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

You know, Google, the web already had this feature

blog.vrypan.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

421–430 of 444 posts

Re: You know, Google, the web already had this feature

#421

Post by bobbydavid »

moogleii wrote: post #334
DanBC wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The post you replied to (with the "GooGoo Fanboy" term) was overly vociferous. But that's when it's most important to avoid words like 'fanboy' because otherwise discussion dies. People probably thought you had a good point, but you lose that when you use words like 'googoo fanboy'. And that'll do nothing to sway the person you're replying to. If anything it'll just entrench them even more.

I didn't really think so. I thought GooGoo Fanboy was apt satire myself. The hyperbole of the original poster clearly showed that he/she was already very entrenched anyway. And considering it's possible that debating someone's strongly held points with logical counter points will only irrationally strengthen the person's original beliefs anyway, I think humor was appropriate: http://youarenotsosmart.com/2011/06/10/th…

Even if that's true, there are still many other HN readers watching the conversation who may be more open to logical arguments from either side.

So I think it's still "worth it" to respond in a meaningful way, even though you may not convince the original poster.

Re: You know, Google, the web already had this feature

#422

Post by pdog »

blhack wrote: post #114

You guys in this thread whining about google: It isn't google that has changed, it is the whole world which has changed. Look at the things that some of you champion; the iPhone, the iPad...anything running iOS, anything made by apple computer, the company that is pushing the hardest against openness on the internet. Oh, you want some basic browser functionality like uploading files? Spend time learning objective C,…

How is Apple's iOS a "complete joke of a mobile operating system" when it was so revolutionary and years ahead of its time in 2007? We're used to it now, but it really seemed like magic at the time.

Re: You know, Google, the web already had this feature

#423

Post by rpgmaker »

criley wrote: post #344
lettergram wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Google's results are starting to waver I'll be honest I don't know for sure, but I highly doubt Google would intentionally hurt themselves by ruining their search results. Also, >Google+ requirement is a cancer eating their products from the inside. I do agree it's B.S. but using 4 different computers on a regular basis and being a student I find it more useful to use their products than not. Especially, the syncing…

Google+ is a blight. I have multiple Google Accounts (I don't need my real name attached to my main gmail account!) and it's utter horror trying to use Google products. You either give up on having an anonymous email because they WILL FORCE YOUR real name to be attached to your email, or you give up on Google integration features because you simply CANNOT use Google features without a real name anymore. Trying to swi…

I honestly think that I'll eventually leave google once they start REQUIRING me google+, which it seems very likely looking at the pace they've been kind of blackmailing gmail users into becoming g+ users. They didn't do the Play store thing to "solve" the spammer issue (seriously? Is anyone really believing that sorry explanation?). What I've found personally is that zoho offers some very good free products. Their email client doesn't suck, I haven't used them much but it's one of the best options out there (I started to "field" google alternatives when they did the Play store thing because it was so out of line and proved the extent of their data hungry ways).

Re: You know, Google, the web already had this feature

#424

Post by znowi »

freshhawk wrote: post #135
blhack wrote: post #114

You guys in this thread whining about google: It isn't google that has changed, it is the whole world which has changed. Look at the things that some of you champion; the iPhone, the iPad...anything running iOS, anything made by apple computer, the company that is pushing the hardest against openness on the internet. Oh, you want some basic browser functionality like uploading files? Spend time learning objective C,…

I really agree with you, except for one minor point: You are still thinking of google as if it's the "old google". Definitely before Google+ and probably even before the adwords division started calling all the shots. That's when google could have been called "one of the coolest companies in the world". Now they are heavily invested in building their own walled garden. Maybe it's not even anyone being "evil", and it'…

It's quite surprising to me how persistent is the "don't be evil" brand [1] announced more than a decade ago. Since those lean, startup days, Google has evolved into a grand corporate machine with vastly different set of goals and values.

It is a centuries old cycle: once young and free spirited goes corrupt and rotten on it's way to a bigger market share.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_be_evil

Re: You know, Google, the web already had this feature

#425

Post by angryasian »

jacquesm wrote: post #377
angryasian wrote: post #376

Earlier quoted context omitted.

whats wrong with society where we don't want to tell someone constructive criticism or positive feedback like it was a face to face conversation except online ?

What's wrong with receiving valuable information without being able to ascertain who sent it to you?

you're just detracting from the original question. You're absolutely right that feedback and information can be given without being able to ascertain who its sent from, but still why aren't people able to be civil and provide feedback with their identities known.

Re: You know, Google, the web already had this feature

#426

Post by sesqu »

bitwize wrote: post #374
sesqu wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What did those buttons do? I was always curious, but not curious enough to press them.

They took you to pages of interesting web links curated by Netscape, on their servers. The URLs were hardcoded into the binary.

How curious. thanks.

Re: You know, Google, the web already had this feature

#427

Post by bionsuba »

gbtxg wrote: post #392
bionsuba wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I think there should be a third option in the form of a decentralized social protocol I haven't looked at it in a while but take a gander at tent: http://tent.io

Have you used tent? What has been your experience with it?

I made a simple command line tool for it, its api is simple enough. I can't say weather or not the over all design of the systems and protocols are good because that is not my area of expertise.

Re: You know, Google, the web already had this feature

#428

Post by jacquesm »

angryasian wrote: post #425
jacquesm wrote: post #377

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's wrong with receiving valuable information without being able to ascertain who sent it to you?

you're just detracting from the original question. You're absolutely right that feedback and information can be given without being able to ascertain who its sent from, but still why aren't people able to be civil and provide feedback with their identities known.

> why aren't people able to be civil and provide feedback with their identities known?

I find this quite funny with you being the anonymous guy and me being out there in the open with my identity.

Maybe you should answer your own question?

Re: You know, Google, the web already had this feature

#429

Post by silverbax88 »

dornab wrote: post #380
silverbax88 wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Something that has happened to me over the past month that I never thought would happen - I'm actively looking to use Bing and DuckDuckGo over Google. Bing, something I laughed at just a few months ago. Google's results are starting to waver and the Google+ requirement is a cancer eating their products from the inside.

Did you ever try the google vs bing comparison site? ( http://www.bingiton.com/ ). I tried it and google won 5-0, it wasn't even close! But I agree that google is not what it used to be. They have a weird hunger for our data. But it's not just them, all web companies have become very aggressive in getting our data, it feels like we're being watched the whole time. It's exactly the opposite of what the internet was ea…

I did when it first came out, and Google won...but not now.

Re: You know, Google, the web already had this feature

#430

Post by mhurron »

tomkarlo wrote: post #413
bnr wrote: post #400

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How much more can you trust a profile pic and a real-ish name than "someguy443"?

A hell of a lot more, when it's someone you know personally. That's why they want the Google+ info - so they can show you what people you know thought of something.

Really A lot more?

Lets say you wrote a cool android app, but there is a little bug in it that is triggered by a phone you don't own or weren't able to test, I have that phone. I go to contact you, which of the following reports do you trust more -

From: mhurron [at] saminds.com From: Google+ Roman Fox

Now be honest, even though this exact setup probably smells off. Given receiving a email from the above or from the above Google+ account, are you going to trust one or dismiss one simply on the name of the account?

Post reply on HN