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

Anonymous Source Shared Leaked Google Search API Documents

sparktoro.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 312 posts

Re: Anonymous Source Shared Leaked Google Search API Documents

#71

Post by trogdor »

pembrook wrote: post #52

What I find most interesting about this is that a lot of supposed "smart" algorithms of Big Tech are in fact a patchwork of "dumb" rules rules and human-picked winners. This would explain why the quality of search results is failing to keep up with developments in LLMs. This also explains why it's impossible for incumbents to unseat the winners in many search categories -- because they've literally been picked as the…

> because they've literally been picked as the winners by humans at Google

Is there evidence of that in the leaked documents?

Re: Anonymous Source Shared Leaked Google Search API Documents

#73

Post by ziddoap »

deely3 wrote: post #68
llmblockchain wrote: post #35

> GoogleApi.ContentWarehouse.V1.Model.AppsPeopleOzExternalMergedpeopleapiAboutMeExtendedDataPhotosCompareDataDiffData Java, is that you?!

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html > Omit internet tropes.

Indeed. Eschew humor. Avoid anything not super serious. Laughs aren't allowed on HN.

Re: Anonymous Source Shared Leaked Google Search API Documents

#74

Post by metadigm »

ilrwbwrkhv wrote: post #3

And that's why if a developer doesn't use Firefox and uses Chrome, they are just helping a monopoly take over everything and make a mess.

As soon as they add the ability to configure shortcuts, I'd more than happy to. After several years of requests, we're finally seeing some movement on their end.

Re: Anonymous Source Shared Leaked Google Search API Documents

#75

Post by mrguyorama »

txomon wrote: post #23
usui wrote: post #4

> Prior to the email and call, I had neither met nor heard of the person who emailed me about this leak. They asked that their identity remain veiled And yet the journalist included a screenshot with one of the weakest blurs I've ever seen... Why would you not excise the person's video portion completely? What good does it serve to have it included in the story? Even if that portion is faked, why would you offer pote…

To make it worse, he made clear when the call had happened, and you have: 1) Who was in the call 2) When the call happened 3) A blur instead of a complete black out I'm not sure I would feel safe reporting stuff to journalists nowadays.

This person is not a journalist.

Re: Anonymous Source Shared Leaked Google Search API Documents

#76

Post by metadigm »

jasonsb wrote: post #13
JSDevOps wrote: post #12

Seriously considering switching back to Firefox after all these years.

What's stopping you? I use both browsers and I see no reason why someone would pick Chrome over Firefox at this point in time.

No shortcut configuration.

Re: Anonymous Source Shared Leaked Google Search API Documents

#77

Post by shepherdjerred »

ziddoap wrote: post #73
deely3 wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html > Omit internet tropes.

Indeed. Eschew humor. Avoid anything not super serious. Laughs aren't allowed on HN.

There's a difference between humor and pattern-matching memes like you see in Reddit threads.

Re: Anonymous Source Shared Leaked Google Search API Documents

#78

Post by lopkeny12ko »

iamacyborg wrote: post #59
ChrisArchitect wrote: post #54

[flagged]

It’s not a dupe, the ipullrank.com article goes into much more depth than the one from sparktoro.

It's not worth the effort. The parent commenter is a bot, its comment history is nothing but spamming submissions with "[dupe]": https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=ChrisArchitect

Re: Anonymous Source Shared Leaked Google Search API Documents

#79

Post by p3rls »

precompute wrote: post #14

This just proves all the "suspicions" privacy-conscious users have had about large corporations fingerprinting users, often in very obvious ways. There's often no better place to find ideas for surveillance than the people conscious about being surveilled.

Many of the SEO suspicions were confirmed too.

I found it VERY amusing if you go to r/SEO just yesterday there were moderators and flaired users (you know, the elites of the SEO community, lol) insisting much of this was "debunked" years ago.

They of course deleted their posts, but the threads are still up. What a den of scammers over there.

https://www.reddit.com/r/SEO/comments/1d1eqjj/comment/l5tvfw...

https://www.reddit.com/user/WebLinkr/

I love how reddit is turning into the new SEO scam over night because of this stuff. Great work as always Danny Sullivan!

Re: Anonymous Source Shared Leaked Google Search API Documents

#80

Post by nonameiguess »

elaus wrote: post #51
blitzar wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(Some) sites don't work on Firefox. Sure it isn't frequent, but it is frequent enough that once a day or so I have to open chrome to do something.

Seriously curious what sites those are, especially if it's not the same page every day. It literally never occurs to me (using Firefox again since 3-4 years) but I mostly browse dev-related websites.

I have the same problem. I certainly don't use Chrome daily, but do have to keep it around, typically for shopping checkout and a fair number of US government websites don't work on any browser but Chrome.
Post reply on HN