7 ms·

Just do -pinterest in your search to filter

by kauju 6y ago

erichocean 6y ago
It would be great if Google had a little "hide this domain for me permanently" next to every search result. Not only would it improve that user's own search results, it's a very strong signal that other users also might not like it, for de-ranking purposes.
- GraemeL 6y ago
  They used to offer that functionality but removed it years ago. I've been using this userscript since then. https://greasyfork.org/en/scripts/1682-google-hit-hider-by-domain-search-filter-block-sites https://greasyfork.org/en/scripts/1682-google-hit-hider-by-d... It might be called Google Hit Hider by Domain but the author has expanded it to cover most major search engines over the years.
  - LordDragonfang 6y ago
    I've used a similar script; the problem is, for certain searches, literally every result is a pinterest link, and you end up with a blank page.
amelius 6y ago
It gets tiring.
mulmen 6y ago
Google account preferences used to have an option to exclude domains from results. About a decade (?) ago I added Burleson Consulting and expertsexchange to blocked domains and Google was instantly useful again. In 2014-ish Google moved this functionality to Chrome so I lost access to it. Not sure if it is still there.
- DangitBobby 6y ago
  It's not perfect, but I use the Firefox version of this extension. Good for blocking Pinterest and those techno-babble scraper sites. https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/personal-blocklistnot-by/cbbbhelcpfjhdcncigdlkabmjbgokmpg?hl=en https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/personal-blocklist...
baskire 6y ago
Or just avoid using google. The Pinterest results in google image search queries was a major driver to me using bing/ duck duck go.
- zelly 6y ago
  Linking directly to the image file (and in fact a cached version of the full image) is one of the best reasons to use DDG. Reverse image search is also intentionally gimped, unlike non-US jurisdiction Yandex which is quite good. It's certainly for legal reasons, not technical, but Image Search has gotten progressively worse every year. It used to be godly effective 10 years ago.
  - abc-xyz 6y ago
    > Linking directly to the image file (and in fact a cached version of the full image) is one of the best reasons to use DDG. That’s possible thanks to Microsoft’s Bing API. I’m surprised Getty (who’s afaik responsible for Google removing direct image links) only went after Google and not Microsoft.
DevKoala 6y ago
Thank you, but still, the regular person is not finding what they seek, but what SEO experts want them to find.
ClumsyPilot 6y ago
Clearly we should not have no include -fakenews -porn, etc, otherwise I might as well use bing / Duckduckgo/ whatever
thaumaturgy 6y ago
User: This service has a problem and it's not working well. Programmer: There's nothing wrong with the service, you just have to use [magic incantation] to make it work right. I've been hoping for 20 years that this kind of exchange would stop happening. Still hoping! :-)
- npteljes 6y ago
  Services and users have different goals. Why is the helpful technologist the problem?
  - grendix 6y ago
    Your second statement is enabling bad behavior, your first statement is insane.
    - TeMPOraL 6y ago
      No. They're exactly right. The root problem here is incentive misalignment. Both Google and Pinterest sacrifice value they provide to extract more revenue from their users.
    - npteljes 6y ago
      Care to elaborate on the insane part? I feel sane.
  - matthewdgreen 6y ago
    Real answer? Because helpful technologists are the interface between less knowledgeable users and services like Google. We’re the power users and “mavens” who are both highly exposed to the product and have some understanding of what’s going wrong and how it might be made better. We also spend a lot more time talking to that product’s engineering staff than the typical user (see e.g. the fact that we’re here on HN.) When helpful technologists opt out of the problematic aspects of a product by uttering some magic incantation, we essentially remove ourselves from having to be annoyed by the product’s rough edges. This means we’re less likely to help improve the service for everyone, and we’re probably more likely to incorporate similar carelessness into the things we make ourselves.
joe_the_user 6y ago
I just wanted to mention that excluding strings has been broken for me off-and-on over the last month at least. Not directly relevant to anything except how lame google has become.
- pmiller2 6y ago
  Only a month? I don't recall the last time it actually worked. I always end up having to do -"string" and put it in quotation marks, kind of like telling Google "why, yes, this thing I put that minus sign in front of really is something I don't want to see in my results."
smcameron 6y ago
-site:pinterest.* (there's supposed to be an asterisk at the end, but I have to type something after the asterisk for it to show up)

Just do -pinterest in your search to filter

by kauju 6y ago

Just do -pinterest in your search to filter

It would be great if Google had a little "hide this domain for me permanently" next to every search result. Not only would it improve that user's own search results, it's a very strong signal that other users also might not like it, for de-ranking purposes.

GraemeL 6y ago
They used to offer that functionality but removed it years ago. I've been using this userscript since then. https://greasyfork.org/en/scripts/1682-google-hit-hider-by-domain-search-filter-block-sites https://greasyfork.org/en/scripts/1682-google-hit-hider-by-d... It might be called Google Hit Hider by Domain but the author has expanded it to cover most major search engines over the years.
- LordDragonfang 6y ago
  I've used a similar script; the problem is, for certain searches, literally every result is a pinterest link, and you end up with a blank page.

amelius 6y ago

It gets tiring.

mulmen 6y ago

Google account preferences used to have an option to exclude domains from results. About a decade (?) ago I added Burleson Consulting and expertsexchange to blocked domains and Google was instantly useful again. In 2014-ish Google moved this functionality to Chrome so I lost access to it. Not sure if it is still there.

DangitBobby 6y ago
It's not perfect, but I use the Firefox version of this extension. Good for blocking Pinterest and those techno-babble scraper sites. https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/personal-blocklistnot-by/cbbbhelcpfjhdcncigdlkabmjbgokmpg?hl=en https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/personal-blocklist...

baskire 6y ago

Or just avoid using google. The Pinterest results in google image search queries was a major driver to me using bing/ duck duck go.

zelly 6y ago
Linking directly to the image file (and in fact a cached version of the full image) is one of the best reasons to use DDG. Reverse image search is also intentionally gimped, unlike non-US jurisdiction Yandex which is quite good. It's certainly for legal reasons, not technical, but Image Search has gotten progressively worse every year. It used to be godly effective 10 years ago.
- abc-xyz 6y ago
  > Linking directly to the image file (and in fact a cached version of the full image) is one of the best reasons to use DDG. That’s possible thanks to Microsoft’s Bing API. I’m surprised Getty (who’s afaik responsible for Google removing direct image links) only went after Google and not Microsoft.

DevKoala 6y ago

Thank you, but still, the regular person is not finding what they seek, but what SEO experts want them to find.

ClumsyPilot 6y ago

Clearly we should not have no include -fakenews -porn, etc, otherwise I might as well use bing / Duckduckgo/ whatever

thaumaturgy 6y ago

User: This service has a problem and it's not working well. Programmer: There's nothing wrong with the service, you just have to use [magic incantation] to make it work right. I've been hoping for 20 years that this kind of exchange would stop happening. Still hoping! :-)

npteljes 6y ago
Services and users have different goals. Why is the helpful technologist the problem?
- grendix 6y ago
  Your second statement is enabling bad behavior, your first statement is insane.
  - TeMPOraL 6y ago
    No. They're exactly right. The root problem here is incentive misalignment. Both Google and Pinterest sacrifice value they provide to extract more revenue from their users.
  - npteljes 6y ago
    Care to elaborate on the insane part? I feel sane.
- matthewdgreen 6y ago
  Real answer? Because helpful technologists are the interface between less knowledgeable users and services like Google. We’re the power users and “mavens” who are both highly exposed to the product and have some understanding of what’s going wrong and how it might be made better. We also spend a lot more time talking to that product’s engineering staff than the typical user (see e.g. the fact that we’re here on HN.) When helpful technologists opt out of the problematic aspects of a product by uttering some magic incantation, we essentially remove ourselves from having to be annoyed by the product’s rough edges. This means we’re less likely to help improve the service for everyone, and we’re probably more likely to incorporate similar carelessness into the things we make ourselves.

joe_the_user 6y ago

I just wanted to mention that excluding strings has been broken for me off-and-on over the last month at least. Not directly relevant to anything except how lame google has become.

pmiller2 6y ago
Only a month? I don't recall the last time it actually worked. I always end up having to do -"string" and put it in quotation marks, kind of like telling Google "why, yes, this thing I put that minus sign in front of really is something I don't want to see in my results."

smcameron 6y ago

-site:pinterest.* (there's supposed to be an asterisk at the end, but I have to type something after the asterisk for it to show up)