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

Google Cache is fully dead

seroundtable.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 249 posts

Re: Google Cache is fully dead

#51

Post by Tijdreiziger »

skybrian wrote: post #43
jjbinx007 wrote: post #5

Is anyone at Google even aware how much this hurts their brand? I received an email from Google today with the subject line "Meet the new Google TV Streamer (4K)" The sender was Google Chromecast. Apparently it's some sort of streaming hardware they are selling for £99. I won't even consider buying one. How long until it's an obsolete brick? And when it's a brick, what are the chances I can wipe it and install my own…

I have an original Chromecast and it still works, though pairing it with a new TV is a bit of a pain. The new Google TV is more like a smart TV without the TV. It has apps you install. It's much more complex and not the same thing at all. I was disappointed. But then again every company discontinues products. I don't see that as a breach of trust. It's making up a promise they never made and criticizing them for it.

I think you can just ignore the apps and cast like you’re used to, if you don’t care about the extra functionality.

(But in that case, I don’t see why you bought one in the first place.)

Re: Google Cache is fully dead

#52

Post by dageshi »

readyplayernull wrote: post #45
dageshi wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The internet may have declined but it's the LLM's that are finishing it off. I'm still unsure how exactly the LLM's get fed going forward, it's not like the world will remain static once most of the human written websites have shuttered.

Google gives priority to sponsored content, so it's guilty of the first damage to the search result quality that they started years ahead of LLMs. Then comes SEO ranking for which LLMs are now being used to game its algorithm, but this used to be done manually years before.

I am tired of having this argument with people. Google's search engine requires there to be content for them to index and send people to in order for their service to be useful. Google wants useful websites to exist, websites want google to send them traffic.

LLM's don't send traffic to websites, as LLM's supplant google there will be fewer and fewer websites because they don't get enough traffic anymore.

There is a clear and obvious difference between the two and yet your reply is still "but but google bad!".

Re: Google Cache is fully dead

#53

Post by kozak »

jjbinx007 wrote: post #5

Is anyone at Google even aware how much this hurts their brand? I received an email from Google today with the subject line "Meet the new Google TV Streamer (4K)" The sender was Google Chromecast. Apparently it's some sort of streaming hardware they are selling for £99. I won't even consider buying one. How long until it's an obsolete brick? And when it's a brick, what are the chances I can wipe it and install my own…

I guess I'll have to buy the new Google TV Streamer because my previous Chromecast with Google TV 4K is now close to useless because of the lack of flash memory space after all the updates (despite it has a properly initialized USB drive connected via a powered USB-C hub, the most essential apps still require to be installed on the miniscule internal memory).

Re: Google Cache is fully dead

#54

Post by jiggawatts »

wwweston wrote: post #38
jjbinx007 wrote: post #5

Is anyone at Google even aware how much this hurts their brand? I received an email from Google today with the subject line "Meet the new Google TV Streamer (4K)" The sender was Google Chromecast. Apparently it's some sort of streaming hardware they are selling for £99. I won't even consider buying one. How long until it's an obsolete brick? And when it's a brick, what are the chances I can wipe it and install my own…

The real question is why they'd have to be aware. It's entirely possible that those of us who pay attention to this are a vanishing minority compared to the cultural momentum of Google as the default search provider and a dominant provider of email/office SaaS. But even if dissatisfaction is growing, the institional momentum is just so huge that it's very likely Google simply doesn't have the capacity to sense any br…

I’ve been trying to make this point here on HN and elsewhere for quite a while now, but you said it so much more eloquently than me!

I see this as a variant of the tragedy of the commons: in this case it is the reputation and market share of Google Search.

Each individual at Google is incentivised to feed their own cow… err… career at the expense of the commons: Google’s reputation.

Inevitably this will destroy Google, but this will take many years of accumulated damage to build up to a catastrophic point.

    “How did you go bankrupt?” Bill asked. 
    “Two ways,” Mike said. “Gradually
    and then suddenly.”

Re: Google Cache is fully dead

#55

Post by Dwedit »

jjbinx007 wrote: post #5

Is anyone at Google even aware how much this hurts their brand? I received an email from Google today with the subject line "Meet the new Google TV Streamer (4K)" The sender was Google Chromecast. Apparently it's some sort of streaming hardware they are selling for £99. I won't even consider buying one. How long until it's an obsolete brick? And when it's a brick, what are the chances I can wipe it and install my own…

The "Google Chromecast with Android TV" was a stick that was sold for $25, and it runs full Android TV. Google would have to abandon Android TV before it would be bricked.

They were sold as cable box replacements, running the YouTube TV app, rather than their ability to "cast" a phone screen to a TV.

Re: Google Cache is fully dead

#56

Post by krackers »

luizfelberti wrote: post #48

> Then a couple of weeks ago, added [direct] links to the Wayback Machine Hopefully they are also making substantial donations to the Internet Archive, since they will be directing a lot of traffic into it and basically using their infrastructure as a feature on their main product... EDIT: Apparently they are collaborating but there are not much details [0] [0] https://blog.archive.org/2024/09/11/new-feature-alert-ac…

It'd be absolutely foolish if the agreement wasn't contingent on funding. I assume the reason it's not explicitly stated was some sort of NDA (since IA is also involved in turmoil and Google doesn't want to be part of that).

Re: Google Cache is fully dead

#57

Post by dimensi0nal »

nashashmi wrote: post #23

What are the chances of wayback machine removing snapshots? I found an article on something that is far too taboo to talk about these days that was removed from the newspaper after having it there for more than 5 years. Out of public pressure.

If it's important, it should go in archive.is. Sites have always been able to remove their own content from Wayback Machine.

Re: Google Cache is fully dead

#58

Post by bigstrat2003 »

readyplayernull wrote: post #12

Nowadays my browser's home page is one of the LLMs. It's easier to get knowledge with an AI than the dead Internet to which Google contributed.

Truthfully, that says a lot more about you/your searches than it does about Google. I almost never have questions where LLMs can actually give me a good answer, whereas Google usually has something for me. I have to sift through the dross, but it's still there.

Re: Google Cache is fully dead

#60

Post by brookst »

nixosbestos wrote: post #36
readyplayernull wrote: post #12

Nowadays my browser's home page is one of the LLMs. It's easier to get knowledge with an AI than the dead Internet to which Google contributed.

Thinking LLMs are anyone's salvation in the fact of Dead Internet Theory has to most the most incomprehensible thing I've read on this site. Maybe ever.

Why?
Post reply on HN