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

You know, Google, the web already had this feature

blog.vrypan.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 444 posts

Re: You know, Google, the web already had this feature

#51

Post by angryasian »

jodrellblank wrote: post #37
angryasian wrote: post #16

lets all stop with all the fear mongering. Do you guys really believe that every time a site loads a facebook or twitter widget they aren't tracking you either. I can name 1000 other trackers that sites actually do install and that do genuinely sell your information. There are a handful of widgets that do the same thing for twitter and facebook so lets just stop the bs.

"Because Facebook tracks you, mentioning Google's tracking is fearmongering bs". I don't follow your argument. I do, however, follow the like-button-blocker ShareMeNot https://addons.mozilla.org/en-us/firefox/addon/sharemenot/ http://sharemenot.cs.washington.edu/

it is fear mongering because the entire point of the article is to point out another widget/tracker, when its absolutely nothing new. Event their +1 button probably does the same thing. So the author wants to obviously use googles name to get more page views when this is nothing new and has been done for years by facebook and twitter.

Re: You know, Google, the web already had this feature

#52

Post by Fargren »

doktrin wrote: post #44
DanBC wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do they need to do to fix YouTube? (I'm really asking. I think some of it is broken, and maybe people can pass information onto YouTube people.) 1) Default to 240: I want to be able to always watch videos in the worst resolution possible. I want the lightest bandwidth possible. I'd sometimes be happy with just the audio. It seems that I can't default to 240, no matter what I click. 2) Small elements in UI: There…

> Google and YouTube are full of smart people. Some kind of "poor comment quality" filter should be easy to implement. This touches on something I actually feel deserves a second look, if only from an academic or sociological perspective. I have never quite understood why Youtube appears to be the single largest (or, at least most prominent) internet cesspool. Comments there are routinely among the most vile I've see…

My guess is that it has huge visibility and no moderation. There's almost no chance of your comment being deleted, no matter how vile, stupid or offensive it is, and it's in one of the biggest places of the internet. It's like doing graffiti on the White House, but you can get away with it.

Re: You know, Google, the web already had this feature

#53

Post by alxndr »

doktrin wrote: post #44
DanBC wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do they need to do to fix YouTube? (I'm really asking. I think some of it is broken, and maybe people can pass information onto YouTube people.) 1) Default to 240: I want to be able to always watch videos in the worst resolution possible. I want the lightest bandwidth possible. I'd sometimes be happy with just the audio. It seems that I can't default to 240, no matter what I click. 2) Small elements in UI: There…

> Google and YouTube are full of smart people. Some kind of "poor comment quality" filter should be easy to implement. This touches on something I actually feel deserves a second look, if only from an academic or sociological perspective. I have never quite understood why Youtube appears to be the single largest (or, at least most prominent) internet cesspool. Comments there are routinely among the most vile I've see…

Quality of the videos, and like begets like?

Re: You know, Google, the web already had this feature

#54

Post by ianstormtaylor »

gkoberger wrote: post #6
kunai wrote: post #2

Google has overstayed the web's welcome. What started out as a quirky, innovative company that bucked all of the suit-and-tie trends (see Microsoft, HP, even Apple in some regards) of Silicon Valley, has now turned into a monstrous calamity with no regard for its users. Up until 2009, it was breezy and beautiful, but right now, at this moment, it's a different story altogether. Don't be evil? Pfeh. The only thing lef…

Overstayed the web's welcome? I'm not convinced that's happened yet. I certainly don't disagree with your points, but it's moot. Normal users don't care about things like "privacy" or "neutrality" or "standards". If it works and is free, that's good enough. And the page views Google gets is testament to the fact that nobody outside of the HN-esque world has any issues with Google. Heck, I (and most people here) use G…

> Normal users don't care about things like "privacy" ...

This is not true. If you explained exactly what the extension was doing to a normal user I can almost guarantee they wouldn't like it. No one wants every website they visit to be looked at by an external source. The problem is it's not obvious this is happening. Hell, I'm a web developer and even I wouldn't have thought twice about how Google was displaying this information to me. The technology has gotten so far outside of a "normal users"'s grasp that it's not even fair anymore. They care about privacy, they just have no way of knowing each and every way their privacy can be eroded.

Luckily no one uses Google+ so the extension is pretty useless...

Re: You know, Google, the web already had this feature

#55

Post by [deleted] »

gkoberger wrote: post #6
kunai wrote: post #2

Google has overstayed the web's welcome. What started out as a quirky, innovative company that bucked all of the suit-and-tie trends (see Microsoft, HP, even Apple in some regards) of Silicon Valley, has now turned into a monstrous calamity with no regard for its users. Up until 2009, it was breezy and beautiful, but right now, at this moment, it's a different story altogether. Don't be evil? Pfeh. The only thing lef…

Overstayed the web's welcome? I'm not convinced that's happened yet. I certainly don't disagree with your points, but it's moot. Normal users don't care about things like "privacy" or "neutrality" or "standards". If it works and is free, that's good enough. And the page views Google gets is testament to the fact that nobody outside of the HN-esque world has any issues with Google. Heck, I (and most people here) use G…

[deleted]

Re: You know, Google, the web already had this feature

#56

Post by anigbrowl »

kaoD wrote: post #26
kunai wrote: post #2

Google has overstayed the web's welcome. What started out as a quirky, innovative company that bucked all of the suit-and-tie trends (see Microsoft, HP, even Apple in some regards) of Silicon Valley, has now turned into a monstrous calamity with no regard for its users. Up until 2009, it was breezy and beautiful, but right now, at this moment, it's a different story altogether. Don't be evil? Pfeh. The only thing lef…

What I specially hate about Google+ is the fact that Google can't stop spamming me to join it. Now even Google Play comments need to be part of Google+. You know what, Google? Fuck you. No. Fuck you twice. I won't join that fucking horrid place. I don't even have Facebook, why would I join a crappy social network?

You know, I don't really like Google+ but I have had no difficulty in opting out of it and declining to share things like my YouTube favorites and so forth (with a few exceptions that were wholly by choice). I'm not happy with their social strategy in general, but I don't feel it's anything like as burdensome on the user as Facebook's, which caused me to stop using that service altogether.

Re: You know, Google, the web already had this feature

#57

Post by lawdawg »

Steko wrote: post #25
yanw wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No one is forcing him or you to use any of these things. It's just another Google Reader lament.

It's the latest in a string of moves that show a clear shift at Google away from supporting the open web. Thank god for Mozilla.

And Mozilla thanks Google for it's continued existence. Funny how it all works out in the end.

Re: You know, Google, the web already had this feature

#58

Post by ianstormtaylor »

DanBC wrote: post #42
kunai wrote: post #2

Google has overstayed the web's welcome. What started out as a quirky, innovative company that bucked all of the suit-and-tie trends (see Microsoft, HP, even Apple in some regards) of Silicon Valley, has now turned into a monstrous calamity with no regard for its users. Up until 2009, it was breezy and beautiful, but right now, at this moment, it's a different story altogether. Don't be evil? Pfeh. The only thing lef…

What do they need to do to fix YouTube? (I'm really asking. I think some of it is broken, and maybe people can pass information onto YouTube people.) 1) Default to 240: I want to be able to always watch videos in the worst resolution possible. I want the lightest bandwidth possible. I'd sometimes be happy with just the audio. It seems that I can't default to 240, no matter what I click. 2) Small elements in UI: There…

Personally I'd hate a default to 240 feature. I don't care about bandwidth, I'm tired of clicking the HQ button.

Re: You know, Google, the web already had this feature

#59

Post by ANTSANTS »

DanBC wrote: post #42
kunai wrote: post #2

Google has overstayed the web's welcome. What started out as a quirky, innovative company that bucked all of the suit-and-tie trends (see Microsoft, HP, even Apple in some regards) of Silicon Valley, has now turned into a monstrous calamity with no regard for its users. Up until 2009, it was breezy and beautiful, but right now, at this moment, it's a different story altogether. Don't be evil? Pfeh. The only thing lef…

What do they need to do to fix YouTube? (I'm really asking. I think some of it is broken, and maybe people can pass information onto YouTube people.) 1) Default to 240: I want to be able to always watch videos in the worst resolution possible. I want the lightest bandwidth possible. I'd sometimes be happy with just the audio. It seems that I can't default to 240, no matter what I click. 2) Small elements in UI: There…

1. There are numerous userscripts that let you select a default video quality. I use YousableTubeFix, which also adds video download links and a number of fine-grained interface tweaks (heck, you can even remove the comment section completely, mooting point 4!)

3. Agreed.

4. The anarchy of the comment sections are part of the fun of Youtube to me. I rarely read even a page of comments, but the top voted ones manage to make me chuckle surprisingly often. Filtering worthless comments like "FIRST" could improve things a bit, but then you're on the slippery slope towards Google's definition of worthless not matching your own. I don't mind a cesspool with a few hidden gems, because I never even see the cesspool in the first place.

The only thing that really bugs me about Youtube is Google trying to integrate Google+ and real names with it. The parts of Youtube I'm interested in are anonymous or pseudonymous and filled with (not necessarily "bad") stuff that people don't want tied to their real name. Stop bugging us to attach our real names to everything, Google, you're missing the appeal of your own service.

Re: You know, Google, the web already had this feature

#60

Post by panacea »

doktrin wrote: post #44
DanBC wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do they need to do to fix YouTube? (I'm really asking. I think some of it is broken, and maybe people can pass information onto YouTube people.) 1) Default to 240: I want to be able to always watch videos in the worst resolution possible. I want the lightest bandwidth possible. I'd sometimes be happy with just the audio. It seems that I can't default to 240, no matter what I click. 2) Small elements in UI: There…

> Google and YouTube are full of smart people. Some kind of "poor comment quality" filter should be easy to implement. This touches on something I actually feel deserves a second look, if only from an academic or sociological perspective. I have never quite understood why Youtube appears to be the single largest (or, at least most prominent) internet cesspool. Comments there are routinely among the most vile I've see…

Pretty much everyone who uses the internet, uses YouTube. But the ones who comment on YouTube represent the race to the bottom in terms of quality. The vast majority of internet users watch YouTube videos, but only the vile juvenile trolls and assholes bother to comment.

Install this and your experience will improve: http://www.tannr.com/herp-derp-youtube-comments/

Post reply on HN