4 ms·
Uhh, 1) I am basically certain that it doesn't work. Imagine something this simple actually did work in general. Do you think Google, Bing, etc, wouldn't hav
by robrenaud 14y ago
Uhh,
1) I am basically certain that it doesn't work. Imagine something this simple actually did work in general. Do you think Google, Bing, etc, wouldn't have implemented it?
2) I think the analogy is extremely flawed. nytimes.com is by no means a web page equivalent to "the" or "a" in language. Articles, pronouns, etc, don't really carry meaning. Despite being popular, nytimes certainly does.
- bane 14y agoI don't know. I haven't really spent a lot of time looking at this to get a good feel of the quality. But consider this, NYT tends to be a secondary source: e.g. book reviews (books are the primary source), science news (scientific papers are primary), business news (market movements and press releases are primary), etc. Now consider, if I'm interested in some particular thing in science, is it better to get the NYT science reporting or just get the professor's publication and research page on their university website? Filtering out the top-n sites is more likely to turn up the professor's site near the top of the pile rather than after all of the popular sites' second and third level reporting. Is this better? Depends on the audience. A "popular science" goal would argue the former is the better as science news simplifies, abstracts and popularizes complex science (with varying degrees of quality) while a scientist would prefer the latter.