3 ms·

Like the rest of us, get browsing! https://minnie.tuhs.org/pipermail/tuhs/ https://minnie.tuhs.org/pipermail/tuhs/ Might as well add a disclaimer: back in the

Like the rest of us, get browsing! https://minnie.tuhs.org/pipermail/tuhs/ https://minnie.tuhs.org/pipermail/tuhs/ Might as well add a disclaimer: back in the days, in order to find the gold nuggets on the web, you had to shift through shit. A lot of shit. But then once in a while, you find those little nuggets that made the whole shit-shifting worthwhile. Useful exercise in patience for beginner webbers maybe.

AceJohnny2 7y ago
> back in the days, in order to find the gold nuggets on the web, you had to shift through shit. "back in the day"? Edit: no, I meant, it hasn't changed since then. Sturgeon's Law still applies today.
- awgm 7y ago
  Either way
- capableweb 7y ago
  I did not know that it's "day" not "days". Not a native English speaker and have always been saying it "days". Thank you for correcting me!
  - mikorym 7y ago
    Both could be correct. Here I think "day" could make more sense. An example of the other case: "Back in the days of Fortran programming..." If you leave out anything after "days" by just saying "back in the days" then it is like you are pausing. As in when you reminisce, "Oh, back in the days!" Maybe that is what the intention was. In any case, the commentor was actually just saying that he thinks nothing has changed.
- capableweb 7y ago
  Sorry, I misunderstood and thought you were trying to correct me! Thanks anyway :) I would agree, but I think the difference nowadays (had to look up I got "nowadays" right, seems I did!) is that people usually want a quality filter in front of them (like upvotes, likes, retweets or some other metric) rather than just having to judge by themselves. In good ol' email threads, you always had to judge by yourself. In social media today, many assume quality because of metrics.
kevin_thibedeau 7y ago
Google can't monetize this content so it ends up on page 5 behind all the irrelevant SEO links.
- mav3rick 7y ago
  If enough legit and important articles linked to it , it would be at the top.
  - capableweb 7y ago
    And what decides if a article is "legit and important"? If some other legit and important article links to it, of course! And so we continue, until only the bottom-feeding "high quality" is left at the top of the search result, which is generally boring but "correct" content.
  - Bjartr 7y ago
    If that were true there wouldn't be so much bullshit on the first few pages. Try doing a Google search that gets lots of low-effort ad-stuffed "top x" or "best x of 2019" lists or similar garbage and changing the date range to limit results to before 2008 or thereabouts. It's incredible how much more useful, and easier to quickly evaluate, the results often are.
    - mav3rick 7y ago
      Only if your bullshit meter was an objective meter. It's subjective. Links to a page is at least objective.
- rasz 7y ago
  Google Groups should have this, but search in Groups is permanently broken. Search, you know, Googles main domain.

AceJohnny2 7y ago

> back in the days, in order to find the gold nuggets on the web, you had to shift through shit. "back in the day"? Edit: no, I meant, it hasn't changed since then. Sturgeon's Law still applies today.

awgm 7y ago
Either way
capableweb 7y ago
I did not know that it's "day" not "days". Not a native English speaker and have always been saying it "days". Thank you for correcting me!
- mikorym 7y ago
  Both could be correct. Here I think "day" could make more sense. An example of the other case: "Back in the days of Fortran programming..." If you leave out anything after "days" by just saying "back in the days" then it is like you are pausing. As in when you reminisce, "Oh, back in the days!" Maybe that is what the intention was. In any case, the commentor was actually just saying that he thinks nothing has changed.
capableweb 7y ago
Sorry, I misunderstood and thought you were trying to correct me! Thanks anyway :) I would agree, but I think the difference nowadays (had to look up I got "nowadays" right, seems I did!) is that people usually want a quality filter in front of them (like upvotes, likes, retweets or some other metric) rather than just having to judge by themselves. In good ol' email threads, you always had to judge by yourself. In social media today, many assume quality because of metrics.

kevin_thibedeau 7y ago

Google can't monetize this content so it ends up on page 5 behind all the irrelevant SEO links.

mav3rick 7y ago
If enough legit and important articles linked to it , it would be at the top.
- capableweb 7y ago
  And what decides if a article is "legit and important"? If some other legit and important article links to it, of course! And so we continue, until only the bottom-feeding "high quality" is left at the top of the search result, which is generally boring but "correct" content.
- Bjartr 7y ago
  If that were true there wouldn't be so much bullshit on the first few pages. Try doing a Google search that gets lots of low-effort ad-stuffed "top x" or "best x of 2019" lists or similar garbage and changing the date range to limit results to before 2008 or thereabouts. It's incredible how much more useful, and easier to quickly evaluate, the results often are.
  - mav3rick 7y ago
    Only if your bullshit meter was an objective meter. It's subjective. Links to a page is at least objective.
rasz 7y ago
Google Groups should have this, but search in Groups is permanently broken. Search, you know, Googles main domain.