491–500 of 735 posts
I tried a few searches. >: none of the search results appeared to have anything to do with Javascript pipe syntax. (Which doesn't exist yet, but it's under discussion.) Google gives a bunch of highly-relevant results. >: first result is a list of books about relativity, one of which is Reichenbach's "Philosophy of space and time"; good, but there's no real information there. Second is about Reichenbach but nothing to…
To be fair, those searches are pretty weird.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The context matters. I'd happily read "Top 10" lists on a website if the site itself was dedicated to that one thing. "Top 10 Prog Rock albums", while a lazy, SEO-bait title, would at least be credible if it were on a music-oriented website. But no, these stories all come from cookie-cutter "new media" blog sites, written by an anonymous content writer who's repackaged Wikipedia/Discogs info into Buzzfeed-style copy…
This got me thinking that maybe one of the other big reasons for this is that the algorithms prioritize newer pages over older pages. This produces the problem where instead of covering a topic and refining it over time, the incentive is to repackage it over and over again. It reminds me of an annoyance I have with the Kindle store. If I wanted to find a book on, let's say, Psychology, there is no option to find all-…
The problem is that clickbait and low effort articles could be good enough to get the click, but low effort enough to drag society into the gutter. As time passes, the system is gamified more and more where the least effort for the most clicks is optimized.
I love the idea definitely, and I've long toyed around with building a similar thing that starts crawling off my own bookmarks (a personal small-deep-web if you wish).
I also love the "Small Web" name: this is the first I hear of it, and it's what I've long complained about — the web today hides all of the cool gems search engines of old would have given you!
I am also a bit split on the "www" prefix restriction (iiuc, domains which do not have "www" subdomain too are dropped from the index because many of them are spammy): it might for sure be a useful heuristic, but I've advocated for dropping "www" back in late 90s and early 2000s already (one reason being that for eg. Serbian, "w" is not in the alphabet, so you can't reasonably quote it as Serbian is otherwise a phonetic-language).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>> This sort of optimization is why simple recipes are typically found at the end of a rambling pointless blog post now. I continue to be curious about this kind of complaint. If all you want is a recipe list, without any of the fluff, why would you click on a link to a blog, rather than on a link to a recipe aggregator? Foodie blogs exist specifically for the people who want a foodie discussion and not just an ingre…
I think the complaint is that those blogs rank higher than nuts-and-bolts recipes now. It wasn't that way a few years ago. Yes, scrolling down the results to Food Network or Martha Stewart or whatever is possible, as is going directly to those sites and using their site search, but it's noticeable and annoying.
To be honest, I don't follow recipes when I cook unless it's a dish I've never had before. At that point what I want is to understand the point of the dish. A list of ingredients and preparation instructions don't tell me what it's supposed to taste and smell like. The foodie blogs at least try to create a certain... feeling of place, I suppose, some kind of impression that guides you when you cook. I wouldn't say it always works but I appreciate the effort.
My real complaint with recipe writers is that they know how to cook one or two dishes well and they crib the rest off each other so even with all the information they provide, you still can't reliably cook a good meal from a recipe unless you've had the dish before. But that's my personal opinion.
Searched for “Ramanujan”, one of my heros.
Found this gem- https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/ramanujan/
Ramanujan’s “easiest” formula.
Awesome!!
The second query was a nation+city(in the nation). Got a lot of result that were in no way related to either.
It seems to be biased towards IT topics (based uniquely on the two queries).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Imagine if you were looking for the movie.
The you'd use a different search engine. Why does everything have to be a Swiss Army knife?
As a quick test, I searched for the name of one of my favorite game series: "Baldur's Gate" (on its own, no qualifiers, properly spelled - I would usually spell it "baldurs gate" on Google, but I decided to give this one the best chance). I search for info around video games a lot, so that's quite representative of a good chunk of my web searches, and I pretty much know the top sites Google would give me for that que…
Despite what some people seem to think, it's never been meant as a google-replacement. I have never claimed otherwise.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It depends on the content. The flip side is looking up a programming-related question and getting results from 2012. I think they take different things into account based on the thing being searched.
Even your example would depend upon the context. There are many cases where a programming question in 2021 is identical to one from 2012, along with the answer. In those instances, would you rather a shallow answer from 2021 or an indepth answer from 2012? This is not meant to imply that older answers offer greater depth, yet a heavy bias towards recent material can produce that outcome in some circumstances.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah I wasn't really planning for this to blow up like it did today. It's currently sitting at about 35% of the index size I usually aim for, so besides the stuff I can't index because it's behind CDNs, there's a lot of pages it just hasn't gotten to yet. playwright.dev is pretty low on the priority list because it has a metric crap-ton of javascript on its front page. The crawler has visited it, looked at it, and pu…
Even though some sites have a metric crap-top of js they sometimes render very minimally for certain screen sizes or mobile devices without any of the js crap. Does your crawler pay attention to any of that?