Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why has examine.com disappeared from search results?

examine.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 363 posts

Re: Why has examine.com disappeared from search results?

#301

Post by Kaiyou »

data_required wrote: post #277
LordAtlas wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're clearly not familiar with the "burden of proof" principle. Go ahead, google it, especially given that you mention legal cases. The person who makes a particular assertion has the onus of proving the same. Like one of the previous posters said, we are flooded with people making bullshit claims of how something like homeopathy "works" because they know it from personal experience, and we shouldn't have to be the…

"The person who makes a particular assertion has the onus of proving the same." 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 spec…

The sceptic makes no assertion, he's asking you to prove your claim. No more, no less. Asking for proof doesn't mean asserting the opposite and even if you cannot prove your claim, it doesn't mean that your claim is incorrect. It just means you couldn't prove it. And sometimes one should just admit to be unable to prove a certain claim, even if it is correct, and change scope to something provable. Especially when the claim is unprovable to begin with, like "being the best" usually is.

Re: Why has examine.com disappeared from search results?

#302

Post by rfrey »

inetknght wrote: post #258
piva00 wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So how you go by applying this reasoning to this very website where you are commenting? Hacker News would never be, for me personally, on the top of the list of websites that inspire confidence by its looks, it's only when you delve into it and realise the content is actually great that you can appreciate it. Such a shallow evaluation is quite strange coming from technical people who are used to mailing lists and all…

> Hacker News would never be, for me personally, on the top of the list of websites that inspire confidence by its looks, it's only when you delve into it and realise the content is actually great that you can appreciate it. Other than the whole unchangeable orange theme, I think it's fairly easy to intuit.

>unchangeable orange theme

“Topcolor” setting on your profile page

Re: Why has examine.com disappeared from search results?

#303

Post by Kaiyou »

enlyth wrote: post #106
OJFord wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> > 2. I see click-bait titles like "The top 19 nutrition myths of 2019". > It's 2019. EVERYONE does this to get attention from people. Nobody that successfully gets my attention does that.

The front page of BBC is filled with clickbait headlines every day

You're assuming that the BBC successfully gets his attention. Personally, I don't even visit the BBC anymore and haven't for over a decade.

Re: Why has examine.com disappeared from search results?

#304

Post by kragen »

sachdevap wrote: post #225
kragen wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What was the title of your last paper? And the last paper you read?

I don't think I have sufficient reason to engage this line of questioning. Have a good day, Kragen.

Well, okay, maybe you haven't published anything yet. That's okay, we all have to start somewhere. But, when you do, here's a tip: your paper is overwhelmingly likely to get rejected if you title it something like “The top 19 myths of 2019 about efficient rank-order filtering.” :)

Re: Why has examine.com disappeared from search results?

#305

Post by JamesBarney »

Semiapies wrote: post #297
JamesBarney wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's some evidence. Anyone who has spent enough time researching supplements, that they could even conceivably name a better supplement site has agreed examine is the best. And the only people who disagree are people who never done any serious supplement research If you have a bunch of hockey fans arguing Wayne Gretzky is the greatest hockey player of all time against a bunch of people who've never watched a game a…

Except, of course, people have actually heard of Wayne Gretzky, and many people not hockey fans even know what he looks like (or did during his career). It's not like some random, sketchy Canadian guy shows up, saying he's not being treated as befits a great hockey player, and when people go, "Uh, are you a great hockey player? I've never heard of you,..", in response, a bunch of randos appear on cure to say, "What?!…

The difference being hockey is a giant sport, and supplement research is a very niche hobby.

I'm not trying to convince you supplements aren't bogus or even that examine is a great resource.

Just that the claim "there exists a better supplement site than examine.com" is a false one. Let me start with why do you believe this claim to be true or at least more likely than the opposing claim.

Re: Why has examine.com disappeared from search results?

#306

Post by inetknght »

rfrey wrote: post #302
inetknght wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Hacker News would never be, for me personally, on the top of the list of websites that inspire confidence by its looks, it's only when you delve into it and realise the content is actually great that you can appreciate it. Other than the whole unchangeable orange theme, I think it's fairly easy to intuit.

>unchangeable orange theme “Topcolor” setting on your profile page

Ahhhh that's what that does lol

Re: Why has examine.com disappeared from search results?

#307

Post by zadkey »

Waterluvian wrote: post #126
jgmmo wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah you did a very cursory, cosmetic look at the site and judged it by its subject matter and web design choices. If you would've bothered to look under the hood, you would see that they reference tons of scientific sources and provide a level of transparency and knowledge-base to the sports supplement industry that is unrivaled. To be clear, There is no other site nearly as good as Examine for this subject matter.

I checked out examine.com and it's not as bad as the previous comment had me expecting. But it still looks like a boilerplate front page that I would pretty much immediately back out of and keep looking. I'm not a fan of "don't judge a book by its cover." The purpose of the cover (other than to keep garlic mayo off the pages) is to be judged. It's at the peril of the website to have such good content diminished by po…

Yes, but let's compare Examine.com to let's say Forbes.com

When you read an article at Forbes, you are assaulted by scrolling ads, banners and other stuff from every direction. The appearance and experience is chaotic and clingy.

If we are going by appearances, why should Examine.com have worse search indexing than Forbes articles?

Here is an example from both: https://www.forbes.com/sites/nathanvardi/2019/07/25/a-billio...

https://examine.com/supplements/beta-alanine/

Re: Why has examine.com disappeared from search results?

#308

Post by JamesBarney »

Kaiyou wrote: post #299
JamesBarney wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Supplements aren't homeopathy. The research done on then and linked to on examine is scientific research. It's just not great scientific research, similar to the entire field of psychology. Also "supplements work really well" is a very different argument than this is the best website on supplement research. There is not a single person in this thread of 100's who can name a single source of better information on supp…

I'd say it's unprovable and that you should just accept that you cannot prove your claim. After all, you don't know every [X] and just this moment a new [X] could've been published, which is better than the one you claim to be the best. Just change your scope to something provable if you want your claims to be believed by sceptics. For example "[X] is the best that I know." would work.

My use of the word prove shouldn't be read as the mathematical method for establishing proofs. But the conversational use of the word prove. As in what evidence would you like to convince you of a claim. Not the rigor of a mathematical proof but to the rigor of "convince me this is more likely than the alternative."

There are two competing claims "examine is the best supplement website online"(examiners) vs "there exists a better supplement supplement website online".(otherers) One of these is true and the other is false.

While lots of "examiners" have argued and provided evidence, but the only argument brought by the "otherers" is they they don't need to bring any evidence.

Re: Why has examine.com disappeared from search results?

#309

Post by jpking »

kragen wrote: post #304
sachdevap wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think I have sufficient reason to engage this line of questioning. Have a good day, Kragen.

Well, okay, maybe you haven't published anything yet. That's okay, we all have to start somewhere. But, when you do, here's a tip: your paper is overwhelmingly likely to get rejected if you title it something like “The top 19 myths of 2019 about efficient rank-order filtering.” :)

Context is essential in headline writing. You must consider your audience and the goal. Here, the title of paper plays a very different role to the title of a blog post.

The blog post example is designed to attract a specific audience. Clearly, you are not a member of that audience. However, that does not prevent them from writing articles which would be of interest to you. It also does not mean that the audience doesn't exist, however small you believe it to be.

Re: Why has examine.com disappeared from search results?

#310

Post by kragen »

asdf21 wrote: post #274
kragen wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's 2019. EVERYONE does this to get attention from people. I don't. Nobody I respect does. None of the scientific papers they cite do. Nobody in my friends list on Fecebutt does. Nobody I follow on Twitter does, to my knowledge. Slatestarcodex doesn't. HN doesn't. Wikipedia doesn't. Library Genesis doesn't. The Pirate Bay doesn't. JSTOR doesn't. Sam Zeloof doesn't. Ken Shirriff doesn't. The only sites I've visited…

"Meditations on Moloch" is pretty clickbaity.

It's “clickbaity” in the sense that calling that novel Independence Day was “clickbaity”—it doesn't tell you much about what is contained in the article, or the novel (especially if you’ve seen the movie). You could plausibly argue that it's somewhat misleading, since it isn't about the ancient Semitic god Moloch at all, but rather about the metaphorical Moloch of Allen Ginsberg's Howl.

It is, however, clearly not the same A/B-tested genre as This one weird trick will put an end to your perverse-incentive problems! and Top 7 myths of socialist politics, which are designed to offer a quick, tempting info-snack that you must click through to consume, or be consumed by. In fact, if we were arranging titles by literary quality, I think a more explicit title like How coordination problems result in profoundly suboptimal but very stable Nash equilibria would be closer to the revolting filth above than to the more lapidary title Meditations on Moloch.

Perhaps, though, there is the occasional archæologist specializing in Semitic prehistory who does click on that title and experience a profound disappointment.

Post reply on HN