4 ms·
In my opinion, the problem is that your version of unbiased doesn't add much value to a user (and is actually biased for the website-owners). For example, Sourc
by piyush_soni 10y ago
In my opinion, the problem is that your version of unbiased doesn't add much value to a user (and is actually biased for the website-owners). For example, SourceForge started adding a lot of misleading 'Download' buttons all over their page, and they might ask the same thing about 'an unbiased ranking' (Google's always been criticized for being the 'Web Police'). As a user however, I'd want Sourceforge's rankings go down the drain because it uses (directly or through its advertisers, doesn't matter) such a bad practice of getting users to click on the ads. AMP is similar. They're giving better ranking to pages which add value to the user, and are probably less concerned about the webmaster. In countries with slow internet, AMP adds a lot of value. You click, and the page is there (no waiting icons and 'downloading' for a few seconds)
(Edit: Sure, Sourceforge was improved a lot after the new owners, it was just used as an example)
- jacquesm 10y agoThe best solution to combat bloat is less bloat, not faster ways to deliver bloat (all that will do is increase the budget for bloat).
- piyush_soni 10y agoWhy not both?
- stinkytaco 10y agoI work with people who have limited Internet literacy, or limited literacy, period. I have seen a marked improvement in their experience when Google started to police the web more. Simply ensuring people can surf safely is a service to lots of people who do not frequent Hacker News.
- unexistance 10y agovery interesting, so now it actually boils down to - whitelisting (AMP bolt); OR - blacklisting (down-rankings) So now it depends on our perspective, is the web default good or bad? default good means blacklisting & vice-versa Alternatively, maybe DDG can do a blacklisting of sites based on some criteria (bad-practice / malicious / content-farm / etc... )