yanw

39 ms·

361.
by yanw 15y ago
This is irresponsibly misleading. Here is the relevant text: http://www.google.com/support/profiles/bin/answer.py?hl=en&#... If you currently have a private profile but you do not wish to make your profile public, you can delete your pro
362.
by yanw 15y ago
I tend to when my children are involved.
363.
by yanw 15y ago
Your son joined a service he wasn't supposed to, then joined an adjacent service that still requires an invite and that triggered a mechanism that kicked him out and he gets upset, you evidently don't think it's your fault for not reading t
364.
by yanw 15y ago
Webapp2: http://webapp-improved.appspot.com/
365.
by yanw 15y ago
I approve of the new Maps UI: http://maps.google.com/
366.
by yanw 15y ago
From the blog post: That’s the Google+ project so far: Circles, Sparks, Hangouts and mobile. We’re beginning in Field Trial, so you may find some rough edges, and the project is by invitation only
367.
by yanw 15y ago
These are the same people who are suing Google all over the place. The ridiculous notion of 'SEO by lawyer' should go away (very quickly!) and Google should establish that it's not a traffic pump and isn't obligated to send anyone traffic.
368.
On Capitol Hill, it's all about beating down Google(news.cnet.com)
1 points by yanw 15y ago|0 comments
369.
by yanw 15y ago
How about this then: http://techliberation.com/2011/06/24/the-ftc-makes-its-googl... Either way the investigation is lacking in merit.
370.
Google Responds To FTC With “You’re Looking For What, Exactly?”(marketingpilgrim.com)
7 points by yanw 15y ago|3 comments
371.
France Drops Plans for 'Google Tax'(nytimes.com)
1 points by yanw 15y ago|0 comments
372.
by yanw 15y ago
It's not strictly a topic for HN but I concur.
373.
by yanw 15y ago
The 'political leaning results' are just a tool the author used to try to explained his (ill-informed) point, there are no evidence to any such degree of personalization specially not to any 'bubble' inducing extent, it's all very sensation
374.
by yanw 15y ago
They show you other stuff Do you have any proof that this isn't what all search engines actually do?
375.
by yanw 15y ago
It's bullshit because search is filtering and the filtering done by search is being exaggerated by those who peddle this bullshit.
376.
by yanw 15y ago
All can be remedied by tweaking the algorithms and that happens all the time, you can also use a certain vertical directly for certain type queries (scholar search etc). The same way that what a user might enjoy can be inferred the inverse
377.
by yanw 15y ago
It's not an issue just because you want to believe it is. Media outlets always filtered stuff for you but now the algorithms are 'filtering' results according to your interaction to find what's relevant to you, so you have a 'vote' here. Yo
378.
by yanw 15y ago
Shame on DDG for endorsing this nonsense. I understand the quest for a larger userbase but please don't use this sort of FUD that is being peddled by those who don't understand the technical aspects of search and are trying to sell their bo
379.
by yanw 15y ago
Exactly! it's just nonsense peddled by those who don't understand the technical aspects of search, people who don't realize that a search engine's prime function is to filter the millions of results for each query to down to the most releva
380.
by yanw 15y ago
No it's a non-issue, and by the way Google probably uses much more that 57 'inputs' (signals) to determine relevance. Personalization is just a different term for relevant results and this is just FUD, the source of which is people who do
381.
by yanw 15y ago
It's not happening to any extent, it's just a new FUD concept that is meant to sell books an confuse people, if you seek more info you can dig deeper into any set of initial results. Personalization == relevance.
382.
by yanw 15y ago
People don't realize many things about search engine from indices to ranking algorithms, they do realize however that a search engine is to return the most relevant results for them and that is were personalization/relevance fits in.
383.
by yanw 15y ago
This assumes that 'filter bubble' is something more than a nonsense term. There is little difference between personalization and the relevance of search results. How would you go about ranking then? alphabetically?! it's a matter of tuning
384.
Prerender Test(prerender-test.appspot.com)
1 points by yanw 15y ago|0 comments
385.
by yanw 15y ago
Because of cake, I enjoy cake. Suicide is for idiots, don't do it! call a hotline.
386.
by yanw 15y ago
Regardless if it's an HTML5 API or not: 'competitive advantage' resulting from innovation raises no 'regulatory issues' whatsoever.
387.
by yanw 15y ago
I don't think 'censorship' is the right term here, the sites are still indexed and displayed. Google is just doing the minimum possible to appease the record labels (and the politicians they sponsor) and get a content deal. Initiatives like
388.
by yanw 15y ago
Yes.
389.
by yanw 15y ago
No.
390.
by yanw 15y ago
If the author is looking to make a point about daily deal services why reference Google and not the 800 lb gorilla that is Groupon?!

More ›