The plugin maintains a persistent and customizable list of URLs (keywords) that are used as a 'blacklist' for stripping results.
Are you using this?
[1] https://github.com/honestbleeps/Reddit-Enhancement-Suite
I miss the niche subs with quality discussion and content, but the rest of Reddit just started overflowing there too and ruined it.
I do not regret deleting my account. Although whenever a web search returns a Reddit link, I don't have RES and old.* redirect to make the site usable any more. Don't know how anyone uses new Reddit.
You can have URL patterns for example: en.cppreference.com/<asterisk>
Edit: I wasn't able to get the star to work in the post
I look to the bottom of the page every time to avoid this terror...
Mine and my partners parents learned c (badly) at some point. Nearly everyone on the b2b customer support team at my last job could sling some js. A surprising number of marketers learn to wrangle some carousels/buttons/etc. vba script excel monster stories are prevalent.
These people are great to monetize. They are paid well and doing something they don't understand well.
Sure they have. They just don't care as long as they made their quick buck off of it.
For image search, fucking pinterest!
It's incredible to me that Google isn't doing SOMETHING to prevent Pinterest from duking their results, and actually seems to be losing ground to Pinterest's SEO dark patterns.
Of the remaining 6 results on that page, 3 of them were low-quality articles with generic language about paint schemes and lots of images, ALL of which had those little Pinterest share badges on them. I don't know it for a fact, but I strongly suspect that these ubiquitous types of websites are either produced in Pinterest's own content mills or are paid for by Pinterest marketing teams.
If I were to put my cynical tinfoil hat on, I would say Google has optimized a lot of search results to be favored towards sites which heavily advertise/track their users. Google results are no longer "search term" being matched to "content" but there are additional layers which do more magic, like "is this publisher considered favorable or trustworthy to Google" and "will this result generate a positive ROI for Google".
https://static.googleusercontent.com/media/guidelines.raterh...
You can read about what the criteria is, but in short, it directly asks raters to boost established sites and downrank things like forums, personal blogs, and niche websites.
I can see how forums would take a hit because users are anonymous, but personal blogs and niche websites should be rated high. Assuming the blog owner has some expertise to back their work, then just listing a relevant Ph.D. or other professional affiliations on the site about page would be more than good enough to fit these guidelines. This would seem to go more so for niche websites as demonstrated expertise should be more apparent.
Note that site reputation was listed as the very least important metric.
I doubt anyone else read all 168 pages, but can you direct me to the page that supports your claim? I didn't find anything that I would qualify as "directly asks raters to boost established sites and downrank things like forums, personal blogs, and niche websites."
That is pretty exclusive, IMO.
Forums, personal blogs and niche websites are often exactly what I want.
Can you point to anything that might convince skeptical non-Googlers that Google does not do this?
I think that's what they call "damning with faint praise"
The idea behind pinterest is that unsuspecting users grant it legal immunity and full worldwide free distribution rights on everything that they "upload".
So basically, it's a convenience plugin for copyright infringement. Add some ads to other people's content and you're making money.
WTF Google how do you still allow this crap?
https://gizmodo.com/a-gasmask-becomes-the-most-terrifying-sh...
Googling “gas mask shower head” gave me a Pinterest dump for pages
- TLS would improve the site ranking and make it look much more serious. These days plain HTTP is just a red flag.
- "This Site's URL is permanently http://fileformats.archiveteam.org!" is the first thing I see. That's just weird. Who actually cares? And when was the last time you saw a URL spelled out with the protocol part visible to the end user? This is just confusing and makes the site look like it hasn't changed since the 90s.
- "First Time Visiting This Wiki? Please read the Statement of Project to understand why this project exists. Then check out the FAQ for some frequently asked questions about the project and its goals and procedures. Finally, brush up on the guidelines for Editing." Err, no, that's not what any first time user would do, that's what power users might do.
I’d expect a site like this to have a big list of extensions on the first page.
In my URL bar right now. It requires a browser that respects one's intelligence.
Sorry for it not being a concrete example, it was last week and I don't have access to my machine atm.
Even in that case W3schools is mostly good for getting in the way of the much more useful MDN link that should be the top result.
Anyway when I know exactly the method I want I just add mdn to the search to make it come up. Especially because if it is a specific method I probably want a deep dive, not just some examples.
webmd.com
mayoclinic.com
thoughtcatalog.com
livestrong.com
tutorialspoint.com
OK, I see the problem, and I'm not sure how Google can solve it. The problem is that you are unlike the vast majority of other Google users. Most of the time someone is searching for an illness, it's because they think they (or someone they know) has it. Mayo Clinic is great for that.
I personally sometimes search for more detail, but then I usually go directly to Wikipedia (which has as much info as a layperson like me can understand, but much more than Mayo Clinic).
I love wikihow, but probably not for the reasons they want to be loved.
I'm curious what saagarjha's experience is, too.
But I trust cppreference more for the details, which are often necessary for C++ because, well, the devil's in the details. (And to be totally honest, the styling is just nicer.)
Compare the docs for std::vector for example, cplusplus[0] and cppreference[1]. The former spends three paragraphs explaining the internals, whereas the latter only spends one. The latter also includes information about what's been introduced on which language version (11, 17, 20) and assorted facts that the former doesn't discuss, e.g. the various container contracts that vector fulfills.
Edit: unfortunately it doesn't work on image search. Oh well.
Otherwise some search results might still be plagued with offenders, though admittingly their presence is much more sufferable.
> The plugin maintains a persistent and customizable list of URLs (keywords) that are used as a 'blacklist' for stripping results.
Could you explain a little more about how the stripping of the 'blacklist' works.
var blacklist = new RegExp('https?:\/\/.*\.(geeksforgeeks|tutorialspoint).*\.*');
function clearURLs(urls) {
var i, j, arr, res, url;
arr = [];
res = document.querySelectorAll('div.rc');
for (i = 0; i < res.length; i++) {
for (j = 0; j < urls.blacklistURLs.length; j++) {
if (res[i].firstChild.firstChild.getAttribute('href').indexOf(urls.blacklistURLs[j]) !== -1) {
arr.push(i);
}
}
}
arr = [...new Set(arr)];
for (i = 0; i < arr.length; i++) {
url = res[arr[i]].firstChild.firstChild.getAttribute('href');
url = 'Wiper blacklisted URL: <a href="' + url + '">' + url + '</a>';
res[arr[i]].parentElement.innerHTML = url;
}
}
browser.storage.local.get('blacklistURLs').then(clearURLs);I rather suspect this has to do with the search algorithm favors known and big domains in the ever going on war against scam and fake sites.
-site:example.com
Then, you can configure your search bar to automatically add those terms to your query.
We need this for YouTube as well, though the blacklist would be extremely large.
In fact, I wonder if this could be implemented as a filter list for uBlock Origin?
I use FF more nowadays, though, so I'll have to check yours out.