251–260 of 299 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How? Edit: thanks. I see Google makes it really hard to opt out of featured snippet while retaining regular search result snippet support.
Interesting username given the question.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Interesting username given the question.
Why don't you try being a little kinder, especially when you don't have all the facts? It's not as though web design like knowledge of meta tags and robots.txt is the sum total of everything to know about computers. Maybe they've built their own 8-bitter, or are a motherboard PCB designer? I'd argue that'd put them firmly in the 'computer guru' class. But we don't know, so it's probably better to say nothing at all.
I messaged the HN mods many years ago (either pg or dang, can't remember) when things had changed and I had decided to just use my real name online but was told that it would not be possible to change it for posterity purposes.
Only tangentially relevant, but a keyworded bookmark in Firefox is very useful way to get to wikipedia. If you create a bookmark like this: name: wp location: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%s tags: keyword: wp then typing 'wp foo' in the url bar will take you straight to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/foo .
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Couldn't it be said Wikipedia is basically complete? Which would explain the declining number of edits
A comprehensive encyclopedia is never complete.
At some point in an encyclopedia's lifetime, it's "complete enough" that you'll see an excess of authors. "Compiling the world's information" and, past that, "compiling current events as they happen" (with a side of "occasionally improving/updating old articles") need very different numbers of authors.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As the article points out, the problem isn't specifically that this harms Wikipedia, it's that this practice harms pretty much every for profit business that Google does this to. Pretty much every company in an established space that Google has entered, is losing traffic and thus revenue due to this practice: Yelp, any flight/hotel/tourism based company, video hosting sites, weather data sites, the list goes on and o…
Google has also been pushing sites that do on-page SEO right heavily in the SERPs. Which basically means that SERPs are now filled with copycat content that reads like crap but has all the right headings and keyword densities. The search experience is genuinely bad now. Nothing organic shows up anymore. It's either heavily optimized cookie cutter content, or some big brand name cutting through the clutter on the stre…
I do the same thing. I want real people's experiences and honest opinions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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...
These are not comparable practices. Google is a search monopoly. Republishing search results to keep users on Google (rather than the publisher) is literally stealing content and the pageviews the content generated. As a user, blocking programmatic ads (such as those served by ad marketplaces) is the only way to browse the web safely. Websites are free to use affiliate links, subscriptions, donations, non-marketplace…
> ...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…
As the article points out, the problem isn't specifically that this harms Wikipedia, it's that this practice harms pretty much every for profit business that Google does this to. Pretty much every company in an established space that Google has entered, is losing traffic and thus revenue due to this practice: Yelp, any flight/hotel/tourism based company, video hosting sites, weather data sites, the list goes on and o…
Alternate headline: "Google Saves Millions of Hours of Time by Providing Answers Directly" Is this a valid analogy?: Imagine you had a brilliant friend who read all the books in a library and answered any question you asked her. Would you say this friend is stealing profit from book publishers?
This impoverishes the rest of the internet and redistributes money from a diverse field of competitors to a single quasi-monopolistic company. Which is bad for the internet as an ecosystem long term.
Countries like France and the European Union with the copyright directive last year luckily strengthened the property rights of news organisations and Google had to strip snippets out of their results or strike a revenue-sharing agreement with the companies in question.
It is utterly absurd to me that a search engine is supposed to be able to capitalise on the original content of others for free.In fair use doctrine, it is generally considered that a service crosses the line between fair use and piracy if it functions as a substitute. This is exactly what Google is doing.
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'
$ curl icanhazip.com