181–190 of 502 posts
It is wholly unsurprising that a website that seems to exist solely to fuck up search results (Pinterest) is at the top of the block list. The existence of it is genuinely mind boggling in a way that’s similar to face tattoos or Toddlers and Tiaras. Why would anyone want that to exist? At all? What is wrong with humanity?
I would love to see a history and expose of Pinterest.
The single biggest deficiency of Kagi is Apple’s exclusive control over the list of selectable default search providers in iOS Safari. It is infuriating and is the one thing that has caused me to seriously try other browsers on mobile. The problem is, they are all terrible in some small paper cutting ways (including Orion, though that has been rapidly improving).
Seems like a deficiency of Apple products to me. I know it's beating a dead horse, but this is what happens when people willingly buy into a closed system they have no control over.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Pinterest is a successful product that provides value to its users (I'm not the target market and I guess most of us aren't either, but there is a segment of people that do get value out of it). I don't believe they have any malicious intent to explicitly go out of their way to ruin image search. I'm sure they don't mind the free SEO but I don't believe there is an explicit effort to mislead search engine crawlers (e…
> I don't believe they have any malicious intent to explicitly go out of their way to ruin image search… And > The problem is that their pages exploit a flaw in Google's crawler… Don’t seem to be statements that really make any consistent sense. It’s like if you ordered soup and instead got a bowl of human shit, a thousand times, and then felt compelled to explain that nobody wants you to eat shit, it’s just that bow…
As far as I know there is no "right" way to design a JS SPA overlay/loginwall in a way that search engines ignore it - it's not like Pinterest is intentionally ignoring a spec or designing a page that misleads search engine crawlers (other engines seem to handle Pinterest just fine). Outright denying access to search engines could be wrong because logged-in Pinterest users may actually want those results, so that's not a good solution either.
The fault is ultimately on Google for ignoring this high-profile issue for such a long time because it contributes to their bottom-line, even though a very simple, low-tech fix (easier than making the crawler recognize such loginwalls reliably) could be to just allow users to make their own decision as to whether to block the domain, like Kagi has done.
This feature is Kagi's single best innovation in search. It's what makes their results so much better than Google's: where Google's results are usually drowning in garbage websites, Kagi comes built-in with a great set of spam filters, and on top of that you can adapt your own personal list of good and bad domains as you go!
Interesting that nytimes.com is on both the 'block' and 'raise' lists.
I've never quite understood the w3schools hate. It can be quite useful. My most used page is this one when I need to jog my memory: https://www.w3schools.com/cssref/css_selectors.php It's much better than this one: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/CSS/CSS_selecto... Or any of the other results on the first page
I wish I hadn't. There were many innacuracies, outdated advice, and over simplifications.
I came up on a slew of weird and inconsistent sources, and that bit me when discussing things in college. I often felt over confident because of these type of sites.
W3schools (used to at least) gave a very shallow intro to programming languages (PHP, ASP, etc), and I remember a professor basically laughing at me once because of that misinformation.
So, maybe others had experiences like mine.
EDIT
They also had these weird "certifications" for technologies that were basically really dumbed down quizzes. They were made to make people feel special, I think. Dunno, I did them all, and I almost got laughed out of class.
Pinterest was certainly the first site I blocked. I've never understood the hate for w3schools. No, it's not MDN, but it's not offensively bad either, and it's been a helpful reference from time to time. If w3schools comes up first in a search, I trust that it probably has the answer to whatever very simple question I must have asked, unlike something like Pinterest, which will just be spam no matter what.
They provide real examples for real-world uses right on the page.
I've never quite understood the w3schools hate. It can be quite useful. My most used page is this one when I need to jog my memory: https://www.w3schools.com/cssref/css_selectors.php It's much better than this one: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/CSS/CSS_selecto... Or any of the other results on the first page
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I don't believe they have any malicious intent to explicitly go out of their way to ruin image search… And > The problem is that their pages exploit a flaw in Google's crawler… Don’t seem to be statements that really make any consistent sense. It’s like if you ordered soup and instead got a bowl of human shit, a thousand times, and then felt compelled to explain that nobody wants you to eat shit, it’s just that bow…
Pages are primarily written for display & human consumption. Whatever was left of the "semantic HTML" went out the window when everyone switched to the JS SPA fad. As far as I know there is no "right" way to design a JS SPA overlay/loginwall in a way that search engines ignore it - it's not like Pinterest is intentionally ignoring a spec or designing a page that misleads search engine crawlers (other engines seem to…
And
> The problem is that their pages exploit a flaw in Google's crawler…
I apparently misunderstood your phrasing of “exploit” to mean something intentional. You submit that Pinterest is unintentionally exploiting a flaw in a way that both drives traffic to them and ruins search.
I suppose in my shit soup analogy, the thing you’d explain is that there’s shit in the bowl because the laws of physics coincidentally allow shit to rest in a bowl.