Spammers: I HATE YOU

Community
21

What? Are any of those “useless” websites rank higher than your site? If not then what is the problem? You get what you’re looking for right there at the top. And you get all sites that mention your site. Would you rather not know about them?

Anyway, it shows the web as it is, like it or not. The fact is that there are hundreds if not thousands of stat sites on the web and the fact that you don’t like them doesn’t change that fact.

What Google is supposed to do? Somehow find out that you don’t like stat sites and skip them from the results? Probably, but it has to be a personalized search. It can’t skip the results just because someone somewhere doesn’t like them. If it did, there would be no websites to display because there is always at least one person who doesn’t like a particular site.

To go back to the spam issue, yes it’s an issue. And it’s not good when a clearly spam site is ranked higher than a good site. But from my experience those cases are rare and only temporary.

Then again, my definition of spam may be different than yours. For example, I don’t see stat sites as spam. So again, we go back to square one and you can see that it’s impossible to please everyone.

22

Nobody read the first article I linked to? http://www.marco.org/2617546197
THAT is the kind of bull I regularly run into. 500000 pages of bull competing with a few pages that actually have what I want.

If it was google’s job to show the web as it is, then why the secret algorithms? And when google can no longer find what we WANT instead of all this GARBAGE we will leave. We’ll have to leave. We have no choice, not if we actually want to find anything USEFUL instead of bull content spinner crap.

You know, health information almost seems to be the worst, but that might just be my medical background and search habits seeing this. So. Much. High-ranking. Garbage.

I may have to go make a donation to DuckDuckGo.

23

I have but I’ve refrained from comments. Though it looks like I’ve already said in this thread everything I would have said about the article.

500000 pages of bull doesn’t compete with the actual pages you want, 10 first pages of it does at most. And if you construct your query well, it’s no more than 2 pages. So is it really so hard to look through 2 pages?

Don’t like it, leave it, but there’s no better alternative.

What’s up with the DuckDuckGo thing? A few quick searches didn’t show anything special (aside for less results than in Google). Though I do like the continuous list thingy.

24

What’s up with the DuckDuckGo thing? I few quick searches didn’t show anything special

Oh, it’s not special (yet… who knows), except that, like Scroogle and Ixquick, they don’t make profiles of their users. Which, financially, might be their loss. I tend to still use Scroogle because Google still (for the moment) gives me somewhat better results (ixquick’s results are horrible for things outside the US) but without the tracking crap (scroogle strips it out).

So, I originally made mention of DDG as kind of a side-comment… and then some other people here apparently use it too. Be interesting to see where they are in a year.

25

Meh, I highly doubt they will make anything worthwhile. A few searches reveal their system is based on similar algos, therefore they will face the same issues and I don’t see how they would solve them any better than Google can. Count me as skeptic.

Scroogle is just a Google’s scraper (oh the irony) and ixquick is a meta search engine, so I don’t see how any of them can help.

Regarding profiling, this is exactly how Google can give better results for you, but you won’t let it. And for what, privacy? Privacy on the Internet - that’s an oxymoron. :slight_smile:

26

yup, and the implication is that human-powered sites (coughwikipediacough) are starting to look a ~lot~ more reliable

don’t forget to promote it via lmddgtfy.com and donttrack.us

27

Yes, it’s not great, but as a feat of programming from a single person it’s pretty impressive.

28

I tried DuckDuckGo out and was impressed by the results and will use it as my default search engine for a while to see how it goes.

29

One problem straight away - I was looking for the price of some software and DuckDuckGo returned hardly any results and so I had to go back to Google :rolleyes:

Horese for courses as the saying goes.

30

Regarding profiling, this is exactly how Google can give better results for you, but you won’t let it.

Nope, I do not want personalised search. I don’t want local search either (which is what it tries to shove down my throat often anyway). Great way to keep your eyes closed to everything but what you said you already like. Hm, Amazon usually recommends garbage that doesn’t interest me because I order stuff for other people that I personally have no interest in, but those purchases are attached to a profile of me. No benefit, no thanks.
Whenever a company says “We’re here to HELP you” it means “We earn money on your information”. Period.

And for what, privacy? Privacy on the Internet - that’s an oxymoron. :slight_smile:

No but being stupid about it is being stupid about it.

Oh, seat belts, why bother wearing them? YOU COULD BE HIT BY A SPEEDING SEMI-TRACTOR TRAILER AND THAT SILLY LITTLE SEAT BELT WON’T SAVE YOUR SKULL FROM BEING CRUSHED LIKE A GRAPEFRUIT!!!

So I guess I should just go ahead and sign up for a YouTube account and link it with a Google account and a Facebook account (oooh so I can LIKE videos and then hook that up to twitter so an automatic message gets displayed that I LIKED some retarded LOLcat video) and turn all the Javajunk and cookies on and get all those ads based on me follow me around so I can get the local newspaper listing me as supporter of some unpopular hippy initiative and my grandma’s tampon size while they’re at it. Because, since there’s no point at all, I shouldn’t even try, right? I should just go with the flow man, cause it’s not like I’m interesting (no international spy here) or have anything to hide (I don’t do anything illegal), right?

For the record, I even wear a seat belt in the back seat, if it works (which is maybe half the time for some reason). And yet, I don’t wear a helmet in the car, nor do I surf the web via an email client (like the paranoid do).

Scroogle is just a Google’s scraper (oh the irony)

I don’t understand this one. Did you think I wasn’t aware that the scroogle logo looks like the google logo (or did you miss my reasons above for why I use it instead of DDG)? It’s just a middleman filter. Google can still see “someone requested a search on “cooking housecats” on such and such date”, so they get something back, but nothing more.

31

howdy!
I just saw your bigggggg hate,yr first post on this thread.
not only promote sth,and do try to help sb,then it would help himself,right?:slight_smile:
thks
Srator

32

Exactly. You have a problem with Google’s results yet you’re not gonna let them make it better. And then complain about it.

I don’t use personalized search either. I don’t need it. But then I understand the limits Google has in delivering me quality results. I don’t whine about how I don’t get what I imagine Google should give me, like a child who didn’t get the candy he wanted. I embrace the reality and work with what I have available.

I don’t understand this. Are you looking for charity?

:slight_smile:

33

Google has gone a bit down hill recently. There was a good post by jeff atwood http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2011/01/trouble-in-the-house-of-google.html

34

[quote]whether content scrapers and spinners are alright (wtf? DIE)

^_[1]
Oh, you didn’t see any difference between someone offering a privacy service (or any other service that has to use someone else’s API like http://accessibletwitter.com ) and someone copying someone else’s content, putting it up on their own site like it’s theirs. Funny, I thought it was obvious. Oh wait, all those people with the content scrapers here on the forums are just doing a good cause for us right? (and scroogle did not start out as any kind of “good cause” or charity act, I guess it just became a default)
http://scroogle.org explains, though horribly (the 1990’s fashion and the fact that they use images instead of text… retards. What you get when back-enders/programmers build web sites).

Exactly. You have a problem with Google’s results yet you’re not gonna let them make it better. And then complain about it.

I do not believe a personal search == a better search. Just a narrower one.

And yes, I’m going to complain. They offer a service, which they want to be the best at. I will complain when they rank garbage higher than real content.

I don’t whine about how I don’t get what I imagine Google should give me, like a child who didn’t get the candy he wanted.

I’ve been here how many years, and you still haven’t realised that whining is my forte? LIKE A CHILD YES. GOOGLE, GIMME WHAT I WANT OR BECOME THE NEXT ALTA VISTA. I used to love AltaVista, even used it in school. And Lycos. They were cute.

But I don’t want candy. I want chocolate.

MrWooster, ++

  1. /quote ↩︎

35

Scroogle doesn’t use an API. It’s a scraper. Period. You’re justifying it but it doesn’t make it any better than the spammers’ scrapers - they have their justifications too. To me, Scroogle is just another spammer.

36

You’re justifying it but it doesn’t make it any better than the spammers’ scrapers

Seriously?

You need to show me how this works. How is someone copying someone’s content, placing it on a page that links to the rest of the farm and a bunch of AdSense ads (gee, I wonder who’d gettin paid for those : ) and other garbage is somehow the same as someone who can give me search results from a search engine without the cookies and profile storage using the same technique?

Though I just did a search on DDG with !g searchterms and that does the same thing: privacy but still getting whatever’s still good in google results (if I can’t get what I need from DDG directly). So it’s pretty moot… I’m starting to warm up to this duck.

37

Seriously.

It copies the content from Google, and places it on a page with a donation link.

Person A copies content from site X and places it on site Y along with some monetization method. Sound familiar?

38

Yeah, non-profit helping organizations. Or Google :wink:

You know, we should also consider the purpose…

Google is gotten worse. It’s a fact. Personalized search is the grey area they devised to take advantage of you. This was fair in the times they also provided quality in a bigger ratio.

Yesterday, surfing w/o images and flash made your 128kbs connection fly.

Now, my 15mbs flies… only after I install NoScript. Images and flash aren’t a concern any more. W/o NoScript though I’m reduced to some sites to 4kbs memories.

Now I’m blocking scripts form a cluster of sites at one time in a single page, scripts that have nothing to do with the content in that page.

39

Yeah, yesterday you had hair too :stuck_out_tongue:

40

:rofl:

Well, it’s possible my caricature doesn’t show, but since I’ve been shaving my head I also had a 10% gain in internet speed!

And improved my mileage by 7.5%!

And the possibility to be confused with Dana White has increased by 32%!

In your face, d(a)emon, in your face!!! BTW, Google knows your real face: http://www.google.ro/imgres?imgurl=http://img.wallpaperstock.net:81/sânge-demon-wallpapers_10420_1024x768.jpg&imgrefurl=http://wallpapere.wallpaperstock.net/s%25C3%25A2nge-demon-wallpapers_w10420.html&usg=__SrEjPluC6CCE7m_lhlguEvjTzZE=&h=768&w=1024&sz=141&hl=ro&start=15&zoom=1&tbnid=q-4SOVzEbHaIZM:&tbnh=113&tbnw=150&prev=/images%3Fq%3Ddemon%26um%3D1%26hl%3Dro%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26sa%3DX%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26tbs%3Disch:1&um=1&itbs=1. Scroogle doesn’t…

:rofl: