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

A search engine that favors text-heavy sites and punishes modern web design

search.marginalia.nu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 735 posts

Re: A search engine that favors text-heavy sites and punishes modern web design

#101

Post by trutannus »

giancarlostoro wrote: post #79
trutannus wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> well we know Google isn't for search anymore Do you suggest anything better? As far as I can tell, all the other search engines are either repackaged Bing (ie: DuckDuck), or are just as bad.

Not sure, but I remember when Google could find literally anything. Then they started adding a bunch of exceptions and crapped out their quality. I wonder how insanely different results would be to get the older Google Engine from the 2000s search result wise. I now have to play games with Google to find things. I feel like I do less than I used to for some reason.

You're absolutely correct, and a lot came from their nerfing of search modifiers like + - "search term" and whatnot. There's also a lot of ads and "PSA" type nonsense. If I'm looking for anything COVID related for example, I have to sift through a heap of PSA nonsense that's not even related to my search query.

Re: A search engine that favors text-heavy sites and punishes modern web design

#102

Post by b112 »

mhh__ wrote: post #90
mda wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IMHO, that is a trendy claim in HN with little evidence.

You're downvoted but in my experience I have never really been burned by this Google-decline

You are a lobster. (or frog, depending upon parable)

Re: A search engine that favors text-heavy sites and punishes modern web design

#103

Post by marginalia_nu »

yakubin wrote: post #88

Wikpedia links point to https://encyclopedia.marginalia.nu/ > instead, which to my eyes is less readable. The justified text, done with CSS, instead of the LaTeX algorithm, looks wild. The font used for quotations is even worse (very thin). Wikipedia is perfectly usable without JavaScript and it's one of the nicest sites out there typography-wise, so I'd reconsider this redirection.

I guess it's a matter of taste. I can barely read anything on regular wikipedia because the inline links disrupt my flow.

Re: A search engine that favors text-heavy sites and punishes modern web design

#106

Post by blowski »

giancarlostoro wrote: post #79
trutannus wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> well we know Google isn't for search anymore Do you suggest anything better? As far as I can tell, all the other search engines are either repackaged Bing (ie: DuckDuck), or are just as bad.

Not sure, but I remember when Google could find literally anything. Then they started adding a bunch of exceptions and crapped out their quality. I wonder how insanely different results would be to get the older Google Engine from the 2000s search result wise. I now have to play games with Google to find things. I feel like I do less than I used to for some reason.

Wacky idea: instead of Google changing it's algorithm every couple of years, it could run 50 algorithms in parallel leaving no way for sites to "optimise" for the current one.

Re: A search engine that favors text-heavy sites and punishes modern web design

#107

Post by FractalHQ »

Ok this is great if all I want to do is read text, but often times that is very much not all I want to do. The web is much more than text and images these days. I can appreciate this as long as it’s branded as a search engine for blogs and articles specifically, as opposed to being touted as a drop-in replacement for the modern search engine.

Re: A search engine that favors text-heavy sites and punishes modern web design

#108

Post by xipho »

mountain_peak wrote: post #78
xipho wrote: post #50

Fascinating. I studied an "obscure" group of insects. My go-to search term to test an engine is their family name as it is a rarely used word and I know most (all?) of the major data sources that have accumulated data on it. When Wolfram Alpha added species names, I checked with the name, boring, Duck Duck, boring, Google (well we know Google isn't for search anymore, it's absolutely horrible) boring, Bing, boring...…

Likewise, I co-maintain the only "fan" site on one of my all-time favourite composers/performers, and gave the engine a shot with a unique string query. While my text-heavy WP-driven site didn't seem to make the cut, the results were highly relevant in that they were links to former band members and collaborators - a couple of which I didn't realize existed. That being said, there were a few sites (including my own)…

Exactly this. A couple results returned reference to obscure now-defunct newsletters and clubs, people that I know were historically important for past researchers, but only because this was my research forcus for so long would I have known this.

Re: A search engine that favors text-heavy sites and punishes modern web design

#109

Post by Spivak »

mda wrote: post #81
trutannus wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> well we know Google isn't for search anymore Do you suggest anything better? As far as I can tell, all the other search engines are either repackaged Bing (ie: DuckDuck), or are just as bad.

IMHO, that is a trendy claim in HN with little evidence.

Google Search is a fantastic product because it's essentially Spotlight for the web. It's by far the fastest way to get to things you already vaguely know are there and acts as a metasearch for large sites.

But as a result it's now less useful as a tool for scouring the web.

Re: A search engine that favors text-heavy sites and punishes modern web design

#110

Post by leephillips »

This is wonderful and stupendous.

I’ve often thought that Google could be turned back into a good search engine by simply eliminating the crap and letting the useful sites float to the top of the results.

marginalia.nu seems to like my sites, so it must be good!

Some results are prefixed with ! or an arrow dingbat. What does that mean?

Post reply on HN