Sorry to simplify, but I remember when Google enabled,
I tried to use Google to autocomplete your sentence but all I got was a link to this discussion.
Google Drops Discussions Search Filter and Others
71–80 of 86 posts
Re: Google Drops Discussions Search Filter and Others
#72Maybe this is a good spot to mention how much the updated Google Maps also suck. Pretty though.
the New android Map app is a terrible piece of crap too
it's a damn shame that the new phones ship with the new version stock & you have to root to permanently uninstall it.
Re: Google Drops Discussions Search Filter and Others
#73Everyone is dissing Google here. Perhaps understandably so since most folks in HN are advanced users and an advanced search feature was removed. Google is driven by data and sorry but advanced users are a mere blip in that data. I can bet there was a gazilion user studies that showed that your grandma was super confused when 10 options would pop up when she pressed 'More'. The same studies showed that she was much le…
I don't get your point. Is it that people should not complain about Google removing a feature they like, because you have presented a guess as to why they removed it? (FWIW - I agree with you that it was not maliciously removed) Personally I like it when users complain loudly about decisions that impact them. The idea of negative publicity might deter such actions in the future (in theory anyway).
The point is in the third paragraph. A lot of comments here conclude that the motives for doing this are sinister. One person even thinks it was removed because it would make users spend hours reading discussions when that time should really be spent shopping.
People should absolutely complain when a change impacts them negatively. People should also keep in mind that with a user base the size of Google's, every change is going to upset someone.
Re: Google Drops Discussions Search Filter and Others
#74Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't get your point. Is it that people should not complain about Google removing a feature they like, because you have presented a guess as to why they removed it? (FWIW - I agree with you that it was not maliciously removed) Personally I like it when users complain loudly about decisions that impact them. The idea of negative publicity might deter such actions in the future (in theory anyway).
The point is in the third paragraph. A lot of comments here conclude that the motives for doing this are sinister. One person even thinks it was removed because it would make users spend hours reading discussions when that time should really be spent shopping. People should absolutely complain when a change impacts them negatively. People should also keep in mind that with a user base the size of Google's, every chan…
>People should absolutely complain when a change impacts them negatively. People should also keep in mind that with a user base the size of Google's, every change is going to upset someone.
We're in violent agreement !
Re: Google Drops Discussions Search Filter and Others
#75This is the final nail in the coffin of DejaNews. Just another step in Google's continuing mission to make their Search product worse & worse. It's baffling.
This. DejaNews was the absolute best source of technical information from the USENET archives, with posts back to the 1980s. By 2001 Google had everything under control: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!search/USENET$20archives Then Google lost it. The addition of "Google Groups" resulted in tons of SPAM and almost nothing of use. Now, because their own baby is so ugly, Google decided to kill all their adopted child…
I like USENET too. Information should be organized in that way. It was just too old. If we put the search engine of top of that with a nice graphical UI, that'll be a lot more help.
This is what I'm always thinking about since 1997. Now I got the chance to put together something for people's daily life, but not perfect. It's in early beta now. http://kck.st/JNqv8z
Re: Google Drops Discussions Search Filter and Others
#76You still can, just not as obviously: https://www.google.com/?tbm=dsc
Thank you, it works. After some googling, it seems the following are supported [1]: Applications : tbm=app Blogs* : tbm=blg Books : tbm=bks Discussions* : tbm=dsc Images : tbm=isch News : tbm=nws Patents : tbm=pts Places* : tbm=plcs Recipes* : tbm=rcp Shopping* : tbm=shop Video : tbm=vid * those not available via normal search page (from my location at least). [1] http://stenevang.wordpress.com/2013/02/22/google-sear…
Does anyone know what 'tbm' stands for?
Re: Google Drops Discussions Search Filter and Others
#77Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can't really trust bookmarks either. Most of my bookmarks are dead either because the site is now gone or because some blog author decided to change their path format and didn't bother setup 301 redirects.
For keeping local copies, https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/mozilla-archi... is a good add-on that improves Firefox's save functionality. I use it very frequently: ctrl-s, Enter, and I get an .mht of the page I'm reading. For remote copies, https://archive.org/ can be instructed to keep a copy of a page, e.g. https://web.archive.org/web/*/http://news.ycombinator.com/ to check for copies https://web.archi…
Thank you for your information. I'm looking for tools to save my useful information like other people do. I have two problems with this type of archival tool besides the robots.txt issue:
1. The static snapshot can only give us an idea of what it looked like because it's not functioning, not updating. Better than nothing, but we may have no clue what we want to find other than a few keywords. If you need to search the entire context of the archival, everybody needs to install a mini search engine.
2. If it becomes popular like Google, so many people are going to use it, it will create so much data duplication on everybody's pc, which is helpful but not an efficient solution.
Do you like to have a self-organized personal private web on top of the public web via a few clicks? http://bit.ly/1c2DzN6
Re: Google Drops Discussions Search Filter and Others
#78Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can't really trust bookmarks either. Most of my bookmarks are dead either because the site is now gone or because some blog author decided to change their path format and didn't bother setup 301 redirects.
I started saving/clipping entire articles for this purpose. Evernote has a 'clipper' functionality which works fairly well, or you can print to PDF.
I tried Evernote. I can archive information pages into notebooks as groups and find by tags. But it cannot save dynamic product/service information with updates, and it's not self-organized. So like other online bookmarks, it's not popularly used.
Re: Google Drops Discussions Search Filter and Others
#79Earlier quoted context omitted.
That is quite interesting. Any idea why?
Several reasons. There is a seemingly unlimited variation of each basic recipe name (often the same exact recipe named multiple ways; or slightly different recipes named the same). There are thousands of recipe sites and blogs, and ten million unique recipes. The popularity of recipes and recipe sites can change rapidly, and often does; due to seasonality, food trends, seo, competition - so that recipe you found at r…
Are you sure it's because of the website change instead of the search engine dynamics? The search engine results are not organized, therefore it's unpredictable where a particular results may show up. If the website changes it's keyword combination in tags on the page, it may also disappear from our search results using the same keywords as before.
So we should save it in categories instead of using keywords only. Try the following link and search for "recipe" than click "more similar links..." may give you some idea of how to save an organize your useful information into your private web. (This site is in early beta, there are not much data available yet.)
Re: Google Drops Discussions Search Filter and Others
#80I also notice that depending on your search terms it now changes the order of the menu items; I was very surprised a few day ago when I noticed that Images wasn't the second list option on the screen. To test this seach for "images" or "videos" on google. It will change the list order. This is extremely irritating as it tries to guess whether you're trying to search for a certain type of of thing (text/images/vid/new…
Agree. We need the consistency, at least in a certain period of time. Whenever the search results changes, we are lost unless we choose to do the filtering. But the group of filtering does not quite make sense for everybody.
Google tried to be more intelligent on search, but it's not the right way. Let people keep their useful information of their own should be the right direction. See the video here: http://bit.ly/1hJKNux