4 ms·
It's funny, right now there are two comments: >> What’s sad here is that we’re now in an era where AI and other computers are now categorizing and approving we
by blakesterz 10y ago
It's funny, right now there are two comments:
>> What’s sad here is that we’re now in an era where AI and other computers are now categorizing and approving websites.
and
>> Good riddance! It was crap anyway.
I kind of agree with both of them. It does make me sad to see DMOZ go, but at the same time, maybe, just maybe it's ok to admit algorithms do a better job of this stuff. As a librarian, I want to think we humans are better at categorizing and cataloging everything.
- bhartzer 10y agoApparently search engines, like Google, think that computers do a better job than humans. I still like the human element, even though it may not be as efficient.
- ocdtrekkie 10y agoSearch engines are a specific type of tool where algorithms just make more sense. Between the amount of data that needs to be processed, and the relatively low impact of being incorrect. There are a lot of places Google wants to apply algorithms (like customer service, censorship products, and driving cars) where I do not believe it's warranted to replace humans with software.
- tyingq 10y agoI don't think DMOZ was the best example of a well curated collection though. It might have lived had it some direction and actual upkeep. Last I looked at it, half the outbound links were dead, which could have been managed automatically. Credible anecdotes say reasonable new submissions were routinely ignored. There are curated niche lists, many on GitHub, that are better than Google for certain things.