post #101

Anybody 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…

"Prabhakar Raghavan is killing Google" "Google's Death from Within: Prabhakar Raghavan" "Blame Prabhakar Raghavan for Google's Crappy Search" "Google Sucks. Because of Prabhakar Raghavan" "Prabhakar Raghavan is the man killing Google Search." "Yahoo Search Killer Prabhakar Raghavan Turns Death Ray on Google" "Prabhakar Raghavan and the no good very bad Google search."

The number of times his name is repetitively mentioned in the article makes me read it in the voice of Stewart Lee.

Re: The man who killed Google Search?

#252

Post by JoshTriplett »

Nevermark wrote: post #86
romanhn wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed. I struggled to keep going after "computer scientist class traitor". A very juvenile take that reflects poorly on the author, IMO.

Hyperbole that is quite obviously hyperbole is a well accepted literary device. It is a form of highlight via creative exaggeration of non-critical points, that is transparent, not deceptive, in service of making serious adjacent points. [0] The point here is to highlight the actually cartoonish level of dysfunction and damage with an intentionally cartoonish flourish. The "villian" in this case can be colorfully int…

> Hyperbole that is quite obviously hyperbole

It's not at all obvious that the author intends to sound hyperbolic. At the risk of Poe's Law here, they come across as saying exactly what they intend to say, perhaps attempting to appeal to an audience looking for such portrayals.

Re: The man who killed Google Search?

#253

Post by kelnos »

dekhn wrote: post #214
ethbr1 wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As context, I offer the engineer oath used by some countries for certified engineers: >> I am an Engineer. In my profession, I take deep pride. To it, I owe solemn obligations. >> As an engineer, I pledge to practice integrity and fair dealing, tolerance and respect, and to uphold devotion to the standards and dignity of my profession. I will always be conscious that my skill carries with it the obligation to serve h…

I woudl not sign that, and would instead call myself a computer programmer. That is an absolutely absurd set of sentences to sign one's name to.

And I wouldn't want to work with someone who would balk at something like that.

Re: The man who killed Google Search?

#254

Post by its_ethan »

nbittich wrote: post #102

Everytime I need to make a search on Google, I start to feel anxious, already convinced I'm not going to find anything useful about the problem I'm trying to solve. This often means I already tried everything else. It's a sad situation.a product shouldn't make you feel anxious.

For what it's worth, I have the opposite issue - when I can't find what I'm looking for on more privacy focused search engines, I go to google because 99 times out of 100 it gives me what I'm looking for in the easiest/quickest way.

Re: The man who killed Google Search?

#255

Post by abtinf »

dang wrote: post #159
guardiangod wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The article is not arguing that the killing is still on going, but that google has already been killed.

"Google" in the title should be read as "culture" or "the heart and soul of Google", not "Google the company".

Possible better title: "The man who destroyed the soul of Google Search"

Re: The man who killed Google Search?

#256

Post by kelnos »

sevagh wrote: post #229
ethbr1 wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As context, I offer the engineer oath used by some countries for certified engineers: >> I am an Engineer. In my profession, I take deep pride. To it, I owe solemn obligations. >> As an engineer, I pledge to practice integrity and fair dealing, tolerance and respect, and to uphold devotion to the standards and dignity of my profession. I will always be conscious that my skill carries with it the obligation to serve h…

The presence of an oath doesn't prevent traditional certified engineers from causing harm. It's just a goofy ritual.

I'm sure it does prevent some harm that would otherwise happen. There are certainly people in the world who would think twice about breaking an oath they've made, regardless of whether or not you think it's goofy.

And I think that is really part of the problem. The idea that something like this is "goofy" just makes me feel profoundly sad. Do people just not care about integrity anymore, to the point that asking someone to declare their intent to do their work with honesty is considered silly and pointless?

We truly live in a cynical world.

Re: The man who killed Google Search?

#257

Post by panopticon »

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #192
grugq wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Prabhakar Raghavan is killing Google" "Google's Death from Within: Prabhakar Raghavan" "Blame Prabhakar Raghavan for Google's Crappy Search" "Google Sucks. Because of Prabhakar Raghavan" "Prabhakar Raghavan is the man killing Google Search." "Yahoo Search Killer Prabhakar Raghavan Turns Death Ray on Google" "Prabhakar Raghavan and the no good very bad Google search."

"Prabhakar Raghavan is a bad man" :)

He accidentally hit me with his sock in a Google gym back when he was VP of Apps. Very bad man indeed.

Re: The man who killed Google Search?

#259

Post by kelnos »

saganus wrote: post #168
neilv wrote: post #35

I think this article would work better if it were written entirely like textbook traditional investigative journalism. And less like the modern TV opinion personality, or the random strong-opinion Web comments in which many of the rest of us (including myself) indulge.

Just to chime in, I started reading the article due to this comment, as I wanted to check the style of the writing, but the amount of in-your-face insistence to subscribe to yet another newsletter just put me off entirely. There was a CTA right at the beginning (which appeared suddenly after 4-5 seconds of reading so I lost my place), then another one a few paragraphs later, then less than 3 seconds after that, a pop…

Aside from the annoying pop-up, I didn't actually notice the other calls to subscribe.

It's a bit of an unfortunate situation for the author, if any reasonable number of people are like me. If I didn't notice the less-intrusive efforts to get me to subscribe, and when I see the intrusive one (the modal pop-up), it makes me less likely to want to subscribe... oof.

I think the theoretical ideal from the reader's standpoint is that there's just one call to subscribe, at the very end, the idea being that if you can't make it to the end of the article, you probably aren't going to subscribe anyway.

And yet so many sites still do the modal pop-up that interrupts you while you're reading. So clearly they must work, at least well enough to get people to sign up? Then again, I do wonder how many people are so turned off by those pop-ups, people who would have subscribed, but decide not to?

Re: The man who killed Google Search?

#260

Post by influx »

What are xooglers experience with Code [Yellow|Red]? I've seen xooglers implement them in other companies and it was a total cluster fuck with some of the most aggressive bullshit from VP level execs yelling at ICs and pushing questionable technical decisions, along with extreme overwork that was all justified because "Code RED!!!!"
Post reply on HN