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

“Pinterest needs to be removed from Google IMO”

reddit.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 278 posts

Re: “Pinterest needs to be removed from Google IMO”

#171

Post by admax88q »

tambourine_man wrote: post #143
vilius wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh and w3schools.com needs to go below MDN because it's less informative. Even today I wanted to read about transform-origin and landed on w3schools [0], where MDN article [1] is clearly superior. [0] https://www.w3schools.com/cssref/css3_pr_transform-origin.as... [1] https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/CSS/transform-o...

I know it’s not a popular opinion, but I actually like W3schools. Most of their infamous errors are gone and they are usually more “to the point” than Mozilla docs, which are a sometimes too prolific and not as clear.

All my web platforms searches are now "mdn " cause w3schools is never informative enough for me.

Re: “Pinterest needs to be removed from Google IMO”

#173

Post by ckocagil »

paradroid wrote: post #146

LinkedIn requires logging in because the Supreme Court rules they couldn't really stop us from scraping public profiles. Forcing us to login makes it easier for them to control who has access to what content.

This makes no sense to me. Anyone willing to scrape a profile will create dummy accounts to do so. And even if this step somehow prevented data scraping, the network effect will make it extremely hard to compete with LinkedIn.

Re: “Pinterest needs to be removed from Google IMO”

#175

Post by hungerstrike »

I hate this business model of using your audience to steal other sites content. Why doesn't Google link directly to the source of the content instead of Pinterest anyway? Maybe they don't care; they did invent AMP, which has some parallels with the way Pinterest works.

Anyway, when I started using DuckDuckGo on my phone to get away from AMP - I noticed that whenever I search for recipes on DuckDuckGo - they generally link to a site called Yummly which is even worse than Pinterest. Please complain to DDG about this if you care!

And speaking of searching on my phone, Apple won't even let me change the search engine string to use "encrypted.google.com" which would have gotten me Google results without the awful AMP links.

My point in rambling on about all these different topics is that none of these asshole corporations seem to want to let me have control over anything. I don't want to live like this. Generally, when I get annoyed, I just stop playing their game. At this point I have stopped watching TV and I have left Facebook, Twitter and Reddit and I hope that you do too.

Re: “Pinterest needs to be removed from Google IMO”

#176

Post by jjeaff »

adventured wrote: post #145
m-p-3 wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quora is shit anyway, StackOverflow&Co is the superior platform.

I agree generally speaking. Quora has raised $452 million in venture capital. It's incredible frankly. There's no actual sound business model there and never has been (which is why eight years later they still don't have a functioning business and are living on VC, while being subsidized by Google abusing its own search policies).

No sound business model? Quora has a sound business model. The same model as many VC backed SV companies.

No, it's not to simply sell ads. You build something slick and shiny, then you pump VC money into it and you keep hyping (otherwise known as "pumping") until you can get numbers that look good. You can just spend that sweet, easy VC money to buy users and spend a dollar to make 10 cents because of that "growth" you are buying.

Then, when those numbers you are buying (and also all those fake accounts you are ignoring) start looking really good, you go public, the VCs make out like bandits and all those institutional and private suckers buy those bloated shares, trade places with the VCs and slowly ride the shares back down to zero where they belong.

Re: “Pinterest needs to be removed from Google IMO”

#177

Post by mirimir »

vbezhenar wrote: post #117
delinka wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"...search on that site directly." Not for an unbelievable number of people (according to my own anecdata.) There exist large numbers (extrapolating from aforementioned anecdata) of people who don't know you can just visit a website - they think it must first be "googled." I've witnessed on a single occasion an individual who accidentally went directly to facebook.com, didn't trust that they'd gotten facebook.com, pr…

It might be a good habit. If you're typing URL manually, you can visit some fakebook instead of facebook and lose your password. But Google will correct you in this case.

Maybe. But it also happens the other way. If you don't block ads, anyway. The top result may give you malware, instead of what you want.

Re: “Pinterest needs to be removed from Google IMO”

#179

Post by WheelsAtLarge »

I say don't get rid of it but give me the option to remove it from my search. There's a bunch of sites I would rather not see in my search all the time. Yes, I know I can do a custom search but I'd be happy to have a "not see x domain in my search" option. If I remember right there were other search engines in the past that had the option.

Come on Google give me the option.

Re: “Pinterest needs to be removed from Google IMO”

#180

Post by megous »

delinka wrote: post #57
xg15 wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What then? The people that do search for Pinterest will find it missing, and likely assume Google screwed up/their search engine is broken. Would that be a problem for Google (or anyone else)? If a group of users specifically expects the results to come from Pinterest, they'd presumably be able to search on that site directly. For other searches, they'd presumably still use Google because there is no good alternati…

"...search on that site directly." Not for an unbelievable number of people (according to my own anecdata.) There exist large numbers (extrapolating from aforementioned anecdata) of people who don't know you can just visit a website - they think it must first be "googled." I've witnessed on a single occasion an individual who accidentally went directly to facebook.com, didn't trust that they'd gotten facebook.com, pr…

So it would be a good opportunity to learn the web, for those people.
Post reply on HN