nervechannel

9 ms·

31.
by nervechannel 16y ago
People pay for something you can do with 'at' and 'curl'? I wish I was an entrepreneur.
32.
by nervechannel 16y ago
> Looking at your submissions you have a bad habit of editing headlines. Bad habit? Example please? From the guidelines: "You can make up a new title if you want, but if you put gratuitous editorial spin on it, the editors may rewrite i
33.
Search-spam bitch-war: expert-sexchange issues takedown against allfaq.org(chillingeffects.org)
1 points by nervechannel 16y ago|0 comments
34.
by nervechannel 16y ago
> Google stands to make the most money in the long run by being the preferred search engine for the most people. Not necessarily -- if other search engines drive people to pages full of Google ads, Google still get paid, right?
35.
by nervechannel 16y ago
Well iOS for one. Also much as I like Chrome, I can't run it on my Linux box because the font rendering is terrible and it lets sites' font choices supersede the user's. That means I can't overrule their painful font choices with ones tha
36.
by nervechannel 16y ago
As an ex-SOAP-dev... Yeah.
37.
by nervechannel 16y ago
Err, I mentioned this well before the comment above: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2075437 It's not so much that it's a knowledge vacuum, just that someone didn't read the whole thread before replying.
38.
by nervechannel 16y ago
If you leave the included sites empty, and only supply excluded sites, then it searches everything and excludes those particular ones.
39.
by nervechannel 16y ago
Maybe try using something like a decision tree where the classification steps are much more obvious. There are parallelizable implementations out there...
40.
by nervechannel 16y ago
Did I say anything in the OP about my blacklist affecting other users? Please read before ranting.
41.
by nervechannel 16y ago
Still tied to a specific browser though. Which isn't available on all platforms.
42.
by nervechannel 16y ago
This is exactly what I meant. Lots of people have added the idea about crowd-sourced re-ranking based on blacklisting, then said "it'll never work..."
43.
by nervechannel 16y ago
So what? All that would mean is that the site wouldn't show up in their results. I never said anything about it affecting other people's results...
44.
by nervechannel 16y ago
Frankly, I'm not fussed whether the majority of users would use it right. I posted this as an entirely self-serving request for a way to make my results cleaner. Also: If the majority of users do like eHow, then that's a sign it's not spa
45.
by nervechannel 16y ago
Re 2, yes. A lot of people have reacted as if I suggested letting people affect everybody else's results. I'm not convinced that's possible to do safely, I'd be happy just to see it for my own results. Re 1, painful? WTF? The whole point is
46.
by nervechannel 16y ago
Do you think 99% of users are too stupid to click 'report spam' when they get a spam email?
47.
by nervechannel 16y ago
So don't use the blacklisting stats for re-ranking everyone else's then. I didn't consider that when I put the post up. An instant way to filter sites just for yourself would solve 90% of people's complaints straight away.
48.
by nervechannel 16y ago
What do you think most StackOverflow answers are? It's a karma-paid labor pool ... said the comment on Hacker News, earning the poster 3 points so far.
49.
by nervechannel 16y ago
That's the point, what I want is exactly a user-specific blacklist. I can even do that already with Google's Custom Search, all that's missing is a little 'block this site' button. Instead I have to go and configure Custom Search manually
50.
by nervechannel 16y ago
That was my point really. I don't want to see eFreedom hits, I consider them spammy, so I'd like to be able to click-ban them from my results. If Google use that information to gradually adjust their ranking overall, then fair enough
51.
by nervechannel 16y ago
Nah. They let people 'report spam' in gmail -- they're happy to admit that algorithm doesn't always guess right. Also there's already a "give us feedback" mechanism for reporting bad search results, it's just too slow and manual.
52.
by nervechannel 16y ago
Actually, I sort of sympathize with the predicament EE faces. They want to show up high on Google search results, because that's how they get new customers ... but they don't want to give away their content for free. I have no sympathy a
53.
by nervechannel 16y ago
Also a friend of mine built something similar for an art show a couple of years ago: http://riccarvalho.com/project/global-warming/ Not sure if it was inspired by the MIT thing.
54.
by nervechannel 16y ago
Like I said in the OP: "There are gresemonkey etc. scripts to do this, but they're tied to a single browser on a single machine. A global filter (like in gmail) would be so much more useful."
55.
by nervechannel 16y ago
It didn't used to be like that -- you used to have to 'view source' to see it <facepalm> Then I think they went through a stage of not revealing it at all. But in any case, it's far less useful than SO/SF etc.
56.
by nervechannel 16y ago
Basic ad-supported version is free.
57.
by nervechannel 16y ago
I've discovered you can also set up a Custom Search Engine, with no included sites (default to everything), and specifically exclude the sites you don't want. Then do all your searches through this. http://www.google.com/cse/ Usability-wi
58.
Dear Google: please let me ban sites from results
438 points by nervechannel 16y ago|208 comments
59.
by nervechannel 16y ago
The StackOverflow scrapers ranking higher than SO is the thing that most irks me about the big G at the moment. That and all the sites like wareseeker that just act as pointless aggregators of FLOSS download sites or forum sites. Last time
60.
by nervechannel 16y ago
Mlodinow in "The Drunkard's Walk" makes the very good point that the 'losing streaks' that lead to coach firings (and Hollywood studio boss sackings) are almost entirely explainable by perfectly normal random variation. http://www.amazon.c

More ›