Re:More content by people, for people in Search
by feanaro on Friday August 19, 2022 @06:01AM
(#32519194)
> Also if google starts ranking such pages up they may expose themselves to class action lawsuits as users could ask for a refund for the power, hardware and telecom bills incurred in being lead to load them?
Sorry, but this is completely insane. Search engines should most certainly and definitely not ever be liable for linking to original sources for such a stupid reason. This American pro-litigious attitude has to stop.
Re:More content by people, for people in Search
by meltedcapacitor on Monday August 22, 2022 @11:39AM
(#32553003)
Sure, it's tongue in cheek, but there is a tragedy of the commons in there: whatever massive waste devs and their employers inflict on society goes unpunished because there is no incentive to change that behaviour. Was suggesting some activist subvert computer misuse laws to fix this. Primary legislation or big tech using its weight would do as well.
In the physical world one can't dump a rusty aircraft carrier on someone else's lawn and get away with it. Should be the same in tech.
Re:More content by people, for people in Search
by feanaro on Thursday August 25, 2022 @08:09AM
(#32592611)
> In the physical world one can't dump a rusty aircraft carrier on someone else's lawn and get away with it. Should be the same in tech.
Google's search results are most definitely not your lawn, nor are heavy websites very much alike to rusty aircraft carriers. Or however this analogy is supposed to work anyway.
Re:More content by people, for people in Search
by foota on Friday August 19, 2022 @06:15AM
(#32519264)
Americans aren't the ones forcing crazy things on internet companies these days.
Re:More content by people, for people in Search
by piva00 on Friday August 19, 2022 @08:44AM
(#32520282)
No, they are the ones allowing companies become such behemoths that other sovereign governments have to step in and rule over to keep some kind of data privacy for their citizens.
Re:More content by people, for people in Search
by beastman82 on Friday August 19, 2022 @06:44AM
(#32519404)
You had a great argument until the last sentence
Re:More content by people, for people in Search
by jiggywiggy on Friday August 19, 2022 @06:06AM
(#32519220)
To be fair, even though littered with ads the bootleg is indeed more pleasant. Bootleg the bootlegger.
Re:More content by people, for people in Search
by dash2 on Friday August 19, 2022 @08:02AM
(#32519944)
I count one advert on the original, and the page loaded instantly for me on my 10 year old laptop. What am I missing?
Re:More content by people, for people in Search
by naijaboiler on Friday August 19, 2022 @08:14AM
(#32520043)
I agree. The bootlegged version is more inviting to read.
Re:More content by people, for people in Search
by gregw134 on Friday August 19, 2022 @05:59AM
(#32519179)
Plus, the original has an excessive amount of ads. I'm not surprised Google is ranking the other page higher.
It has a garbage/content ratio of 32 (the browser downloads 32 bytes for every byte of content) while the original page has a 400 ratio (the browser downloads 400 bytes for every byte of content). It's borderline denial of service attack against the visitor.
The original also has a slow aggressive cookie box that is unnecessary as visitors can be spied on using server logs, no need to have cookies for the spy infrastructure. The bootleg has no cookie box (though does set a couple of gratuitous cookies, and does load one gratuitous googleanalytics.js, so maybe it does the right thing in a non-compliant way).
Maybe all these factor make the original page look "less good" to google quality ranking? (which would be ironic given Google's general leadership of the Orgy of Waste school of web design.) Also if google starts ranking such pages up they may expose themselves to class action lawsuits as users could ask for a refund for the power, hardware and telecom bills incurred in being lead to load them?