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

You Will Not Understand This

stanleylieber.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 265 posts

Re: You Will Not Understand This

#81

Post by [deleted] »

vog wrote: post #65
nludd wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>If I search for "takeaway pizza", I'm going to be pretty annoyed if the results are generated using PageRank alone, with no weighting for local relevance. Google "takeaway pizza [place of residence]". >If an American searches for "cricket", they almost certainly mean the cellular provider or the insect rather than the sport Google "cricket provider" or "cricket insect". >if a British person makes the same search, th…

"Educating" users is not as profitable as serving users. Also, a system that adapts to its users is generally more successful than a system that requires users to adapt to it. Moreover, proper education across the whole population requires, well, a country with proper education across the whole population. So you might have luck in some Scandinavian countries, but not at global scale.

[deleted]

Re: You Will Not Understand This

#82

Post by agroot12 »

nludd wrote: post #53
jdietrich wrote: post #36

>Search quality is no longer a core competency of Google, the Internet’s premiere search engine. For example: Two people type the same search string, each receives different results. While I sympathise with the general anti-social-media stance, it's clear from this phrase that OP does not understand the most basic elements of how internet services function at scale. Of course Google serves different results to differ…

>If I search for "takeaway pizza", I'm going to be pretty annoyed if the results are generated using PageRank alone, with no weighting for local relevance. Google "takeaway pizza [place of residence]". >If an American searches for "cricket", they almost certainly mean the cellular provider or the insect rather than the sport Google "cricket provider" or "cricket insect". >if a British person makes the same search, th…

exactly. un-teaching mankind how to fish.

Re: You Will Not Understand This

#83

Post by nurettin »

jdietrich wrote: post #36

>Search quality is no longer a core competency of Google, the Internet’s premiere search engine. For example: Two people type the same search string, each receives different results. While I sympathise with the general anti-social-media stance, it's clear from this phrase that OP does not understand the most basic elements of how internet services function at scale. Of course Google serves different results to differ…

You indeed did not understand this. (Error lies partly in author's lack of specifics)

The problem is; we taught Google how to look for whatever information we seek by seeking it. We taught it that we are too stupid to include location information in our searches. We taught it what is spam and what is not. That's our "not spam" choices accumulating as a service over time. That's our own translation suggestions. We gave them away freely.

And now that we would like to back off and reclaim our knowledge and our mutual effort to make Google the giant it is, we can't. We are already anonymized and productized. We can't reclaim the spam filter we helped create and run it on a private server. We can't take back the combined translation efforts. Our own places and exploration data is Google's forever, with no way for us to learn from it.

Re: You Will Not Understand This

#84

Post by icebraining »

speedplane wrote: post #78
IanCal wrote: post #34

> Search quality is no longer a core competency of Google, the Internet’s premiere search engine. For example: Two people type the same search string, each receives different results. Yes, I am aware that this is likewise no accident. This is not an example of low search quality and can easily be the opposite. If I search for ruby gems, I probably want code. If someone else does, they may want actual gems. > The qual…

The core issue with Google today is that they've backed away from their mission of "organizing the world's information". They killed Google books, Google scholar is an afterthought, and most results either point to wikipedia or spam. They are definitely falling behind.

They killed Google books

What does this mean?

Re: You Will Not Understand This

#85

Post by icebraining »

chii wrote: post #55
sametmax wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some of the services I make have "private urls" and/or a cookie containing a token to auto-login you so you can use it without an account. But it works only if: - the data are not very sensitive. It's very easy to mess with. - people are tech savvy enough to understand what a URL is or never get in a situation where they don't have the cookie - your service is too small to attract spammers - you can setup a decent sy…

I don't get why no service use the email link to login method. It already exists, but is marketed as 'forgot password'.

What would be the point? You'd still have to create an account and give out your email address.

Re: You Will Not Understand This

#86

Post by robteix »

Semaphor wrote: post #45
clusmore wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I haven't deactivated my account, but I have unfollowed absolutely everything so that I have an entirely blank news feed, and uninstalled the app from my phone to avoid notifications. I still use messenger for communication with friends. For me, it was the realisation that 99% of the content in my news feed was posts by corporate pages. I signed up to connect with friends, and initially I did only see status updates…

> But over time it became exclusively friends liking or commenting on posts by pages I just scrolled through several pages of my newsfeed (actually found a bunch of pages I never saw content from but which were also not relevant to me anymore which I unliked) and didn't find anything like that. Everything was personal posts, a few relevant page posts and posts from groups I'm in. But why did you unfollow everything j…

I was recently surprised to find out they if you deactivate your account, FB gives you the option to keep Messenger. Might be an option for you or OP.

Re: You Will Not Understand This

#87

Post by jonathanstrange »

jf wrote: post #11

I'm relived that at least some people are leaving social media. "Gamification of personal interaction" certainly degraded my health. Quitting Facebook "cold turkey" is the best decision I've made this year.

But there is another side to the story. I quit Facebook many years ago in 2008 because I disagree with their ToS. However, since then I lost contact to many friends far-away. Sure, FB feeds are not really "contact" in any meaningful sense, but they still allow you to get a glimpse at what's going on in their lives. Another things is that I've lost the opportunity to use FB to market my German sci-fi novels to friends and acquaintances.

Anyway, these disadvantages are not high enough for me to return to social media, that's for sure. Social media have essentially just become a data mining business, and there is too much that can be read off social graphs. They are a real long-term danger to society, IMHO.

Re: You Will Not Understand This

#88

Post by kome »

Beautiful! I agree 100% with it.

Commercial web sucks, and what it's worse: it's boring and predictable. The resistance has started. So many people share the same feelings, that's why things like the tildeverse (tilde.club, tilde.town, neocities) do exist.

Revolution won't use JavaScript.

Re: You Will Not Understand This

#90

Post by Ice_cream_suit »

hzay wrote: post #74
jdietrich wrote: post #36

>Search quality is no longer a core competency of Google, the Internet’s premiere search engine. For example: Two people type the same search string, each receives different results. While I sympathise with the general anti-social-media stance, it's clear from this phrase that OP does not understand the most basic elements of how internet services function at scale. Of course Google serves different results to differ…

Pretty sure OP gets the idea of personalization. Google's personalization is like piling up chairs in order to reach the moon. It's nowhere near its promise of reading the user's mind and helping him. Instead its present implementation simply stops your world view from expanding in any direction, by serving you the same stuff that you knew over and over again. This is not personalization. This is a child's imitation…

Using Baidu and Yandex for searches is instructive.
Post reply on HN