281–290 of 299 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Editors are usually pretty quick at removing spam links. But yeah.
At the current level of spam link posting, sure. But if getting spam links into Wikipedia were more valuable -- say, if they stopped using rel=nofollow -- I wonder how much the amount of incoming spam would increase.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If it's tech-related or even music, history, or philosopy-related, I'll append site:ycombinator.com to my DDG search queries. Unfortunately, it's not just Google search that's full of SEO-optimised crap.
DDG's actually worse in many ways. I've just switched back from it to Google because most times I was prepending my searches with !g or rerunning them due to frustration at the crappy results. Example: in the midst of my house renovation my Hisense TV remote has gone walkabout. After several months of having no idea where it is (I figured it would just turn up - I mean, it has to be in here somewhere, right?), I deci…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I personally love it when my search results just give me the answer I'm looking for, so I don't have to click through to Wikipedia (or any site) Except for the very frequent times when Google’s summarization engine conveys the opposite point than the text was making. I’ve had lots of cases where google reassures me that something is possible (like an iOS feature) because it takes a Yes from paragraph 2 and then pro…
Could you give an exact example?
In reality, Roku uses a similar and half-compatible implementation of the Chromecast standard, but it isn't supported in all the same places you can Chromecast, and you'll frequently experience hiccups like the Roku only streaming in SD or 720p instead of 1080p or 4k.
This is partially the fault of the site sharing this information, as they're not presenting this in the most clear way either. However, when Google chooses to try to automatically answer my question, they become responsible for that answer, and when that answer is misleading, it annoys me.
Shouldn't Wikimedia Foundation be grateful for that? Their goal is met — people learn stuff even faster, and also they incur less server costs, because Google eats them. For a site without ad revenue, it looks like a total win-win for them!
I agree with the faster part but these snippets Google shows often times lacks context and other miscellaneous information along with deep links to many other great articles.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think Google claims any copyright on the Wikipedia snippets. You can share them just like you can share the original. They also give a link back to the source and clearly mark them as Wikipedia content. What more do you think that they should do to satisfy the license terms?
> What more do you think that they should do to satisfy the license terms? Just depends if the snippit is over the fair-use threshold I guess. If the share-alike license allows segregating content into frames within one page then it is ok too.
Fair Use is not a concept in most jurisdictions btw.
Monetary flow is the basis for our financial system and making the user not the customer undermines the basis of why anyone does anything in a more fundamental way then the movement from the barter system to paper money did.
[edit] random source https://www.wired.com/story/why-dont-we-just-ban-targeted-ad...
> ...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…
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
DDG's actually worse in many ways. I've just switched back from it to Google because most times I was prepending my searches with !g or rerunning them due to frustration at the crappy results. Example: in the midst of my house renovation my Hisense TV remote has gone walkabout. After several months of having no idea where it is (I figured it would just turn up - I mean, it has to be in here somewhere, right?), I deci…
Since you were looking for the UK version, did you try (no quotes) "Hisense uk" ?
That's a shame because, as bad as Google has become, it's still better than other options. As an example of how bad Google really is, last night I tried searching for info on how to mount twin slot shelving uprights on an uneven wall - specifically a wall where the otherwise smooth plaster is less than perfectly vertical (there's an undulation reflecting imperfections in the underlying brickwork). The result? Just pages and pages of SEO spam/"content marketing" on the very basics of fitting twin slot shelving, all of which assumes that your walls are perfectly vertical across their entire surface, and none of which has any kind of troubleshooting hints and tips. I probably tried 10 different search query variants before giving up in disgust.
Google is outright terrible, and its much touted AI is laughably poor[1]. But DuckDuckGo is worse. I'm simply choosing the least bad option, which unfortunately isn't saying much.
[1] Or enragingly poor depending on your mood and perspective.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If it's tech-related or even music, history, or philosopy-related, I'll append site:ycombinator.com to my DDG search queries. Unfortunately, it's not just Google search that's full of SEO-optimised crap.
DDG's actually worse in many ways. I've just switched back from it to Google because most times I was prepending my searches with !g or rerunning them due to frustration at the crappy results. Example: in the midst of my house renovation my Hisense TV remote has gone walkabout. After several months of having no idea where it is (I figured it would just turn up - I mean, it has to be in here somewhere, right?), I deci…
