Comment by vgeek

Comment by vgeek 9 hours ago

29 replies

View on Hacker News

The same thing happens every 3-5 years. HowStuffWorks, About.com (now like 10 different domains), many IAC acquired properties, RedVenture sites, even random sites like LiveStrong.com will be wildly prominent when the domains historically aren't relevant or authoritative for a given niche.

Even recently, sites like CNN were using subdomains with affiliate offers managed by third parties(1). These sites weren't being de-ranked algorithmically-- someone at Google would have to apply a manual action to remove them from the SERPs. What incentive would there be to do so if a prior agreement was in place?

Google doesn't really care about discoverability for smaller domains that may have good content. They are either being risk averse (avoiding potential spammers, junk AI content) by favoring trusted domains, favoring brands who are likely to spend on display or search ads, or maybe a combination of these.

1) https://searchengineland.com/google-begins-enforcement-of-si...

Animats 7 hours ago

It's really frustrating. I currently want to buy a mattress and a refrigerator. The results for those are so awful as to be useless.

Reply View 24 replies
  • supportengineer 6 hours ago

    A lot of classic software essentially worked more like a database. In the last 10-15 years it's all moving to an algorithm.

    Here is what I mean. Photos apps used to let you search through your photos using filters.

    The same kinds of things are happening on the web which already happened to apps (desktop and mobile).

    In the modern world, some marketing company wants to tell YOU which of YOUR photos you wanted, so they can sell you some prints, harvest your data, or something.

    I would like any apps that have to do with collections of files, photos, music, etc to be more of a deterministic DATABASE and less of a nondeterministic algorithm.

    Reply View 5 replies
    • wolpoli 6 hours ago

      > A lot of classic software essentially worked more like a database. In the last 10-15 years it's all moving to an algorithm.

      You just described what I missed about the older software. Older software gives users control over sorting and show data in a tabular format. Modern software sorts data with an algorithm, with ads mixed in, and shows data in a card format, making it a lot less usable.

      Reply View 3 replies
      • TeMPOraL 3 hours ago

        Exactly. My related observation: half of the SaaS products I see would be more useful and ergonomic for the user if they were implemented as an Excel sheet.

        (I actually worked for one of such "better off as an .xls file" startup in the past, and its main competitor was an incumbent that sold the same stuff as an Excel extension. Trying to replace that with a React app is not a worthwhile use of life.)

        Algorithms are fine. I'll happily apply the most advanced ones I can get. The problem is with who applies them to what - as you and GP said, it's about user control - or, currently, lack of.

        Reply View 1 reply
        • llm_trw 2 hours ago

          Excel is great until it you need to do something that takes up more space than a single screen. Then it isn't.

          Sending sqlite databases to the users which they can interact with using both sql and a viewer is where it's at.

          Reply View 0 replies
      • brookst 2 hours ago

        > Older software gives users control over sorting and show data in a tabular format

        I'm old and tend to agree, but I suspect this is similar to "you used to have a knob on the TV that showed the channel it's on".

        Reply View 0 replies
    • grugagag 3 hours ago

      Deterministic software puts the user in control of the product. Nondeterministic algos put the products in control of the user. Naturally companies want the latter and under guises of the ‘now better’ give the user worse and charge them more. A new generation isn’t even aware they’re being fleeced because they don’t have anything to compare with. And the frog boils slowly…

      Reply View 0 replies
  • ghaff 6 hours ago

    Mattresses have been especially bad for a long time. For refrigerators, you can look at consumer reports and wirecutter--and you can reasonably do some evaluation at your local big box appliance store. I wouldn't buy based on a random web search though.

    Reply View 9 replies
    • frontiersummit 4 hours ago

      It has always felt to me that Wirecutter focuses on only one end of the Pareto curve ("what is the very best XXXX that money can buy, within reason") and ignores the middle of the curve where most people are actually shopping ("what is the best XXXX that I can get for $XXX"). It also seems to reliably ignore brands from Mainland China (Hisense, Midea, etc). I guess It makes obvious sense to court rich (or at least price-insensitive) readers.

      Reply View 3 replies
      • ghaff 4 hours ago

        Whether or not it started that way, yes, it makes sense to recommend brands that New York Times subscribers are familiar and comfortable with. I'll buy a GE Profile refrigerator or Bosch dishwasher. Not some Chinese brand I've never heard of and have no idea what the service situation will be with. Makes perfect sense to me and I'm in that demographic. Especially with major appliances and things I can buy at the local big box store seems to make perfect sense to not buy things you have to go to Alibaba to obtain.

        It's not about being price insensitive but recommending things that are relatively mainstream and that don't seem risky, especially for major purchases that have to be installed and potentially serviced.

        (Did have a service issue on my recent GE Profile refrigerator but it took one phone call and was a no-brainer.)

        But you're probably right in general. Wirecutter mostly doesn't recommend unknowns it thinks are potentially bargains. Which I probably wouldn't do in its position either.

        Reply View 0 replies
    • groby_b 5 hours ago

      Wirecutter's gone downhill after the NYT purchase as well. The Spruce seems somewhat better (but is also part of a huge web site family, so caveat emptor)

      Either you do deep research, or you find a trusted friend to advise you. The Internet is largely useless at this point.

      Reply View 4 replies
      • ghaff 5 hours ago

        I think Wirecutter is still a decent source; they probably won't steer you too far wrong if you're not too picky. But nothing, including your trusted friends, is an all-knowing oracle if only because their tastes and priorities are probably different from yours. Certainly pre-Internet there were few enough reliable sources of recommendations--maybe some specialist magazines but even those were far from perfect.

        Reply View 0 replies
      • sheepolog 3 hours ago

        > or you find a trusted friend to advise you

        I think there's an opportunity here for a review platform that only shows you reviews from individuals that you personally trust. "Find a trusted friend" but for the internet.

        Reply View 2 replies
  • lotsofpulp 5 hours ago

    The only signal I use is warranty. So I tend to go to Costco, and avoid Samsung.

    Reply View 3 replies
    • hansvm 3 hours ago

      It's not a bad idea to pair that with lawsuits related to such warranties.

      Costco and Samsung are big enough that you can achieve reasonable signal.

      When your local car dealer offers you a full drivetrain warranty though (assuming it's a full warranty and not one of the other ways people are often fleeced), will they honor it when the lemon they sold you breaks the first time? the 2nd? the 3rd? Will they, instead, note that most people buying that car don't have much money (or, if you used any form of dealer financing, know for a fact you don't have much money) and require you to retain a lawyer and sue them to recover any damages?

      Reply View 2 replies
      • mdorazio an hour ago

        Not sure if your car example was meant to be general or specific, but Lemon Laws are extremely common across the states and are very easy to take advantage of without needing to retain a lawyer. For example, in Texas you fill out a form, pay a $35 filing fee, then bring your evidence to mediation.

        Reply View 1 reply
        • hansvm 14 minutes ago

          It's a bit of both. Generally the idea holds. The example isn't that bad either. O(100k-1M) people have dealer-fraud related problems every year in the US, usually without happy outcomes. A few ways this might happen relating to my use of the word "lemon" include:

          1. Colloquial use of "lemon" differs from the legal definition. In the given example, this might include a 15yr old vehicle (far outside any normal "manufacturer's" warranty) with numerous defects both known to the dealer and lied about to the consumer. The dealer would likely lose any civil complaint, but in Texas, and most states, this doesn't count as a "lemon." You're protected, if at all, by the fact that the salesperson warranted a thing, and perhaps any actual written "warranty" (really insurance, not that it necessarily matters) the dealer might have sold you. You usually waive the warrant of merchantability, so the fact that the car is a dud isn't enough by itself for you to have any damages (all state-specific, consult a lawyer in your jurisdiction).

          2. Picking on Texas, since you brought it up, if you only bring the car in 3 times for a major defect covered under the lemon law, it's not a lemon yet. If the dealer refuses to deal with you on the 3rd instance then you'll have to sue with some other justification.

          3. In the vast majority of states, you don't have an automated (minus filing fees) hearing process pertaining to lemons. Even in those which do, you're much more likely to succeed with the help of an attorney. In either case, in most states, attorney's fees are not part of the damages you can claim, and when squabbling about a $5k used car it can easily cost more in attorney fees (plus incidentals like renting a car and missing work for the actual hearings -- usually not covered even in states granting damages for incidentals (including rentals and missing work in other contexts) arising from the lemon), often making it not even worth pursuing.

          ...

          Usually, even with moderate legal protections, you don't want to enter into an agreement where you expect to have to rely on those protections. Your best-case scenario is that you waste a bunch of time and still have only as many resources as you started with. You'll usually do even worse. Why take a losing gamble?

          Reply View 0 replies
  • brendoelfrendo an hour ago

    Having bought a mattress recently, it might be worth going to a mattress store. The sales process sucks, but if you want to find a mattress you like, it's hard to beat actually laying down on one.

    Reply View 1 reply
    • Loughla 29 minutes ago

      It also can help you identify the kind you like (coil, latex, etc) and composition you like (layer style and thickness).

      Then you just search for those two things online.

      That's how I found an amazing natural latex cooling mattress online.

      And the best part is that most online mattress retailers have 90 day try out periods. We didn't like our first one, and instead of having us ship it back they told us to donate it and sent us the next to try. So now we have a really nice spare bedroom mattress as well as the perfect mattress in our bedroom.

      Reply View 0 replies
stackghost 7 hours ago

>The same thing happens every 3-5 years. [...] Google doesn't really care about discoverability for smaller domains that may have good content.

What's galling is that (ostensibly) they used to care. So much for "organizing the world's information" and "don't be evil".

Reply View 1 reply
  • Nevermark 4 hours ago

    Well they are certainly organizing the world's information, and continue to be incentivized to do so. Deeply. For advertisers.

    Reply View 0 replies
Workaccount2 7 hours ago

I get flashbacks to the exodus of Digg, when the admins basically said "Look, we get a lot of junk content and a lot of common source content so we are going to start fast tracking the common source content from trusted providers"

We all know how that went over.

Reply View 0 replies
paulpauper 5 hours ago

Investopedia is another one. Same for bankrate.com Other ones included wikihow and genius.com

Reply View 0 replies