221–230 of 299 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I personally love it when my search results just give me the answer I'm looking for This is one of the things I love about google as a user. Googling "what is my ip" or "how many inches in a meter" used to require you to visit some random website filled to the brim with ads.
> what is my ip alias my-ip='dig +short myip.opendns.com @resolver1.opendns.com'
Earlier quoted context omitted.
At this point, I basically have to append "reddit" to every search if I want to get quality answers.
That's exactly what I've been doing almost unconsciously, I'm adding "wiki" or "reddit" at the end of every query except for programming ones. The only time I'm using the search as intended is for programming error queries where it's way too niche for Google to append low quality news farms / ecommerce websites. That's the only type of query I still get good results.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Chrome has had custom search engine keywords since day one (yes, I actually went to locate a day-one article on this feature[1]). Not sure why every time this topic comes up someone has to mention it as if it’s some sort of Firefox secret sauce, complete with weird replies like if you are “stuck on Chromium” you can emulate this with a pointless round trip to DuckDuckGo. [1] https://searchengineland.com/searching-wit…
> Not sure why every time this topic comes up someone has to mention it as if it’s some sort of Firefox secret sauce If you're not sure I can clarify that for you. I was responding to someone talknig about ddg, and I was showing a better way of doing it. I didn't know that it's possible with Chrome because I don't use it.
The most-used is probably !g, which sends your query to google. For wikipedia, it's !w.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wikipedia's editing software also makes editing very difficult.
Do you refer to the markup jungle, or the VisualEditor? Because from the outside, the new editor looks fantastic, and honestly makes me want to self-host MediaWiki again.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was going to be even more cynical and say that 3 million sounds absolutely pathetic relative to the scale of both entities, and given how important it is to the quality of Google’s search results.
I would be even more cynical and say that $3 million is more than enough to cover all of Wikipedia's expenses and that the rest is bureaucratic fluff. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3112115
The reports are available here [2]. Looking at the most recent report here for FY18-19, the amount spent on hosting is $2.3 million. That's less than half of the "donation processing expenses"!
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14287235
[2] https://wikimediafoundation.org/about/financial-reports/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wikipedia does not need any donations. If they Wikimedia Foundation puts its cash reserves into safe low yield investments, it’ll be able to run Wikipedia for decades. Of course, it won’t pay for salaries of the current WMF employees, but Wikipedia does only need a few of them.
I have to object to this. Wikimedia as of their audited 2019 financial statements ( https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/3/31/Wikim... ) already has ~$53m in short term investments, leaving ~$101m in "cash and cash equivalents", which notably often includes Treasury bonds, CDs, etc, anyways. So they are likely already investing all of their cash into safe, low-yield investments already. Even if they were…
[0] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/3/31/Wikim...
1. https://searchengineland.com/response-eu-antitrust-ruling-go...
> ...zero-click results have cost Wikipedia’s English language subdomain tens of millions of organic visits. > ...Google was able to steal over 550 million clicks from Wikipedia in six months... "Cost"? "Steal"?! This would make sense if Wikipedia were ad-supported. But Google saves Wikipedia money by requiring less servers to support traffic. And Wikipedia is open content , you literally can't steal from it -- being…
Reducing traffic to Wikipedia reduces donations, contributions, brand awareness. Grabbing Wikipedia's added value is like stealing candies from a child.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> filled to the brim with ads You let yourself see ads on the web?
Its funny to note that many people here complain about Google preventing page views, but have no restraint in doing the same by blocking ads. Pot meet kettle...