dcdan - Hackdot

Re:Deanonymizing You: I know who you are after 1 click online or a mob... on Thursday October 18, 2012 @11:25AM (#4669187)

Couldn't you just move the iFrame and not need to have access to its elements?

Re:The iPad is 99% more open than any other computer on Friday March 25, 2011 @01:41PM (#2369476)

It's not a terrible argument. To put it differently, the value to the end user is not a direct function of the degree of openness, but the utility of the degree of openness.

The narrative of Sophie measures this utility.

Re:MetaLab launches "Flow" Asana competitor on Tuesday March 22, 2011 @04:47PM (#2356411)

I have a similar side project.

How do you guys respond to seeing something similar launched? Assure yourself that you have better execution?

Re:Google's Matt Cutts Talks Down Keyword Domain Names on Friday March 11, 2011 @03:57PM (#2314864)

I've thought it made some sense to weight domain keywords considering the number of people I observe using the google search box as an address bar.

Re:Amount of profanity in git commit messages per programming language on Tuesday February 22, 2011 @04:23PM (#2251642)

Numbers of committers sampled per language might be helpful in identifying potential bias.

Re:Cash4Gold Competitor's Clever Adwords Hack on Wednesday February 16, 2011 @01:46PM (#2227658)

It is against the terms.

http://adwords.google.com/support/aw/bin/static.py?hl=en&...

"...advertisers cannot use destination URLs that automatically redirect to another website or that act as a bridge page."

Re:Cash4Gold Competitor's Clever Adwords Hack on Wednesday February 16, 2011 @12:06PM (#2227170)

This is ending up on marketwatch.com only after a JS redirect from the ad landing page.

http://www.goldfellow.com/currentmarketwatchlink/

Re:Google algorithm change launched on Friday January 28, 2011 @06:07PM (#2153877)

This algorithm change could come across as more editorial and less empirical. It's publicized as highly targeted ("slightly over 2% of queries"), responding to small tech discussion (Atwood, SO, HN, quality launch meeting), and seemingly rolled out in a short period of time. The media could easily boil this down to "a small number people felt sites they liked were under-ranked, so Google moved them up a week later."

I mention this because Google often talks publicly about being entirely algorithmic, and elements of this narrative feel human.

Re:Google algorithm change launched on Friday January 28, 2011 @01:22PM (#2152902)

At what point does Google cross over from "ranked by algorithm" to "ranked by algorithm selection as editorialized by Googlers and bloggers?"

Publicly discussing algorithms changes like this seems like a potential PR problem.

Re:New in Gmail Labs: Unread message icon on Wednesday January 26, 2011 @06:59PM (#2145892)

It also pains me to see how the web has forced us back a decade in terms of what's an impressive UI feat.

When your hands are tied, undoing a knot becomes notable.

Re:Google search and search engine spam on Friday January 21, 2011 @01:59PM (#2128427)

What is the technical difference between Google being able to accurately measure the volume of spam, and Google removing the spam?

Re:Facebook is what happens to the Web when you hit it with the stupid... on Wednesday January 19, 2011 @10:56PM (#2122572)

But the idea that it’s doing something better, new or innovative is largely PR and faffery.

Facebook is incredibly innovative at growing its user base. No other social network has concentrated on and succeeded at this like Facebook.

Re:Google responds to NY Times article by improving its algorithms on Wednesday December 01, 2010 @07:50PM (#1960477)

This feels like mostly a PR piece to me. And reports seem conflicting.

Google doesn't seem to say what they did beyond that they "developed an algorithmic solution which detects the merchant from the Times article along with hundreds of other merchants that, in our opinion, provide an extremely poor user experience."

Danny Sullivan claims they are "Using Online Merchant Reviews As Ranking Signal" (http://searchengineland.com/google-now-using-online-merchant...).

Techcrunch claims Google "compiled a list of hundreds of merchants (including DecorMyEyes) that provided “bad user experience” and algorithmically forced them lower" (http://techcrunch.com/2010/12/01/googl/).

edit: typo

Re:Workflowy is to TODO as git is to svn on Tuesday November 23, 2010 @10:27PM (#1936381)

What if my ideas are smaller parts of different things (i.e. a cycle, which can not be in a tree)?

Maybe I'm thinking about it the wrong way.

Re:Workflowy is to TODO as git is to svn on Tuesday November 23, 2010 @07:59PM (#1936059)

I've been working on a similar project, but I've been moving away from the tree structure lately because I found it too rigid.

I don't think all my ideas fit into a tree.

Re:Google Chrome integrates display of PDF into browser on Thursday November 04, 2010 @09:46PM (#1871652)

I can confirm that there were foxit references in pre-beta source code

edit: i think this was the reference i was thinking of, is it for this feature, or is it unrelated?

http://www.google.com/codesearch/p#OAMlx_jo-ck/src/third_par...