1851
Living Room / Re: Link: Why Google does not qualify for searching the web anymore
« on: January 11, 2011, 02:08 PM »Yeah but it only grey out domains, make them non-clickable right?Right.-Bamse (January 11, 2011, 02:04 PM)
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Yeah but it only grey out domains, make them non-clickable right?Right.-Bamse (January 11, 2011, 02:04 PM)
Another point of view is internet has ALWAYS been full of noise, crap, copy-writing crap, attempts to get on top of any list, not just Googles.Early "top lists" were manually generated, so they required a certain level of worthy contents. Google's don't.-Bamse (January 08, 2011, 01:53 PM)
I would never ever expect perfect results even when doing an advanced search.So you arranged with Google's inability to provide good search results. That is your fault, not theirs.-Bamse (January 08, 2011, 01:53 PM)
Not solution but another amazing experience is when you see results pages as autoloading in 2+ columns. Suddenly you are no more victim to top 10, 20, 30 and can evaluate way better.You still are, but it takes less time.-Bamse (January 08, 2011, 01:53 PM)
Now, massive amounts of technically-not-spam sites are generated by penny-hungry affiliate marketers and sleazy web “content” startups to target long-tail Google queries en masse, scraping content from others or paying low-wage workers to churn out formulaic, minimally nutritious pages to answer them.
Searching Google is now like asking a question in a crowded flea market of hungry, desperate, sleazy salesmen who all claim to have the answer to every question you ask.
(...)
And none of them actually know a damn thing about what you’re asking, of course — they’re just offering meaningless, valueless words that seem to form sentences until you actually try to make use of them.
They call this “content”. But it’s not, really — it’s filler. And by a more common-sense definition, it’s spam. But Google either doesn’t think so, or is so overwhelmed by its volume that it has seemingly stopped trying to keep it under control.
And if it's GPL, then it's GNU.Linux (the kernel) is not even GNU due to the driver BLOBs. No-one said that the whole distribution must also be.-Renegade (December 31, 2010, 09:22 PM)
IMHO "GNU/Linux" doesn't mean "GNU-only" - then you wouldn't have a very large distro, anyway. Since it doesn't mean GNU-only, it doesn't mean opensores-only either.Well, it MEANS GNU-compatible only.-f0dder (December 31, 2010, 03:16 PM)
I'm not familiar with what you're referring to.Debian's apt repositories have a "non-free" trunk. In Debian's kernel are some binary blobs for common drivers. Both are incompatible with the term "GNU/Linux".-Renegade (December 30, 2010, 11:02 PM)
Did you mean, 'Yep, so "Linux" is the wrong term'?Debian. It has both.
And did you mean, 'Tell me one major GNU/Linux distribution with a "non-free" repository or blobs in the kernel'?-Renegade (December 30, 2010, 10:24 PM)
To be absolutely clear, the reasons/motivations behind GNU/Linux are entirely political/philosophical, and NOT financial.Yep, so "GNU/Linux" is the wrong term. Tell me one major GNU/Linux distribution without a "non-free" repository or blobs in the kernel.-Renegade (December 30, 2010, 09:57 PM)