Obviously I've just built up a list of good sites in my head which I trust... Google search is good for discoverability if you're new to the web I guess? Although in the old days that's what web directories where good for:
- It contains 100% signal- no noise- and provides helpful related links if you need more information.
- Pages are organized and brutalist.
- Every page has a steward who (thanklessly) keeps the information accurate, up-to-date, and ad-free.
Contrast this to Google:
- 50-100% noise (depending on the query; more information requires more queries and therefore less signal)
- SERP pages are disorganized and absolutely riddled with UX dark patterns (modals, banners, autoplaying video, etc). Many pages with good info are over-styled/over-javascripted/over-languaged, and finding the one or two sentences you're looking for is a chore.
- One-off SEO spam plagues everything; ads and affiliate links are pervasive. Stewardship is a waste of time.
https://www.wired.com/story/one-womans-mission-to-rewrite-na...
This is not true anymore. From Wikipedia founder Larry Sanger:
>Wikipedia Is Badly Biased
https://larrysanger.org/2020/05/wikipedia-is-badly-biased/
It's completely untrustworthy on anything remotely political. Very, very mainstream narrative compliant/reinforcing.
- Every page has a steward who (thanklessly) keeps the information accurate, up-to-date, and ad-free
And many of them inject their personal biases.
For hard science stuff, math, and celebrities, it's pretty trustworthy but as I said, anything remotely politicized will always have the same slant.
Is the complaint here really that some political narratives don't like being reminded what they have said or promised?
This is the behavior that should be penalized by search engines- however difficult it is to quantify. Wikipedia is some of the highest quality info on the internet, so they should be able to afford the penalty themselves.
They are asking for donations to fund their best-in-kind free project. I know ads aren't popular on HN but if you don't want ads, and you don't want a donation banner, how do you expect sites to be funded?
Wikiepedia is a very good resource for a lot of things, and a good jumping off point, but you shouldn't assume that you are getting "factual information", especially when it comes to hot button social or geopolitical issues.
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2018/05/the-philip-c...
So `w fish` will produce `https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=fish&title=Speci...` which auto-forwards to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fish
*better = more predictable in my case
This is almost certainly not true. I don't think kids (who make up the vast majority of 'new to the web') care about using Google for discoverability. They'll use YouTube, Twitch and Instagram to find things they care about. Google is for answering questions, not finding new things.
And honestly, it's not generally that good at answering questions.
Source: my 10-year old.
... such as? The only general-purpose online store available to me is Amazon as far as I know, and I certainly wouldn't call them respected.
General "stuff": Argos Clothes: next, M&S Electronics: https://uk.rs-online.com/