3 ms·

Google is ranking other sites for that phrase, most famously it happened when RRW (or maybe Mashable) became the #1 result for facebook login. You can solve th

Google is ranking other sites for that phrase, most famously it happened when RRW (or maybe Mashable) became the #1 result for facebook login. You can solve this by typing news.ycombinator.com in the address bar, the phrase 'hacker news' is vague enough that rightly or wrongly YC might not always hold the #1 position.

whiskers 15y ago
I appreciate the concept - I'm just surprised at how dramatically the results have changed (literally) overnight.
dextorious 15y ago
Actually: "wrongly". "Hacker News" is not that vague so that this site would fall from number one and some random junk site would rise on #1. What gives?
- adgar 15y ago
  Actually, search is always subjective. If another site which delivers news for hackers - even if they don't call it "hacker news" - rises in quality, popularity, or X other factors, it may be that users want that site over HN when they do that search. I agree that in this case hacker news should be higher and that this is a bug. But just because hacker news is called that doesn't mean that query might feasibly be better served by another site. To assert otherwise is pretty surprising.
  - dextorious 15y ago
    """Actually, search is always subjective. If another site which delivers news for hackers - even if they don't call it "hacker news" - rises in quality, popularity, or X other factors, it may be that users want that site over HN when they do that search.""" What I'm seeing in the results page are not those kinds of rags to riches stories. Mostly irrelevant obscure junk.
    - adgar 15y ago
      Sigh... so you just couldn't bear to read the second half of what I wrote? It wasn't a long post. It really wasn't. > I agree that in this case hacker news should be higher and that this is a bug. But just because hacker news is called that doesn't mean that query might feasibly be better served by another site. To assert otherwise is pretty surprising.
      - dextorious 15y ago
        I read it. I just wanted to get the actual point across. The actual point being not the hypothetical, but this particular case. Also, doesn't your "second half" misses a "not"? Like: """But just because hacker news is called that doesn't mean that query might NOT feasibly be better served by another site. To assert otherwise is pretty surprising"".

whiskers 15y ago

I appreciate the concept - I'm just surprised at how dramatically the results have changed (literally) overnight.

dextorious 15y ago

Actually: "wrongly". "Hacker News" is not that vague so that this site would fall from number one and some random junk site would rise on #1. What gives?

adgar 15y ago
Actually, search is always subjective. If another site which delivers news for hackers - even if they don't call it "hacker news" - rises in quality, popularity, or X other factors, it may be that users want that site over HN when they do that search. I agree that in this case hacker news should be higher and that this is a bug. But just because hacker news is called that doesn't mean that query might feasibly be better served by another site. To assert otherwise is pretty surprising.
- dextorious 15y ago
  """Actually, search is always subjective. If another site which delivers news for hackers - even if they don't call it "hacker news" - rises in quality, popularity, or X other factors, it may be that users want that site over HN when they do that search.""" What I'm seeing in the results page are not those kinds of rags to riches stories. Mostly irrelevant obscure junk.
  - adgar 15y ago
    Sigh... so you just couldn't bear to read the second half of what I wrote? It wasn't a long post. It really wasn't. > I agree that in this case hacker news should be higher and that this is a bug. But just because hacker news is called that doesn't mean that query might feasibly be better served by another site. To assert otherwise is pretty surprising.
    - dextorious 15y ago
      I read it. I just wanted to get the actual point across. The actual point being not the hypothetical, but this particular case. Also, doesn't your "second half" misses a "not"? Like: """But just because hacker news is called that doesn't mean that query might NOT feasibly be better served by another site. To assert otherwise is pretty surprising"".