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

Our new search index: Caffeine

googleblog.blogspot.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 82 posts

Re: Our new search index: Caffeine

#71

Post by [deleted] »

jedsmith wrote: post #68
resdirector wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then this comment should be flagged. It (a) reduces the intelligence of the discussions on HN (b) pushes more worthy comments down below the fold, (c) encourages similar pithy comments, and (d) makes those who would otherwise make intelligent comments less likely to comment. This is the kind of one-liner that perhaps Jon Stewart would make...and while there is nothing wrong with The Daily Show, I thought that we, the…

I felt a small amount of humor -- indeed, what a small attempt it was, I didn't consider it that amusing -- was welcome in the thread discussing the shortcomings of the accompanying infographic. Unless you'd like to have a serious discussion about the shortcomings of the accompanying infographic? I'm not sure there's much intelligence to be had in a discussion responding to "Wow is that ever a terrible infographic".…

[deleted]

Re: Our new search index: Caffeine

#72

Post by [deleted] »

jedsmith wrote: post #68
resdirector wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then this comment should be flagged. It (a) reduces the intelligence of the discussions on HN (b) pushes more worthy comments down below the fold, (c) encourages similar pithy comments, and (d) makes those who would otherwise make intelligent comments less likely to comment. This is the kind of one-liner that perhaps Jon Stewart would make...and while there is nothing wrong with The Daily Show, I thought that we, the…

I felt a small amount of humor -- indeed, what a small attempt it was, I didn't consider it that amusing -- was welcome in the thread discussing the shortcomings of the accompanying infographic. Unless you'd like to have a serious discussion about the shortcomings of the accompanying infographic? I'm not sure there's much intelligence to be had in a discussion responding to "Wow is that ever a terrible infographic".…

[deleted]

Re: Our new search index: Caffeine

#73

Post by resdirector »

jedsmith wrote: post #68
resdirector wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then this comment should be flagged. It (a) reduces the intelligence of the discussions on HN (b) pushes more worthy comments down below the fold, (c) encourages similar pithy comments, and (d) makes those who would otherwise make intelligent comments less likely to comment. This is the kind of one-liner that perhaps Jon Stewart would make...and while there is nothing wrong with The Daily Show, I thought that we, the…

I felt a small amount of humor -- indeed, what a small attempt it was, I didn't consider it that amusing -- was welcome in the thread discussing the shortcomings of the accompanying infographic. Unless you'd like to have a serious discussion about the shortcomings of the accompanying infographic? I'm not sure there's much intelligence to be had in a discussion responding to "Wow is that ever a terrible infographic".…

Ah, sorry. My bad, I didn't get the joke from the start. I thought you were simply saying the infographic was so vague that it looked similar to the Bohr model, but I guess you're also adding in the fact that the Caffeine user emits a quanta of energy after a successful search....? Or am I still not getting it?

Re my general complaint about one-liners, it could well be that I'm just not getting any of them....

Again, my apologies for jumping the gun. I shouldn't have been so forthright in saying your comment should be flagged.

Re: Our new search index: Caffeine

#74

Post by resdirector »

reader5000 wrote: post #70
resdirector wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then this comment should be flagged. It (a) reduces the intelligence of the discussions on HN (b) pushes more worthy comments down below the fold, (c) encourages similar pithy comments, and (d) makes those who would otherwise make intelligent comments less likely to comment. This is the kind of one-liner that perhaps Jon Stewart would make...and while there is nothing wrong with The Daily Show, I thought that we, the…

Wow. It's okay you didnt get it, guy.

Yeah, actually, I think my rant is more due to the fact that I don't think I get the joke...is it possible to get an explanation from somebody who gets the joke, rather than just being modded down?

Is the joke "hey this diagram looks like that diagram"?

Re: Our new search index: Caffeine

#77

Post by suraj »

spuz wrote: post #56

What I dislike about Google's current algorithm is that when I search for a common term such as "javadoc simpledateformat", the API documentation for Java 1.4.2 (as opposed to 1.6) comes up as apparently, that is what most documents on the web link to. I hope this new index will allow more recent and more up-to-date documents to get to the top of the results list.

Similarly searching for Apache directives (e.g. http://www.google.com/search?q=rewriterule ) returns result for apache 1.3 docs. You have to add 2.2 while searching for apache info.

Re: Our new search index: Caffeine

#78

Post by cookiecaper »

spuz wrote: post #56

What I dislike about Google's current algorithm is that when I search for a common term such as "javadoc simpledateformat", the API documentation for Java 1.4.2 (as opposed to 1.6) comes up as apparently, that is what most documents on the web link to. I hope this new index will allow more recent and more up-to-date documents to get to the top of the results list.

I had the same annoyance searching for PostgreSQL stuff -- the latest docs are almost never accessible from the Google page, just docs 2 years old or more.

Re: Our new search index: Caffeine

#79

Post by reader5000 »

resdirector wrote: post #74
reader5000 wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow. It's okay you didnt get it, guy.

Yeah, actually, I think my rant is more due to the fact that I don't think I get the joke...is it possible to get an explanation from somebody who gets the joke, rather than just being modded down? Is the joke "hey this diagram looks like that diagram"?

Yes, that would be my understanding of the joke. Not hilarious but nothing to get angry about.

Re: Our new search index: Caffeine

#80

Post by resdirector »

reader5000 wrote: post #79
resdirector wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, actually, I think my rant is more due to the fact that I don't think I get the joke...is it possible to get an explanation from somebody who gets the joke, rather than just being modded down? Is the joke "hey this diagram looks like that diagram"?

Yes, that would be my understanding of the joke. Not hilarious but nothing to get angry about.

Yes, nothing to get angry about (I probably came across too aggressive), but I believe that the prevalence of pithy-one-liners like these (which get massive upvotes), reduce the quality of HN for reasons listed above. And I don't think I'm the only one: I noticed my comment fluctuate wildly between +6 and -4 over the course of a couple of hours...there's many others who feel the same way, even though we are now in the minority.

Regardless of what pg says, there's many of us that feel that HN has slowly decreased in quality over the last two years (that's putting it diplomatically). Perhaps the time has come to fork HN.

Post reply on HN