News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:You know, Google, the web already had this feature by freshhawk on Thursday April 11, 2013 @09:01PM (#5535912)
I really agree with you, except for one minor point: You are still thinking of google as if it's the "old google". Definitely before Google+ and probably even before the adwords division started calling all the shots.

That's when google could have been called "one of the coolest companies in the world". Now they are heavily invested in building their own walled garden. Maybe it's not even anyone being "evil", and it's just an emergent behaviour. That doesn't change the fact that google is a giant surveillance machine. Argue that it's benign or that you trust them, but that's still what it is. A non-evil system of ubiquitous surveillance is an oxymoron.

I admit I'm excited by google cars and google glass, but I worry I won't end up being able to use them. Is there any chance they won't report on everything you see and do to google servers to be sold to/subpoenaed by whoever wants it?

Re:You know, Google, the web already had this feature by silverbax88 on Friday April 12, 2013 @09:28AM (#5538303)
Something that has happened to me over the past month that I never thought would happen - I'm actively looking to use Bing and DuckDuckGo over Google.

Bing, something I laughed at just a few months ago.

Google's results are starting to waver and the Google+ requirement is a cancer eating their products from the inside.

Re:You know, Google, the web already had this feature by dornab on Friday April 12, 2013 @01:33PM (#5539900)
Did you ever try the google vs bing comparison site? (http://www.bingiton.com/). I tried it and google won 5-0, it wasn't even close!

But I agree that google is not what it used to be. They have a weird hunger for our data. But it's not just them, all web companies have become very aggressive in getting our data, it feels like we're being watched the whole time. It's exactly the opposite of what the internet was early on, it's almost like a change in the philosophy of the web. And not for the better.

It seems like issues that famous people have, that they lose privacy at the price of fame, that whatever they do is public, forever. We all lost privacy and we didn't even get fame!

Re:You know, Google, the web already had this feature by muraiki on Friday April 12, 2013 @07:27PM (#5541725)
Wow, thanks for pointing that site out. I was actually hoping to see an improvement in Bing, but I picked Google 4 out of 5 times (doing more than just programming related searches, too)
Re:You know, Google, the web already had this feature by myko on Friday April 12, 2013 @05:57PM (#5541321)
I like to imagine someday Microsoft is going to come out and say the results which they said Google won Bing won and vice versa. This is the only thing that makes sense given Microsoft's marketing speak on that site (suggesting Bing wins in the majority of cases) as I've never known someone to actually have Bing come out on top.
Re:You know, Google, the web already had this feature by saurik on Friday April 12, 2013 @09:34PM (#5542169)
When I came up with my own search terms, Google won, 4 to 1. When I selected from the set they gave me (the list below the box to type in a manual query), Bing honestly won every single round. That's actually how they ran the experiment: they gave each person a set of search terms chosen from the Google Zeitgeist to select from. If you are curious to learn more about the experiment, Microsoft has a not-terribly-in-depth article covering the setup (there may be something more in-depth somewhere, but this is what Bing forwarded me to and it at least seems to directly answer your question).

http://www.bing.com/blogs/site_blogs/b/search/archive/2013/0...

Frankly, though, the reason that I believe Bing kept winning for me is that for these really popular core queries, the results were very similar: Bing simply selected more useful text snippets from news articles (letting me avoid clicking results) and weirdly even had better page titles, so it made what was overall the same results more pleasant to use. When I selected my own queries, though, the fact that Google continues to (and will forever) have a larger selection of the Internet available to its search engine became the deciding factor, as it would surface a few interesting things that Bing wouldn't catch.

What I thereby obtain from Bing it On! is not that I want to switch from Google, but that Google has too much power at this point: they are probably forever going to get my search queries simply because they figured out how to index the web extensively and efficiently before "how to build scalable systems" became more general knowledge (although some of that is actually due to Google, so there's this part of me that is saying "shut up and be grateful"), but now that they have this lead there's no real way to kick them down, even if someone else has managed to use the data they have more effectively.

Re:You know, Google, the web already had this feature by myko on Friday April 12, 2013 @10:07PM (#5542238)
Ah, thanks for the insight and the link.
Re:You know, Google, the web already had this feature by silverbax88 on Saturday April 13, 2013 @08:21AM (#5543186)
I did when it first came out, and Google won...but not now.
Re:You know, Google, the web already had this feature by lettergram on Friday April 12, 2013 @10:07AM (#5538534)
>Google's results are starting to waver

I'll be honest I don't know for sure, but I highly doubt Google would intentionally hurt themselves by ruining their search results. Also,

>Google+ requirement is a cancer eating their products from the inside.

I do agree it's B.S. but using 4 different computers on a regular basis and being a student I find it more useful to use their products than not. Especially, the syncing options so basically my drive/chrome holds everything between all my computers. This would be impossible without having some way to link them (via email say, well they use Google+ to try and make more money like every company NEEDS to do to survive). Therefore I say I am alright with their changes because Bing and DuckDuckGo have significantly reduced capacities (to the point of usability is fair at best)

Re:You know, Google, the web already had this feature by sinkasapa on Friday April 12, 2013 @03:32PM (#5540544)
> I highly doubt Google would intentionally hurt themselves by ruining their search results.

Arguably bubbling is ruining the search results. Sometimes such a thing can be advantageous but I do go to https://startpage.com/do/search sometimes to break out and it can be quite productive when trying to find a new result. The only difference is that one is tracking me and bubbling results and the other is not.

Since Google has recorded my IP, I have a hard time breaking the bubble when using Google from at home, whether I am logged in or not. I know this be cause I once decided to set my locale on Google to Spanish. Now I have cleared my cookies, etc. and I am not logged in but it assumes from -- I can only imagine -- my static IP that I want all my search results in Spanish.

Re:You know, Google, the web already had this feature by freshhawk on Sunday April 14, 2013 @05:54PM (#5548489)
> I'll be honest I don't know for sure, but I highly doubt Google would intentionally hurt themselves by ruining their search results. Also,

I think it's more likely they have competing objectives and they can easily allow their search result quality to slip in order to have large gains in other areas because, honestly, they have a complete monopoly on search.

The days of competing on search result quality are long gone.

Re:You know, Google, the web already had this feature by criley on Friday April 12, 2013 @10:46AM (#5538756)
Google+ is a blight. I have multiple Google Accounts (I don't need my real name attached to my main gmail account!) and it's utter horror trying to use Google products.

You either give up on having an anonymous email because they WILL FORCE YOUR real name to be attached to your email, or you give up on Google integration features because you simply CANNOT use Google features without a real name anymore.

Trying to switch between my "public Google account" for functionality and my "private Google account" for privacy is almost impossible when you consider how broadly Google integrates the features. It's simply unteneable, completely. Google wants my privacy gone, and is denying me access to their services until I agree to give it up entirely.

Very, very frustrating for users who have more than one account.

Re:You know, Google, the web already had this feature by rpgmaker on Friday April 12, 2013 @10:50PM (#5542330)
I honestly think that I'll eventually leave google once they start REQUIRING me google+, which it seems very likely looking at the pace they've been kind of blackmailing gmail users into becoming g+ users. They didn't do the Play store thing to "solve" the spammer issue (seriously? Is anyone really believing that sorry explanation?). What I've found personally is that zoho offers some very good free products. Their email client doesn't suck, I haven't used them much but it's one of the best options out there (I started to "field" google alternatives when they did the Play store thing because it was so out of line and proved the extent of their data hungry ways).
Re:You know, Google, the web already had this feature by Houshalter on Friday April 12, 2013 @11:28AM (#5539011)
I tried to create multiple YouTube channels for uploading different types of videos since I didn't want them all bundled in one channel. That now requires making multiple Google accounts. It's not impossible but it's highly discouraged, and they require registering each one with a phone number.
Re:You know, Google, the web already had this feature by bobbydavid on Friday April 12, 2013 @10:19PM (#5542268)
What integration features are you giving up because of not having a Google+ account? It sounds like you want Google+ to _not_ be integrated, and yet you highly value the fact that other services are integrated. In the end, we can't have it both ways.
Re:You know, Google, the web already had this feature by criley on Friday April 12, 2013 @11:38AM (#5539070)
Reply to myself: If you're an Android dev, sorry I've never rated your apps, left comments or gotten ahold of you!

The Play Store REQUIRES a fully activated real-name Google+ Account to rate apps and leave feedback, so I've been wholly unable to communicate with the dozens and dozens of apps that request feedback.

Sorry friends. Blame Google!

Re:You know, Google, the web already had this feature by andybak on Friday April 12, 2013 @01:08PM (#5539740)
The question is - has this policy reduced the number of spammy, irrelevant or ignorant comments on the Play store. It used to be several notches below the quality of Youtube comments.
Re:You know, Google, the web already had this feature by criley on Saturday April 13, 2013 @11:58AM (#5543606)
The question is, does the policy prevent highly trained testing staff who are willing to donate their time to developers for free from helping developers (but for their own reasons wish to remain anonymous).

It's a trade off, and real name policies don't only exclude negative posters.

(To expand: I tested someone's js project on reddit just yesterday, offering my platform, multiple browsers, a decent writeup, images/screenshots etc. But my reddit account is fully anonymous. If my real name was required, s/he never would have gotten that free help)

Re:You know, Google, the web already had this feature by jholman on Friday April 12, 2013 @05:03PM (#5540991)
Hmn. This is a genuine problem. And you can support the real-names-for-public-reviews-to-avoid-spam policy (I'm mildly against, myself), while still believing this is a genuine problem.

Do the developers give you no alternate avenues for communication? No email contact or anything?

Re:You know, Google, the web already had this feature by angryasian on Friday April 12, 2013 @01:00PM (#5539696)
whats wrong with society where we don't want to tell someone constructive criticism or positive feedback like it was a face to face conversation except online ?
Re:You know, Google, the web already had this feature by jacquesm on Friday April 12, 2013 @01:05PM (#5539717)
What's wrong with receiving valuable information without being able to ascertain who sent it to you?
Re:You know, Google, the web already had this feature by tomkarlo on Friday April 12, 2013 @02:22PM (#5540193)
Information you can't trust because the source is suspect is significantly less valuable. See: spamming on Yelp and Amazon reviews.
Re:You know, Google, the web already had this feature by bnr on Friday April 12, 2013 @05:12PM (#5541042)
How much more can you trust a profile pic and a real-ish name than "someguy443"?
Re:You know, Google, the web already had this feature by tomkarlo on Friday April 12, 2013 @08:28PM (#5541972)
A hell of a lot more, when it's someone you know personally. That's why they want the Google+ info - so they can show you what people you know thought of something.
Re:You know, Google, the web already had this feature by mhurron on Saturday April 13, 2013 @10:03AM (#5543347)
Really A lot more?

Lets say you wrote a cool android app, but there is a little bug in it that is triggered by a phone you don't own or weren't able to test, I have that phone. I go to contact you, which of the following reports do you trust more -

From: mhurron [at] saminds.com From: Google+ Roman Fox

Now be honest, even though this exact setup probably smells off. Given receiving a email from the above or from the above Google+ account, are you going to trust one or dismiss one simply on the name of the account?

Re:You know, Google, the web already had this feature by angryasian on Friday April 12, 2013 @11:28PM (#5542420)
you're just detracting from the original question. You're absolutely right that feedback and information can be given without being able to ascertain who its sent from, but still why aren't people able to be civil and provide feedback with their identities known.
Re:You know, Google, the web already had this feature by jacquesm on Saturday April 13, 2013 @07:53AM (#5543143)
> why aren't people able to be civil and provide feedback with their identities known?

I find this quite funny with you being the anonymous guy and me being out there in the open with my identity.

Maybe you should answer your own question?

Re:You know, Google, the web already had this feature by angryasian on Sunday April 14, 2013 @05:01AM (#5546373)
I do give feedback and provide criticism on the Play and Amazon store. When a site asks for a username, I pick a username. If the site asks for a real name I'll give that as well. If HN wanted real names it should have asked.
Re:You know, Google, the web already had this feature by ykaranfil on Friday April 12, 2013 @10:07AM (#5538532)
I don't know if this is normal? I followed the tutorial on fixtracking.com and installed DuckDuckGo plug-in for Firefox, and later i realized by analyzing http traffic that everything i type in address bar is sent to DuckDuckGo, even it is not selected as a default search engine. I wouldn't trust DuckDuckGo
Re:You know, Google, the web already had this feature by crazedpsyc on Friday April 12, 2013 @10:51AM (#5538796)
There is nothing malicious going on there. It does that so you can get instant answers where there would normally be auto-completion. This is covered very nicely in a paragraph in the addon's description, and can very obviously be disabled in the addon's preferences.
Re:You know, Google, the web already had this feature by ykaranfil on Friday April 12, 2013 @11:11AM (#5538905)
If you check the chrome page on fixtracking.com (prepared by DuckDuckGo), it is asking you to uncheck "Use a prediction service to help complete searches and URLs typed in the address bar", so what is the point here?It is enabled by default.
Re:You know, Google, the web already had this feature by crazedpsyc on Friday April 12, 2013 @12:33PM (#5539484)
Not sure what you mean there -- these are two completely different things. That disables using a service (Google or Bing) to autocomplete. It does not affect what extensions like the DuckDuckGo one do.
Re:You know, Google, the web already had this feature by znowi on Friday April 12, 2013 @11:01PM (#5542357)
It's quite surprising to me how persistent is the "don't be evil" brand [1] announced more than a decade ago. Since those lean, startup days, Google has evolved into a grand corporate machine with vastly different set of goals and values.

It is a centuries old cycle: once young and free spirited goes corrupt and rotten on it's way to a bigger market share.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_be_evil

Re:You know, Google, the web already had this feature by Helianthus on Friday April 12, 2013 @02:42AM (#5536995)
Google glass and cars are the vestiges of the old Google. The travesty is that they are subservient to G+.
Re:You know, Google, the web already had this feature by alanctgardner2 on Friday April 12, 2013 @11:09AM (#5538895)
Is there any evidence to back this up? In terms of consumer products, Google Now is also pretty awesome, and has no interaction with G+ that I've seen.
Re:You know, Google, the web already had this feature by adamisen on Friday April 12, 2013 @06:24PM (#5541450)
Google Glass is new Google. It's a walled garden that requires a Google server to function. It's more of a greenhouse, really...