5 ms·

At an individual level, we should IMNSHO moderate our hubris and at least consider the possibility that other people are right, and that includes people at Goog

by Arnt 5y ago

At an individual level, we should IMNSHO moderate our hubris and at least consider the possibility that other people are right, and that includes people at Google. Data isn't bound to be good, but it's not bound to be bad either. Posting "why Google is wrong" is (still IMNSHO) an overdose of hubris, and because of that hubris it's wrong even if Google happens to be wrong in the matter at hand.

scbrg 5y ago
They are - objectively - wrong. There's a spec, and they're violating it. This gets even more absurd given that they most likely produce the user agent as well, so they can't really blame "it's too hard for users to configure the user agent". Put the effin' language selector in the toolbar if configured language doesn't match your wildly inaccurate guesses then.
- toast0 5y ago
  > They are - objectively - wrong. There's a spec, and they're violating it. Not following a spec only implies they're objectively wrong if the spec is objectively correct. I don't think the Accept-Language spec is objectively correct; for me, it's not even subjectively correct. Following it or not is a choice, and neither is wrong.
makeitdouble 5y ago
There’s a point that hasn’t been much raised in the other threads because of its obviousness: they’re the wildly dominant search engine, paying ungodly amounts of money to stay so, and forcing itself wherever it can (remember the lawsuits around the search bar in android…) For them to decide some portion of users are not worth the hassle and should have a degraded experience, because overall it serves Google better (revenue ? engagement ?) doesn’t make them ‘right’ in my book. Feels more like ‘assholes’. If your argument was that for a vast majority of user the current behavior might be better, so as a whole it is the “right” choice, this has a taste of trolley problem. Except there’s more than two paths here, and having settings that work properly would make everyone happy for instance. It’s not hubris to say that Google isn’t delivering on that part, making the overall situation “wrong”.

by Arnt 5y ago

scbrg 5y ago

They are - objectively - wrong. There's a spec, and they're violating it. This gets even more absurd given that they most likely produce the user agent as well, so they can't really blame "it's too hard for users to configure the user agent". Put the effin' language selector in the toolbar if configured language doesn't match your wildly inaccurate guesses then.

toast0 5y ago
> They are - objectively - wrong. There's a spec, and they're violating it. Not following a spec only implies they're objectively wrong if the spec is objectively correct. I don't think the Accept-Language spec is objectively correct; for me, it's not even subjectively correct. Following it or not is a choice, and neither is wrong.

makeitdouble 5y ago

There’s a point that hasn’t been much raised in the other threads because of its obviousness: they’re the wildly dominant search engine, paying ungodly amounts of money to stay so, and forcing itself wherever it can (remember the lawsuits around the search bar in android…) For them to decide some portion of users are not worth the hassle and should have a degraded experience, because overall it serves Google better (revenue ? engagement ?) doesn’t make them ‘right’ in my book. Feels more like ‘assholes’. If your argument was that for a vast majority of user the current behavior might be better, so as a whole it is the “right” choice, this has a taste of trolley problem. Except there’s more than two paths here, and having settings that work properly would make everyone happy for instance. It’s not hubris to say that Google isn’t delivering on that part, making the overall situation “wrong”.