3 ms·

> If you're capped at browsing the first 10 pages or whatever, that's entirely reasonable. Not to me. I’ve tried a bunch of times to look for obscure shit I’ve

> If you're capped at browsing the first 10 pages or whatever, that's entirely reasonable. Not to me. I’ve tried a bunch of times to look for obscure shit I’ve seen before (and know exists) but have bumped up against the limit. This is especially annoying when the thing I’m looking for vaguely sounds like a more popular topic, and so the first 10 pages are just about the more popular version.

macintux 4y ago
Pre-Google, it was pretty common to have to dig several pages into the results from early search engines to find what you were looking for. Seems like we’re just returning to the bad old days.
- mrguyorama 4y ago
  Even earlier google had lots of useful results on the 5th page. Google was better at finding me what I was looking for when they were a search company breaking into the ad space. Now they are an ad company with a vestigial search segment who's only modern purpose is to be a page to serve ads on.
crazygringo 4y ago
If you can't find it after 10 pages (100 items) you likely couldn't find it even after 100 (1,000 items). It's diminishing returns, so more pages isn't the solution. The solution to avoid the more popular version as much as possible is to exclude keywords associated with it, and/or to add required keywords associated only with the thing you're looking for. Exact string matches ("go programming language" rather than "go") help too.
- mathaway 4y ago
  Any kind of news event can be repeated by dozens of articles. It’s a really absurd system and it also means you can’t easily find alternative perspectives on events. Searching by date range doesn’t work either since it brings up current articles as well.
- dmitriid 4y ago
  For many search terms the first few pages are nothing but advertisement and sites gaming Google search. I'd love to go beyond page 10. Not with Google, even if says "100k results found". It just doesn't bring them money to link to those pages
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

macintux 4y ago

Pre-Google, it was pretty common to have to dig several pages into the results from early search engines to find what you were looking for. Seems like we’re just returning to the bad old days.

mrguyorama 4y ago
Even earlier google had lots of useful results on the 5th page. Google was better at finding me what I was looking for when they were a search company breaking into the ad space. Now they are an ad company with a vestigial search segment who's only modern purpose is to be a page to serve ads on.

crazygringo 4y ago

If you can't find it after 10 pages (100 items) you likely couldn't find it even after 100 (1,000 items). It's diminishing returns, so more pages isn't the solution. The solution to avoid the more popular version as much as possible is to exclude keywords associated with it, and/or to add required keywords associated only with the thing you're looking for. Exact string matches ("go programming language" rather than "go") help too.

mathaway 4y ago
Any kind of news event can be repeated by dozens of articles. It’s a really absurd system and it also means you can’t easily find alternative perspectives on events. Searching by date range doesn’t work either since it brings up current articles as well.
dmitriid 4y ago
For many search terms the first few pages are nothing but advertisement and sites gaming Google search. I'd love to go beyond page 10. Not with Google, even if says "100k results found". It just doesn't bring them money to link to those pages

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]