6 ms·

> > Geocitites > Oh yes, the 90's was so much better... Yes they were, because geocities didn't control your search results and did not force you to donate 10

by sigg3 3y ago

> > Geocitites > Oh yes, the 90's was so much better... Yes they were, because geocities didn't control your search results and did not force you to donate 10 seconds to some creepily targeted ad before serving any multimedia experience. I'm not going to say technology was better, nobody misses Realmedia, but the internet was more like a street than a mall. You could look at some weird art or look at some interesting offers, it was up to you. Now you have the illusion of autonomy in a carefully crafted walled garden of ads. Or rather: freedom is more easily found offline.

bagels 3y ago
You don't remember intrusive popup ads that took over the whole screen?
- blantonl 3y ago
  How about the pop-under ads that sat back there behind your browser just waiting to shock you with something stupid when you closed your browser window. Good times.
- highwaylights 3y ago
  Yes, and I miss them every day. The ads were sleazy and brazen and right in your face trying to dragnet as many people as possible into buying something 99.999% had no interest in. Not like now, where massive dossiers are built on you automatically and you're tracked all over the internet by ad companies regardless of the steps you take as an individual to convince yourself you have privacy (like VPN/Private Relay/Incognito/Tor).
  - drdaeman 3y ago
    > where massive dossiers are built on you automatically and you're tracked all over the internet by ad companies ...that still utterly fail to provide relevant ads. This is my pet peeve - I periodically disable adblocker and - suprise, no surprise - 100% of ads I see are irrelevant to me. I can even see how they're trying to target me, but they're totally missing what I really want or interested in. "Personalized" news feeds are sensationalist click-bait crapfests with accidentally useful local news (just by the virtue of local news being more relevant, in general). Book recommendations only work in "more from the same author I've read and liked" category. Summing it up, those massive dossiers aren't seem to be worth shit. Either the industry needs to drastically ramp up their models' complexity (and maybe something will start to happen - although I wonder about the economy of this) or maybe someday they will have to admit all those profile data hoards were the new tulips. The Internets of old at least hadn't pretended that ads were "useful" or "relevant". There typically was no positive quality to them, except for honest "this shit brings site owner (or host) some money".
rumey 3y ago
> Yes they were, because geocities didn't control your search results and did not force you to donate 10 seconds to some creepily targeted ad before serving any multimedia experience. What? Do you remember webrings? How absolutely riddled with shit-tier spam they were? Geocities drove those.
- TeMPOraL 3y ago
  IIRC, webrings tended to be stuck at the bottom of the page. They didn't pop up or over the content.
- pessimizer 3y ago
  Weird. I remember them being groups of sites sharing similar subject matter that would all link to each other, so when you found one, you found them all. You may have experienced that differently.
blackhaz 3y ago
Just recently my wife came back home telling me about some tablet computer she has never ever seen before. I think she has googled for it on her phone. What do you know - my Facebook showed a few ads of that device - on that day. I've never heard about it before. I never searched for it and I never searched for a tablet even - I don't use them. Is this now the new normality - palantiring through databases? Is it OK for Google to leak data to Facebook?
- nmilo 3y ago
  I've always read comments like this and just assume it's confirmation bias on two levels: 1. Out of the 1000s of ads you see every day, at least one of them might coincidentally relate to something you talked about. You don't notice all the ads that are wildly irrelevant. 2. Even if you personally didn't have a hyper-relevant ad experience, out of the 1000s of HN readers that might comment a reply, one of them surely did. You just might be the one lucky guy that got your hyper-relevant ad of the day.
  - plagiarist 3y ago
    IDK, I think it is plausible they might be joining by IP or deeper connections. I've seen some ads that aren't relevant to me but are for something my partner was looking at on a different device.
    - drdaeman 3y ago
      It's probably simpler than this - advertiser just runs a campaign with some broad criteria (like income estimate based on IP-geolocated ZIP code) that both people in the same household fit. No surprise the same ad that one person had seen (and remembered) will be eventually shown to the other.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - adamrezich 3y ago
    years ago I moved back to my hometown in South Dakota after a few years in Washington. my mom asked me to pick up some groceries for her and gave me her credit card to pay for it. I bought the groceries and, additionally, the first Red Bull I'd had in at least a year, using her credit card. within an hour, I got a notification from that one Google app thing where you answer survey questions for Play Store credit (not sure if it still exists), asking what my opinion of Red Bull was. to reiterate: - I had just moved halfway across the country - this was the first Red Bull I had purchased in at least a year - I made the purchase using a credit card other than my own, which was in no way connected to any bank account that was connected to me - there should have been nothing connecting me to my purchase I uninstalled the app immediately after that. sure, maybe it was some strange coincidence, but there's been far too many strange coincidences like that to make me anywhere near comfortable with this shit. another time, years ago, I was talking to someone about how I needed to get a new pair of cheap earbuds, and within a couple hours an Amazon ad for this specific thing appeared in my Twitter timeline. additionally, I just got married a couple weeks ago, and my wife and I immediately started seeing ads for sexual stamina tablets in our social media feeds—thanks, evil advertising apparatus, I thought I was doing okay :/
gumballindie 3y ago
> Yes they were, because geocities didn't control your search results No but altavista and metacrawler did. Then there came google, heavily subsidised by vc money. Deep pockets. Then that turned out to be unsustainable and so they began controlling search results and showing excessive ads. If we want an ad free internet we need to pay for services or have government provided alternatives. There’s no in between i am afraid. Servers and engineers cost money. I wouldnt mind spending 10£ a month for a proper search engine service with a means to stay connected with friends. That would also reduce bot generated content.
- plagiarist 3y ago
  If you paid for that it would be less than a decade before that company was also doing the same bullshit and also collecting a subscription. Look at what is happening to streaming. "Oh, $10/mo for basically all the content, that's a no-brainer." Now it's returning to the cable television experience with ads every 10 minutes.
  - gumballindie 3y ago
    Very true. And when that happens i will gladly switch.
- lkrubner 3y ago
  But people didn't rely on search, as much, back then. I belonged to a few forums, and I'd visit one or two portals, almost every day as my starting point on the Web, and from there people would be recommending things, and I'd follow that. All through the 90s and into the early 00s, it was sites such as Everything and Digg and Slashdot that drove all traffic. Search-as-in-Altavista was ineffective, so people didn't rely on it. We all relied on certain forums, and those drove traffic in a more organic way. Of stuff we have nowadays, Reddit almost recreates that old world, but Reddit now operates in a context where online traffic has concentrated into 2 sites: Google and Facebook. There is no way to escape the current context, that traffic is now massively concentrated. There was a certain freedom to the 90s, in that no site could reliably capture even 1% of the Web traffic, a situation that we idealistically thought would last forever.
pessimizer 3y ago
And there was literally more on the internet. I could search for a book, and get a ton of information on it from a ton of different perspectives. Now I get results page after results page of links to the same copy over and over again, and tons of people trying to sell me something or to trick me into downloading a trojan. At some point, all the search engines decided that they didn't even need more than five or six pages of results (that they silently repeat.) I mean, they gave you the Wikipedia entry and a link to the Goodreads page as the first two results after their ads - what else could you possibly want to read? Are you a terrorist or something? The only countervailing events were Google's book scanning project, the founding of archive.org, and the growth of Wikipedia. Google Books is a shadow what it was, was under attack, and was largely an AI project. Archive.org is in danger, and had to limit access to 95% of its content; I can't download a book from the 40s that has been out of print since then, and where everybody who was involved with it is dead. Wikipedia is falling apart under the influence of paid editors and people attacking other people through edits to their biographies. It's getting to the point where it might be better not to be on the web. I don't like it. Even this web 2.0 commenting on everything seems like a pointless outlet for frustrations. And all it does is make various files on you, in dozens or hundreds of hands, grow slowly. edit: I don't want to diminish how awesome it is to have a good proportion of 17th-19th century nonfiction online. It's nuts.
arrosenberg 3y ago
I really like the street versus mall analogy. It used to be way more organic, and now its heavily curated to suit a specific purpose (consumer capitalism). Even if many things have improved, it lacks a certain je ne sais quoi.
2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago
> I'm not going to say technology was better The Internet was better but the technology was worse.

by sigg3 3y ago

bagels 3y ago

You don't remember intrusive popup ads that took over the whole screen?

blantonl 3y ago
How about the pop-under ads that sat back there behind your browser just waiting to shock you with something stupid when you closed your browser window. Good times.
highwaylights 3y ago
Yes, and I miss them every day. The ads were sleazy and brazen and right in your face trying to dragnet as many people as possible into buying something 99.999% had no interest in. Not like now, where massive dossiers are built on you automatically and you're tracked all over the internet by ad companies regardless of the steps you take as an individual to convince yourself you have privacy (like VPN/Private Relay/Incognito/Tor).
- drdaeman 3y ago
  > where massive dossiers are built on you automatically and you're tracked all over the internet by ad companies ...that still utterly fail to provide relevant ads. This is my pet peeve - I periodically disable adblocker and - suprise, no surprise - 100% of ads I see are irrelevant to me. I can even see how they're trying to target me, but they're totally missing what I really want or interested in. "Personalized" news feeds are sensationalist click-bait crapfests with accidentally useful local news (just by the virtue of local news being more relevant, in general). Book recommendations only work in "more from the same author I've read and liked" category. Summing it up, those massive dossiers aren't seem to be worth shit. Either the industry needs to drastically ramp up their models' complexity (and maybe something will start to happen - although I wonder about the economy of this) or maybe someday they will have to admit all those profile data hoards were the new tulips. The Internets of old at least hadn't pretended that ads were "useful" or "relevant". There typically was no positive quality to them, except for honest "this shit brings site owner (or host) some money".

rumey 3y ago

> Yes they were, because geocities didn't control your search results and did not force you to donate 10 seconds to some creepily targeted ad before serving any multimedia experience. What? Do you remember webrings? How absolutely riddled with shit-tier spam they were? Geocities drove those.

TeMPOraL 3y ago
IIRC, webrings tended to be stuck at the bottom of the page. They didn't pop up or over the content.
pessimizer 3y ago
Weird. I remember them being groups of sites sharing similar subject matter that would all link to each other, so when you found one, you found them all. You may have experienced that differently.

blackhaz 3y ago

Just recently my wife came back home telling me about some tablet computer she has never ever seen before. I think she has googled for it on her phone. What do you know - my Facebook showed a few ads of that device - on that day. I've never heard about it before. I never searched for it and I never searched for a tablet even - I don't use them. Is this now the new normality - palantiring through databases? Is it OK for Google to leak data to Facebook?

nmilo 3y ago
I've always read comments like this and just assume it's confirmation bias on two levels: 1. Out of the 1000s of ads you see every day, at least one of them might coincidentally relate to something you talked about. You don't notice all the ads that are wildly irrelevant. 2. Even if you personally didn't have a hyper-relevant ad experience, out of the 1000s of HN readers that might comment a reply, one of them surely did. You just might be the one lucky guy that got your hyper-relevant ad of the day.
- plagiarist 3y ago
  IDK, I think it is plausible they might be joining by IP or deeper connections. I've seen some ads that aren't relevant to me but are for something my partner was looking at on a different device.
  - drdaeman 3y ago
    It's probably simpler than this - advertiser just runs a campaign with some broad criteria (like income estimate based on IP-geolocated ZIP code) that both people in the same household fit. No surprise the same ad that one person had seen (and remembered) will be eventually shown to the other.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- adamrezich 3y ago
  years ago I moved back to my hometown in South Dakota after a few years in Washington. my mom asked me to pick up some groceries for her and gave me her credit card to pay for it. I bought the groceries and, additionally, the first Red Bull I'd had in at least a year, using her credit card. within an hour, I got a notification from that one Google app thing where you answer survey questions for Play Store credit (not sure if it still exists), asking what my opinion of Red Bull was. to reiterate: - I had just moved halfway across the country - this was the first Red Bull I had purchased in at least a year - I made the purchase using a credit card other than my own, which was in no way connected to any bank account that was connected to me - there should have been nothing connecting me to my purchase I uninstalled the app immediately after that. sure, maybe it was some strange coincidence, but there's been far too many strange coincidences like that to make me anywhere near comfortable with this shit. another time, years ago, I was talking to someone about how I needed to get a new pair of cheap earbuds, and within a couple hours an Amazon ad for this specific thing appeared in my Twitter timeline. additionally, I just got married a couple weeks ago, and my wife and I immediately started seeing ads for sexual stamina tablets in our social media feeds—thanks, evil advertising apparatus, I thought I was doing okay :/

gumballindie 3y ago

> Yes they were, because geocities didn't control your search results No but altavista and metacrawler did. Then there came google, heavily subsidised by vc money. Deep pockets. Then that turned out to be unsustainable and so they began controlling search results and showing excessive ads. If we want an ad free internet we need to pay for services or have government provided alternatives. There’s no in between i am afraid. Servers and engineers cost money. I wouldnt mind spending 10£ a month for a proper search engine service with a means to stay connected with friends. That would also reduce bot generated content.

plagiarist 3y ago
If you paid for that it would be less than a decade before that company was also doing the same bullshit and also collecting a subscription. Look at what is happening to streaming. "Oh, $10/mo for basically all the content, that's a no-brainer." Now it's returning to the cable television experience with ads every 10 minutes.
- gumballindie 3y ago
  Very true. And when that happens i will gladly switch.
lkrubner 3y ago
But people didn't rely on search, as much, back then. I belonged to a few forums, and I'd visit one or two portals, almost every day as my starting point on the Web, and from there people would be recommending things, and I'd follow that. All through the 90s and into the early 00s, it was sites such as Everything and Digg and Slashdot that drove all traffic. Search-as-in-Altavista was ineffective, so people didn't rely on it. We all relied on certain forums, and those drove traffic in a more organic way. Of stuff we have nowadays, Reddit almost recreates that old world, but Reddit now operates in a context where online traffic has concentrated into 2 sites: Google and Facebook. There is no way to escape the current context, that traffic is now massively concentrated. There was a certain freedom to the 90s, in that no site could reliably capture even 1% of the Web traffic, a situation that we idealistically thought would last forever.

pessimizer 3y ago

And there was literally more on the internet. I could search for a book, and get a ton of information on it from a ton of different perspectives. Now I get results page after results page of links to the same copy over and over again, and tons of people trying to sell me something or to trick me into downloading a trojan. At some point, all the search engines decided that they didn't even need more than five or six pages of results (that they silently repeat.) I mean, they gave you the Wikipedia entry and a link to the Goodreads page as the first two results after their ads - what else could you possibly want to read? Are you a terrorist or something? The only countervailing events were Google's book scanning project, the founding of archive.org, and the growth of Wikipedia. Google Books is a shadow what it was, was under attack, and was largely an AI project. Archive.org is in danger, and had to limit access to 95% of its content; I can't download a book from the 40s that has been out of print since then, and where everybody who was involved with it is dead. Wikipedia is falling apart under the influence of paid editors and people attacking other people through edits to their biographies. It's getting to the point where it might be better not to be on the web. I don't like it. Even this web 2.0 commenting on everything seems like a pointless outlet for frustrations. And all it does is make various files on you, in dozens or hundreds of hands, grow slowly. edit: I don't want to diminish how awesome it is to have a good proportion of 17th-19th century nonfiction online. It's nuts.

arrosenberg 3y ago

I really like the street versus mall analogy. It used to be way more organic, and now its heavily curated to suit a specific purpose (consumer capitalism). Even if many things have improved, it lacks a certain je ne sais quoi.

2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago

> I'm not going to say technology was better The Internet was better but the technology was worse.