2 ms·
Actually it is you who are in the wrong here, though the voters on this thread don't seem to realize it. The guy you're arguing with was an early Google employ
by pg 16y ago
Actually it is you who are in the wrong here, though the voters on this thread don't seem to realize it. The guy you're arguing with was an early Google employee. He knows what he's talking about.
- lisper 16y agoThanks for backing me up PG. BTW, just noticed this too: > by all words, I don't mean useless words like conjunctions Conjunctions and other common words are far from useless. If you ignore them you will go badly wrong on queries like "To be or not to be".
- jeb 16y agoThat's not a particularly strong argument. It's just a call to authority argument without actually adding any real information one way or the other.
- lisper 16y agoYou do not understand the argument from authority. Argument from authority would be if PG had said that I'm right because, say, I had a Ph.D. But being an early Google employee when the topic under discussion is the early days of Google doesn't make on an authority, it makes one a primary source. But you may have noticed that I did not bring this up. That's because your factual claims are easily debunked with information from the public record.
- jeb 16y agoHow can such a long argument go on and nobody is simply making a post with a series of numbers showing search engine marketshare from 2001?
- HaltingState 16y agopg, the early Google employee has not made any statements to contrary. He has not asserted anything but the existence of unspecified inaccuracies. Paul was neither on the board of directors and was not involved with this decisions. He is not best source.