News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Ask HN: What sites, e.g. experts-exchange.com, would you ... by jacquesm on Monday July 13, 2009 @09:52AM (#701681)
All the stores that have been spidered (amazon.com etc)

Googles own sites (youtube.com, images.google.com, etc)

All the cloaked sites (sites that will redirect you after landing, or that show you different content than they showed the search engine)

All the spammers (you've already mentioned experts xchg, but there are many many more)

Anything that points to or contains the word sedoparking

All the crappy blogs

I'm sure that google could do with several billion pages less than they index right now and their quality would shoot up.

Re:Ask HN: What sites, e.g. experts-exchange.com, would you ... by JshWright on Monday July 13, 2009 @10:28AM (#701738)
I would argue that indexing a bunch of crap actually _improves_ the quality of Google's search.

Just like trying to filter e-mail spam, the larger your spam corpus, the easier it is to differentiate between valid content and junk.

Re:Ask HN: What sites, e.g. experts-exchange.com, would you ... by jacquesm on Monday July 13, 2009 @10:33AM (#701751)
If they did a better job on the differentiation then I would agree with you.
Re:Ask HN: What sites, e.g. experts-exchange.com, would you ... by petercooper on Monday July 13, 2009 @10:31AM (#701744)
All the stores that have been spidered (amazon.com etc) Googles own sites (youtube.com, images.google.com, etc)

I'm glad this is a hypothetical question because I find both of the above very useful. I often suffix "amazon" or "youtube" on to a search - saves me actually having to go to those sites to perform a search in most cases.

Re:Ask HN: What sites, e.g. experts-exchange.com, would you ... by jacquesm on Monday July 13, 2009 @10:33AM (#701748)
site:amazon.com

that works just fine and it would keep the rest of the search results clean.

Re:Ask HN: What sites, e.g. experts-exchange.com, would you ... by petercooper on Tuesday July 14, 2009 @10:16AM (#703704)
Doesn't quite roll off the fingers as well as amazon or wikipedia though. Anyway, those entries are as valuable as anything else. If I'm searching for the title of a book, why shouldn't stores that sell the book come up?

It sounds like some people in this thread would prefer non-profit communist Google, rather than a proper search engine.