Why has examine.com disappeared from search results? • Hacker News Board

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

#341

Post by privateSFacct » Wed, Aug 14, 2019, 2:41 PM UTC

imihai1988 wrote: post #312

privateSFacct wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"How is the nationality of the lecturer (w/ a diploma) a relevant fact?" -If you are not familiar with the issues here I can't be that helpful. The quality of academic institutions and systems varies widely on a nation by nation basis. This is the issue I guess, a site like this and you are claiming no difference between countries. Note that many top US scientists come from other countries, so its not the nationality…

"If you are not familiar with the issues here I can't be that helpful". So you are not familiar either ? Or is that you don't really feel like spending time actually answering the question instead of deflecting ? You do seem to have enough knowledge to dismiss a paper based solely on the "system they operate in" "The quality of academic institutions and systems varies widely on a nation by nation basis. This is the i…

Sure. To get you started...

An imperfect measure is to just get a sense of where a countries top university is ranked.

https://www.timeshighereducation.com/world-university-rankin...

is one. US news is another. In all cases top Romanian institutions are all 500+ down the list. That is pretty bad. South Africa for example has much better universities (150 - 200 range) with UCT (and that's true - UCT has a good reputation).

https://wenr.wes.org/2017/12/academic-fraud-corruption-and-i...

https://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2012/07/02/the-plagiarism-in...

Can I ask if you have lived or worked overseas (outside of core EU/US countries)

US has issues in its for profit colleges and universities among others as well so it's not accurate that all US institutions are strong. I would have reacted the same way if I recognized a the article as being from a predatory journal (https://beallslist.weebly.com/)

Note, I'm looking at the website as a whole, and the claims it is making. This includes endorsements by the BBC, endorsements by medical doctors, and "scientifically proven" "superfoods" that "dramatically decrease LDL-C, triglycerides, and total cholesterol while raising HDL-C"

In each case I looked into the support was not great. In other words, this issue is about the supposedly unfair treatment of the site relative to other sources of medical and health knowledge. And my point here is that of the quick indicators I looked at, none looked that good.

Can you not be bothered to look at the other points I made when evaluating the sites quality?

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

#342

Post by nkurz » Wed, Aug 14, 2019, 2:48 PM UTC

kragen wrote: post #326

skinnymuch wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Fecebutt Seriously? This is worse than people still including $ in Microsoft.

I have no idea how you could think I intended that joke seriously. Do you work for Micro$oft or something?

I'd be interested in hearing your internal thought process on why you spelled it that way. I took it to be a private joke that you had forgotten about your "cloud-to-butt" plugin again. That is, an intentional aside to amuse yourself and some small subset of readers, but irrelevant to the public point you were making.

On the other hand, 'skinnymuch' is right that there are a lot of people who unconsciously subvert their own messages by using similar childish insults based creative spellings. You are obviously aware of this likely misreading, but chose to make the bad joke anyway. I quite likely would have done the same, but why did you do it this time?

@skinnymuch: Accept that it was a joke. You are right that it was indistinguishable from a non-joke, but this is part of the joke. It's hard to account for people's taste in humor.

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

#343

Post by AhmedF » Wed, Aug 14, 2019, 4:02 PM UTC

kragen wrote: post #338

kragen wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As I think I said, the article body is fairly decent despite the occasional missed caveat; my thesis was merely that the headline is false, and intentionally so. I haven't read the whole article, but as you can see from my comment above, I did read a substantial fraction of it. That's how I know the falsehoods in the headline are not mere errors. I did not accuse you of being oversimplified, and I'm sorry that wasn't…

AhmedF has posted a truly remarkable response to this post, one I think is very relevant to assessing the integrity and trustworthiness of his web site, a response that has unfortunately been flagged into oblivion. It's quoted here in full for the benefit of those without showdead turned on: Just wow. > since clearly the dishonest strategy that produced that headline was chosen intentionally, but I do want to make su…

I actually write zero of the content on Examine.com because I'm not qualified to do so. Which you would know if you actually looked at the site instead of arguing in bad-faith with a dash of superiority complex.

Unlike you, I try to separate my opinions from facts.

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

#344

Post by kragen » Wed, Aug 14, 2019, 5:00 PM UTC

nkurz wrote: post #342

kragen wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have no idea how you could think I intended that joke seriously. Do you work for Micro$oft or something?

I'd be interested in hearing your internal thought process on why you spelled it that way. I took it to be a private joke that you had forgotten about your "cloud-to-butt" plugin again. That is, an intentional aside to amuse yourself and some small subset of readers, but irrelevant to the public point you were making. On the other hand, 'skinnymuch' is right that there are a lot of people who unconsciously subvert th…

I appreciate any opportunity to childishly make fun of Fecebutt. It improves the quality of any discourse! It didn't occur to me that someone might think I meant it seriously—that is, that I honestly think the company is called that by, for example, its employees. As I said the other day, there's a sort of Rule 34 of epistemological malpractice, too. It's not just for porn anymore!

It's true that there are people out there who aren't capable of understanding a serious point if it has jokes in it, but I'm not interested in taking responsibility for their cognitive limitations. I'm more interested in amusing other people who would like to childishly ridicule Fecebutt!

The truth of the (non-Fecebutt-related) point I was making is adequately clear to anyone who stops to think about it a moment. It's not some kind of abstruse theorem about linear-time sorting algorithms, or advocacy of some kind of controversial economic policy or something.

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

#345

Post by kragen » Wed, Aug 14, 2019, 5:04 PM UTC

skinnymuch wrote: post #339

kragen wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have no idea how you could think I intended that joke seriously. Do you work for Micro$oft or something?

Are you trying to joke now about Microsoft to seem like you were joking? There’s no way your original comment makes it sound like you were not being serious. Your comment continues on naming unknown random people you follow and ends with: > It seems that you have imprisoned yourself in a sort of filter bubble of dishonest hustlers. You might want to rethink your life decisions. I’d think someone writing that to end t…

Well, I never said it was a good sense of humor, Mongo.

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

#346

Post by kragen » Wed, Aug 14, 2019, 5:19 PM UTC

m00x wrote: post #113

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.

Are you trying to say that you represent the majority of the population? What's the point of this comment?

OJFord is presumably implying that at least one person exists who gets their attention, so not EVERYONE does that, and furthermore that OJFord is people, so doing that is to some unspecified extent actually counterproductive to getting attention from people. The entirely absurd premise you suggest is in no wise necessary for making sense of their comment, since there exist far more plausible implied premises.

A much more explicit and uncut explanation is available at my comment below: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20680657

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

#347

Post by kragen » Wed, Aug 14, 2019, 5:23 PM UTC

AhmedF wrote: post #343

kragen wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AhmedF has posted a truly remarkable response to this post, one I think is very relevant to assessing the integrity and trustworthiness of his web site, a response that has unfortunately been flagged into oblivion. It's quoted here in full for the benefit of those without showdead turned on: Just wow. > since clearly the dishonest strategy that produced that headline was chosen intentionally, but I do want to make su…

I actually write zero of the content on Examine.com because I'm not qualified to do so. Which you would know if you actually looked at the site instead of arguing in bad-faith with a dash of superiority complex. Unlike you, I try to separate my opinions from facts.

What's your role?

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

#348

Post by skinnymuch » Wed, Aug 14, 2019, 6:09 PM UTC

nkurz wrote: post #342

kragen wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have no idea how you could think I intended that joke seriously. Do you work for Micro$oft or something?

I'd be interested in hearing your internal thought process on why you spelled it that way. I took it to be a private joke that you had forgotten about your "cloud-to-butt" plugin again. That is, an intentional aside to amuse yourself and some small subset of readers, but irrelevant to the public point you were making. On the other hand, 'skinnymuch' is right that there are a lot of people who unconsciously subvert th…

I never said any of the second paragraph. I merely pointed out the spelling. Alongside the overly angry and judgemental tone of the comment especially the end.

But seeing the next reply. Continuously merging supposedly serious content with jokes in a format like digital text on a forum. There are numerous issues with that.

> that is, that I honestly think the company is called that by, for example, its employees

So this is a joke too? Or the bit of not being interested in people’s cognitive limitations?

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

#349

Post by skinnymuch » Wed, Aug 14, 2019, 6:09 PM UTC

kragen wrote: post #345

skinnymuch wrote: post #339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you trying to joke now about Microsoft to seem like you were joking? There’s no way your original comment makes it sound like you were not being serious. Your comment continues on naming unknown random people you follow and ends with: > It seems that you have imprisoned yourself in a sort of filter bubble of dishonest hustlers. You might want to rethink your life decisions. I’d think someone writing that to end t…

Well, I never said it was a good sense of humor, Mongo.

Okay buddy. I guess it’s time for me to rethink my life decisions.

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

#350

Post by skinnymuch » Wed, Aug 14, 2019, 6:12 PM UTC

kragen wrote: post #344

nkurz wrote: post #342

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd be interested in hearing your internal thought process on why you spelled it that way. I took it to be a private joke that you had forgotten about your "cloud-to-butt" plugin again. That is, an intentional aside to amuse yourself and some small subset of readers, but irrelevant to the public point you were making. On the other hand, 'skinnymuch' is right that there are a lot of people who unconsciously subvert th…

I appreciate any opportunity to childishly make fun of Fecebutt. It improves the quality of any discourse! It didn't occur to me that someone might think I meant it seriously—that is, that I honestly think the company is called that by, for example, its employees. As I said the other day, there's a sort of Rule 34 of epistemological malpractice, too. It's not just for porn anymore! It's true that there are people out…

> that is, that I honestly think the company is called that by, for example, its employees.

> I'm not interested in taking responsibility for their cognitive limitations.

Great jokes!