3 ms·

The sad part is, with them down ranking http only sites, and with all the spam farms, going 10+ "pages" in, eg 100+ links, used to be an easy way to get to real

by b112 2y ago

The sad part is, with them down ranking http only sites, and with all the spam farms, going 10+ "pages" in, eg 100+ links, used to be an easy way to get to real results. Then they added infinite scrolling, and oh well! They should add a "this site hasn't changed in a decade" or "only give http results" for people searching for older stuff. Google takes these weird stances, like making it impossible to find legacy sites (http sites) because they want to push encryption (fine, but don't hurt users!). Or refusing to add zoom + reflow on chrome (super simple to do, just use a virtual dpi), showing how little they care about those with vision issues, or the aged. Why? Repeatedly they've stated it is to "punish" sites not updating for mobile. Well, even mobile sites are hard to see for some. What a ridiculous, absurd, stupid response. The only people they are punishing is the sight impaired, or the aged. Thanks Google.

Xelbair 2y ago
You seem to be under assumption that they make changes for benefit of the user, but not the adtech. This is extremely weird assumption when talking about google.
- b112 2y ago
  It's not extremely weird, when they stated both of those reasons, multiple times, in press releaes and bug reports. I am well aware of where their profits come from, but when going after them in the public sphere, you must address, and refute the reasons they publicly cite. Also note, often there are multiple reasons. By ripping down their stated reasons, and showing the absurdity of them, and also validating how it literally hurts accessibility for those with visual disabilities, you doubly ahow them to be an organization filled with uncaring individuals, which care not for accessibility. Personally, I wouldn't want to work in a place that wouldn't put in a wheelchair ramp. I wouldn't want to work with people that accept that. Yet that's Google. What does it say about those working there?

by b112 2y ago

Xelbair 2y ago

You seem to be under assumption that they make changes for benefit of the user, but not the adtech. This is extremely weird assumption when talking about google.

b112 2y ago
It's not extremely weird, when they stated both of those reasons, multiple times, in press releaes and bug reports. I am well aware of where their profits come from, but when going after them in the public sphere, you must address, and refute the reasons they publicly cite. Also note, often there are multiple reasons. By ripping down their stated reasons, and showing the absurdity of them, and also validating how it literally hurts accessibility for those with visual disabilities, you doubly ahow them to be an organization filled with uncaring individuals, which care not for accessibility. Personally, I wouldn't want to work in a place that wouldn't put in a wheelchair ramp. I wouldn't want to work with people that accept that. Yet that's Google. What does it say about those working there?