141–150 of 207 posts
Does filetype: still work? I'm getting zero hits for example filetype:epub
It still work but some file type never return anything, I have the same problem with epub, pretty sure it's some google's shenanigan about books piracy. https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/35287?hl=en
Back when I was a teenager,I had a book titled "hacking with Google" by Johny long that was basically all specific searching tips and terms (oriented to find open vulnerabilities and the like, but still very useful in general despite the tacky name). I wonder how much of it is still valid after all this time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am skeptical that quotes really work like the plus operator used to work. For example, try searching the following string in quotes: "the SERP should stay the same". https://www.google.com/search?q=%22the%20SERP%20should%20sta... Now, the logical presumption, assuming Google works as people say it does, is that each result will contain that exact string. If no results contain the string, then you should receive no…
When I run that query, it returns `No results found for "the SERP should stay the same".` Then defaults to providing the SERP for the fallback query: `Results for the SERP should stay the same (without quotes):` That SERP should change when this HN thread is indexed though
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, this has been the case for a long time, years anyway. I don't know if it goes back quite as far as when they removed the '+' operator tho. But bejesus, this drives me nuts! If I know the double quotes function even exists, then Google should know I actually want to use it as intended - it shouldn't decide "yeah, but maybe you'd like these irrelevant results too!"
I think it’s primarily for people copying and pasting something like an error message, which may have user-specific data in quotes. That should be what “not many results for...” is for, but Google is always trying to optimize away those clicks. Maybe they could add a “programatic” search feature with documented syntax for power users.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Whoever the first developer was that used "deprecated" got it kind of wrong, the word should have been "depreciated". Deprecate: "express disapproval of." Depreciate: "diminish in value over a period of time." I kind of cringe when other developers say "deprecated". Edit: Versioning and not removing APIs is kind of the way to go, so you don't break client apps that possibly can't be updated easily or at all. "Depreci…
Isn't deprecated actually correct here? It means the feature still works, but will be removed in the future or is no longer supported. There also be may a new implementation of it that the developer would like you to use, hence the warning that it's deprecated. Depreciation implies a rate of change over time, which isn't the case. Today we deprecate feature X, and in two years we plan remove it. It never depreciates.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Whoever the first developer was that used "deprecated" got it kind of wrong, the word should have been "depreciated". Deprecate: "express disapproval of." Depreciate: "diminish in value over a period of time." I kind of cringe when other developers say "deprecated". Edit: Versioning and not removing APIs is kind of the way to go, so you don't break client apps that possibly can't be updated easily or at all. "Depreci…
Feels like I often see it used to retire APIs that are now understood to be unsafe, insecure, or otherwise a bad practice for some reason. It gets replaced with an API that does not inherently have that problem, and the old one is in deprecated. it feels like "expressing disapproval of" is the right definition in that case. It's only there for a migration period to happen more gracefully, but its continued use is fro…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, nope yourself. It seems like a lot of people aren't really thinking this through very much. And that is absolutely the wrong way to approach API development. An API that is being sun-setted should never be removed, because older clients could still use it but sometimes can't be upgraded to newer clients. Removing a v1 API breaks those clients and it's a shitty thing to do to users. Yeah, people should be buildi…
OK, I understand you have an opinion that API design should be done in a certain way (by the way, by "API" I meant like method signatures, not network API, but it could be either). And I understand you disapprove of the word "deprecated" being used to refer to API that is discouraged, usually because it will be no longer supported/going away in the future. But that doesn't change the history of the word. The word "de…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That might make an interesting blog post
I'm still mid-setting up a blog, but I'll keep that in mind once I've got it up and running. I'm afraid it probably wouldn't be that interesting to HN'ers though, because this is where I found most of them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Removing APIs is not a great practice though. Look at AWS, they version their APIs, they don't just remove them, and removing them should be unnecessary if your underlying tech isn't brittle and badly written. "Depreciated" is a far better term to use, with a far better outcome in my opinion. Companies that remove old versions of APIs and break existing client apps (that possibly can't be udpated) really suck.
1) Whether you agree with the practice doesn't affect the terminology used. People remove APIs. Before doing that, they deprecate them for a period to advise people to move off of them. 2) If you were to always maintain backward compatibility, how is "depreciated" in any way an accurate term? If the old API continues to work indefinitely, its value stays the same.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ever spent three minutes opening useless links from Google's Search results, only to realize they dropped the keyword you searched? That seems quite common now, especially with programming keywords, which are often obscure. Remember Google Code Search, and Google (Usenet) Groups? Back then, Google cared about this stuff. Now they seem only to want to show you furniture ads, or get you to use their Zoom knockoff, etc.…
This is also very common with DDG. And the strange thing is that many times, DDG will even ignore if you are using parenthesis. The parenthesis seem to add weight but I will still get tons of results that don't contain the required words at all.