Why has examine.com disappeared from search results?

> in this case, some better sites resemble spam enough that they were also hit. a basic false positive, collateral damage.

I believe that as well, though not necessarily because of "spam", but because of the topic. I was just trying to explain how people might think that Google doesn't manually curate their results.

I also found the NIH's 'medlineplus' on page 4. It is certainly authoritative. So, in a way, that's a compliment.

But apparently 'authoritative' is not the only significant factor at Bing. Yes, I found 'nutrition.gov' and 'fda.gov' on page 1, as well as 'wikipedia.org' and 'supplementwarehouse.com'.

I suppose that 'authoritative' ought to be a primary factor in a search algorithm. But then, I think 'accurate' ought to be a primary factor in 'translation'.

It's no surprise to me that machines are no better at distinguishing science-based authority than they are at translation. You have to consider the culture the machines have grown up in.

How is the nationality of the lecturer (w/ a diploma) a relevant fact? Why the "... ok" reaction? Was is more credible if the lecturer was based in SF ? Is medicine different if you're not from SF ? Are you automatically bad at everything you do if not from SF? As for the "invented by NASA", i do think they were referring to this:

In 1974, the World Health Organization described spirulina as "an interesting food or super food" for multiple reasons, rich in iron and protein, and is able to be administered to children without any risk," considering it "a very suitable food."[52] The United Nations established the Intergovernmental Institution for the use of Micro-algae Spirulina Against Malnutrition in 2003.[53]

In the late 1980s and early 90s, both NASA (CELSS)[54] and the European Space Agency (MELiSSA)[55] proposed spirulina as one of the primary foods to be cultivated during long-term space missions. ( source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spirulina_(dietary_supplemen... )

But both sides are making assertions. The appreciators of Examine and other resources, are not the only people making assertions.

And the assertion that Examine isn't the best- the skeptics position- should be far easier to prove.

For some reason, that one guy will go to great lengths to make the general case for skepticism, when the specific case for skepticism- that there are sufficient websites objectively better than Examine such that Examine shouldn't be ranked near the top- should in theory be much easier to establish.

But he avoids that at every turn.

"In criminal cases, the burden is on the prosecution to establish their case beyond all reasonable doubt. The defence does not have to prove innocence; it merely has to establish there is insufficient evidence for a guilty verdict."

Lol. As though the defense never provides evidence boosting their client. But thanks for telling me what anybody could ever tell you who has served on a jury, or had a class in basic civics.

Look, skeptics need to furnish evidence, too. The people who appreciate Examine have provided a ton of evidence. It is LAZY LAZY LAZY that every skeptic wants to avoid digging deep.

I've already DONE immense research on supplements and the websites providing information about them. So have many others.

None of the skeptics in this thread are people who claim to be familiar with this domain. They just want to act like they are superior know-it-alls because they can lazily tout the general merits of skepticism.

Just like the defense will eagerly provide any evidence of innocence that they can muster, it is in the interests of skeptics to furnish evidence that the skeptical position is warranted. But few skeptics in this thread seem to want to do that.

If they think there is something better, they should let the rest of us know. Or they should build it themselves.

The skeptic is really more in the position of the prosecution. The fans are really more in the position of the defense.

The skeptic is basically saying the fans have committed a crime against truth. They are saying that the fans have something to DEFEND. (Hence, the fans are the defendants.)

And the skeptics claim is much easier to prove. It is far easier for the prosecution to prove that a crime has been committed (if it has been committed), than it is for the defense to prove that a crime wasn't committed (assuming no crime was committed).

The skeptics in this position SHOULD have the easier case to prove, which is why the burden should be on them.

Like I've repeated endlessly, and I even furnished the main competitors, if there are websites that are clearly better than Examine, that should be pretty easy to show.

Literally no human on the planet is capable of proving that Examine is better than every single competitor, though. There are thousands of other supplement websites.

You can't support the position that skeptics are allowed to show up everywhere, and voice skepticism of literally everything, and then suddenly that means that people who appreciate things must then be forced to prove things which in some cases are nearly impossible to prove. That is utterly ridiculous.

Skeptics should at least participate a little bit, if they actually give a shit.