[HN Gopher] Googling for answers costs you time
___________________________________________________________________
Googling for answers costs you time
Author : mleonhard
Score : 56 points
Date : 2023-07-02 20:16 UTC (2 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (prashanth.world)
(TXT) w3m dump (prashanth.world)
| gtirloni wrote:
| I felt it wasn't fair to say the Real Python page about iterating
| over dicts had "useless" content. It had a table of contents,
| what's wrong with that? It's going into detail about
| dictionaries. Sure, you just want a quick fix. That page is not
| for you but there is no need to caption a screenshot with
| "...so...much...nonsense". Nonsense is a bit extreme, isn't it?
| bornfreddy wrote:
| Especially as realpython is one of _the_ websites when looking
| for anything Python related. Their explanations are clear,
| concise and easy to read, not to mention that they usually
| cover the whole topic, not just some minor aspect of it (hello
| SO). When realpython is among the hits I know I don 't need to
| look any further.
|
| (not affiliated in any way)
| lkgnabc wrote:
| If you know the sites that have the answers, it takes 5 seconds
| to get them.
|
| Far faster than wading through the verbose and insufferable
| output of some chatbot and your give the source of all that
| knowledge some recognition.
| amanzi wrote:
| I'm sure there's an argument to be made about SEO fluff
| dominating Google, but this article picked a bad example to prove
| their point.
|
| The author searched for: "python iterate over dict".
|
| The number 1 result was an article called: "How to Iterate
| Through a Dictionary in Python". The article doesn't have
| obnoxious ads, has a clear table of contents at the top so you
| can jump to specific sections if you don't need the full context,
| and is written in a way that novices can learn the topic while
| still providing all the technical details that an advanced user
| would need.
|
| Also, I'm not sure what resolution screen the author is using
| (1280x768?), but on my 1080p screen I can see the top of the
| table of contents so could jump straight to any of the methods to
| iterate through a dictionary.
|
| In my opinion, this is an example of Google providing a great
| result.
| add-sub-mul-div wrote:
| 25 years in, how is it possible not to have mastered this like
| muscle memory? You're supposed to develop skills to quickly
| assess search results, scan a site for trustworthiness, find the
| info you need on a page through heuristics you've either been
| building for decades or have developed natively because you were
| born into a world where it's a primary skill. It's become like
| breathing, hasn't it?
|
| I can't begin to describe how much it slows me down to have to
| keep typing out my question repeatedly to an AI, only to be
| robbed of the ability to judge the information in the context of
| where it came from, and oh yeah, any confidence that it's
| accurate.
| earthboundkid wrote:
| It's fun to ask ChatGPT CSS questions because you can quickly
| try them out and see if they work. So far it has a .000 batting
| average on CSS for me.
| jacobxu wrote:
| thats why chatgpt works so well, it literally replaced google for
| searching basic syntax
| marginalia_nu wrote:
| It works really well for questions that have easy answers and
| that are asked a lot.
|
| It works less well when you have a question that doesn't have
| an obvious answer.
|
| For fun, try 'How can I write to a Parquet file in Java without
| Hadoop?'. It will vacillate between giving answers that pull in
| hadoop dependencies, and nonsense that doesn't compile at all.
|
| (here's a useful proper answer:
| https://stackoverflow.com/questions/59939309/read-local-
| parq...)
| Closi wrote:
| It also works well for questions that have easy/medium
| answers and aren't asked a lot.
|
| Complex questions that involve things that aren't well
| documented are obviously going to be harder for an LLM to
| answer, particularly when the LLM does not have a capability
| to test its own code.
| joebiden2 wrote:
| That's ChatGPT-4's response to that question: https://chat.op
| enai.com/share/72d490a9-2b2a-4120-9bb0-3a59d4...
|
| I briefly checked if the mentioned dependencies exist (they
| do). Too late over here to actually try the code.
| marginalia_nu wrote:
| Main.java:27:33 java:
| org.apache.parquet.io.OutputFile is abstract; cannot be
| instantiated Main.java:29:17 java: cannot
| access org.apache.hadoop.fs.Path class file for
| org.apache.hadoop.fs.Path not found
|
| It basically solves the problem by not importing hadoop
| dependencies (despite needing to), and hallucinating
| classes.
| raldi wrote:
| This article was written in 2020 and it shows. I type these
| queries into an LLM now and 95% of the time within seconds it
| outputs outstanding answers.
| LordShredda wrote:
| If you have such simple questions then thanks for not wasting
| people's time on stackoverflow
| raldi wrote:
| It works for impressively difficult questions, but even for
| simple ones (like this article is about) they would surely
| already be already answered a decade ago on Stack Overflow so
| there would be no need to ask them anew.
| cratermoon wrote:
| Cooking sites have been this way for a long time. Google for a
| recipe for something simple and the top results are long articles
| about the foods, the process, and so on. At least the better
| cooking sites put a link to the recipe near the top.
| version_five wrote:
| I take the point, but a developer with any experience is able to
| use google as a portal to get to the relevant SO or documentation
| page very quickly in spite of whatever shenanigans google+seo
| tries. It's not like every time you google some syntax you're
| actually distracted by tutorialspoint or whatever garbage. These
| sites must just feed on people who are in the first day or two of
| their careers, after that you don't even seen them.
| inetknght wrote:
| > _a developer with any experience is able to use google as a
| portal to get to the relevant SO_
|
| That's mostly because SO search is (or, has historically been)
| terrible.
|
| > _or documentation page_
|
| Ironically, documentation pages exist and many of them are
| terrible. But even the great ones aren't linked to in code
| snippets. Got a squiggly line? It would be handy to have a link
| to documentation!
| bornfreddy wrote:
| > That's mostly because SO search is (or, has historically
| been) terrible.
|
| It still is. There is a trick though - start typing a new
| question and it will suggest you possible duplicates. Works
| like magic, they really did a great job with this "search".
| cassianoleal wrote:
| DuckDuckGo gives me a relevant StackOverflow as the first result.
| Furthermore, it displays it on the actual search page, on the
| right-hand side.
| FrenchyJiby wrote:
| I highly recommend using local solutions to this local issue:
| Zeal[1] (aka Dash[2] on MacOS)
|
| Load up the "docsets" of your languages (lightly edited HTML docs
| for indexing purposes) and use a global keyboard shortcut (F8 for
| me) to pull up Python/Postgres/Terraform docs, searching for the
| right function without internet query.
|
| This isn't straight up applicable to all questions of course, but
| "How do I search regular expressions in Python again?" is now as
| easy as <F8> "re" <ENTER>
|
| Note that the docsets can be converted from normal HTML ones via
| doc2dash[3], especially useful to load up custom docs like
| private providers.
|
| [1]: https://zealdocs.org/ [2]: https://kapeli.com/dash [3]:
| https://doc2dash.readthedocs.io/en/stable/usage/
| thyrox wrote:
| The longer you stay on a webpage, the more favorably Google
| perceives it. Even if you're frustrated sifting through spam, if
| you find your answer quickly and spend less time, it doesn't
| count as a positive quality signal.
|
| To counter this, websites employ a strategy known as the "Bucket
| brigade" to ensure you spend at least 30 seconds on their site.
| It's a basic principle of website optimization and it's just the
| tip of the nasty SEO iceberg.
| willsmith72 wrote:
| 100% agree, and not just on programming searches. That's why it's
| so easy for my to justify gpt plus to myself. Could be
| programming questions, holiday planning, business advice. Just
| about anything
| BestGuess wrote:
| Don't know if it helps but some people sent me these and I think
| it might help https://ahrefs.com/blog/google-advanced-search-
| operators/ Think it got posted here couple times? found one
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18989922
|
| I don't know if anyone asked and I don't know if it can be
| figured out but I was wonderin are the bots any better than
| figuring out them search operators?
| reaperman wrote:
| > * But to me, the user, it feels like I'm paying for my answers
| with my time pointlessly scrolling around the page to find the
| answer I came to the site for. I can't stand it; I feel like I am
| being duped, misled, being taken for a ride, just so I know how
| to make pancakes, or how to do a simple thing in common
| programming language.*
|
| Absolutely agree with this. I strongly prefer reading the
| official language API documentation directly, which makes me very
| sensitive to the quality of the documentation.
|
| I have also replaced my google searches (which usually are more
| along the lines of "what's the most idiomatic way to do x?" or
| "what's the most correct way to do x in $LANG?") with ChatGPT.
| It's super fast, generally pretty good for the types of style
| questions you'd usually have learning a new language, and I can
| directly query it about what tradeoffs different techniques have
| in various common situations.
|
| ChatGPT has finally gotten me off Google's Wild Ride.
| Shawnj2 wrote:
| I like to use the Bing AI for that because ChatGPT can
| sometimes hallucinate while Bing will use its knowledge + stuff
| from websites which makes it a more reliable source for things
| which should match reality.
| reaperman wrote:
| On the contrary, I find all the LLMs (including ChatGPT
| browsing beta) which search to find answers repeat the same
| blogspam as everyone else. They save time by parsing the
| blogspam for me, but it's still low quality.
|
| Phind gets an honorable mention though - if that's the style
| you prefer I'd strongly recommend it.
|
| ChatGPT does hallucinate all the time, but for "learning a
| language from scratch" it's very very very minimal. I can't
| recall a single time it gave me a response to "idiomatic way
| to do x in $LANG" which included hallucinated information.
| Just can't back it into a corner trying to get it to
| customize something that needs rigorous optimization for your
| use case.
|
| Overall, the large innate knowledge base of ChatGPT-4 seems
| to contain a great model of the modern features of most
| programming languages and their packages (popular PyPI
| packages, Spring, Boost, Qt, etc, etc). Once I let it browse
| the internet, quality goes down and roughly matches Bing and
| Bard.
|
| Phind I think gets around this by having a custom ranking of
| sources or something. Not sure what their secret sauce is but
| it mostly works pretty well.
| Shawnj2 wrote:
| I don't think I've ever gotten language syntax wrong but
| ChatGPT will happily tell you to use functions that don't
| exist or use them incorrectly. Also yes Bing sources aren't
| necessarily quality sources but they are more aligned to
| reality than what ChatGPT will give you
| hourago wrote:
| By the author's metric is even worse to read a book. If you are
| looking for the exact answer to your exact code maybe that is the
| problem.
|
| To get free training so you can solve your problem yourself and
| understand the overall situation seems a very good deal. The
| example to complain about seems very badly chosen.
|
| I think that Google is getting worse and that advertisements in
| webpages should be regulated. But to complain that you are being
| taught to fish instead of given a fish seems too entitled.
| LordShredda wrote:
| A book has an index, a bunch of sources at the end, and maybe a
| further reading section. The book tends to be more thorough
| since it doesn't have word limits or up votes to cater to. I
| wouldn't use the book example here as they tend to be more of a
| reference if not a how to guide for a very specific topic
| hourago wrote:
| How is it different that the page linked in the article? I do
| not see why that page is so bad, it looks like an average
| page from a book with a linked index at the top.
| TillE wrote:
| There's a world of difference between a well-written, well-
| edited book and SEO spam. The latter is not making a genuine
| attempt to actually teach you, that's not the point.
| hourago wrote:
| This is the link: https://realpython.com/iterate-through-
| dictionary-python/
|
| It does not look like SEO spam to me. The site seems actually
| nice and well produced.
|
| I may be missing something, thou. Why is that page so bad
| that the author does not want it in the list of results?
| liorben-david wrote:
| The proliferation of SEO fluff makes it way too convenient to use
| ChatGPT instead.
|
| I'm well aware of ChatGPT's ability to confidently say wrong
| things, but the cost of reading SEO fluff is so high I'm more
| than willing for that tradeoff.
|
| Interestingly I've found that GPT also tends to use SEO fluff,
| likely because its trained off SEO-fluffed content.
|
| The difference is that I can just tell ChatGPT to be concise and
| the fluff is gone
| eastbound wrote:
| SEO is already full of ChatGPT answers. SEO is kind of a
| snapshot of ChatGPT...
| liorben-david wrote:
| SEO fluff in my experience predates LLMs -- But you're
| absolutely right how GPT is used to mass-produce SEO fluff
| ineedausername wrote:
| Wait, do you just tell it "please be more concise" to whatever
| you ask of it?
| liorben-david wrote:
| 100%.
|
| I preface all prompts with "Be concise and ask follow-up
| questions if you need more information" -- Greatly improves
| the output
| rockemsockem wrote:
| Not OP, but yeah if you tell it to be concise it will be.
| With GPT4 you can even prescribe a maximum number of
| sentences and probably words too (haven't tried this one
| specifically). It will do it. It's a great tool!
| RobinL wrote:
| With code questions I usually say: 'code only no
| explanation'. It gets a bit tiresome to type every time,
| but gpt4 is too slow to wait for it to 'type' the
| explanation
| skilled wrote:
| The number one reason blogs do this is because of links, which
| are very hard to build. Actually, these days nobody gives a
| flying fuck about linking to anyone else's site anymore and
| Google knows this. They've openly stated that they want to
| devalue backlinks as a ranking metric.
|
| So, what is the alternative? You plaster the page with an eBooks-
| worth of content because that satisfies Googles EAT (something
| something topical authority) signals. It's that simple.
|
| In many ways you can steer Googles results in a direction but
| developers are too lazy to make a /link section on their blog and
| save a bookmark once in a while. It actually helps the people
| whose content you like and it costs you absolutely nothing.
| blindseer wrote:
| People that are saying this is SEO, in my opinion, haven't read
| or used RealPython. It is genuinely one of the best Python
| learning websites out there. Their articles are written by people
| knowledgeable in the field, and usually comprehensive and
| thorough, while still being easy to understand.
|
| I also think Google's ranking is fair in this case, assuming you
| want to know most high quality information about "how to iterate
| through a dictionary". I certainly would prefer this kind of a
| RealPython article with a table of contents so that I can find
| exactly what I am looking for.
|
| I do think Google (and the web in general) has started to suck
| because of SEO spam, and generally agree with the authors
| premise. Searching for recipes suck, searching for reviews suck,
| searching for places and events also suck.
|
| I just think this particular instance is a bad example.
| RealPython values your time, and I wish there were a lot more
| websites that valued my time too.
| userbinator wrote:
| I absolutely hate the SEO crap that shows up these days, so much
| that I've become accustomed to immediately scrolling down past
| the first few results.
|
| In contrast, I read all of K&R before writing a single C program,
| and when I had to learn PHP, I went to the official documentation
| (it was a downloadable .chm) and read through most of it first.
| It's a larger upfront investment, but I think taking the time to
| understand the language first instead of "JIT'ing" knowledge is
| worth it.
| Cthulhu_ wrote:
| While you're right, of course, it does depend on whether you
| expect to be spending enough time on the language to be worth
| the investment. Anecdotally, a lot of developers will switch
| technologies or languages every couple of months or years;
| there's few left who say "I am a $language developer" and stick
| with that for, say, a decade. So for them it doesn't feel worth
| investing the time.
|
| And also, googling for something has a high hit rate; nine
| times out of ten, googling 'how to sort in python' gives a good
| result.
|
| And also also, these questions are often one-off; you need to
| look up how to do X in $lang, then either you can copy / paste,
| or you never touch it again; why put in the time investment if
| you don't need to rely on your memory?
| userbinator wrote:
| _a lot of developers will switch technologies or languages
| every couple of months or year_
|
| That says more about the horrible state of the industry than
| anything else. Big languages like Python won't be
| disappearing anytime soon, so even if I might not be doing
| more of it for now, learning the language more thoroughly
| will pay off again in the future.
| rkagerer wrote:
| I miss chm!
| Cthulhu_ wrote:
| > How is this the number one link on Google?
|
| Because it's rich in content, it's long, has a table of contents,
| the whole site is relevant to the search query, etc etc etc; from
| a search engine's point of view, it's more authoritative than
| Stack Overflow where the authoritartativity (?) is debatable at
| best, decided by consensus otherwise.
|
| What should happen is that the community behind Python (in this
| case) works their ass off to make authoritative sources, like MDN
| did for web standards. And they had to work and fight for years
| to overtake w3schools.
| TillE wrote:
| I've noticed the same thing recently: Googling for common
| programming stuff (in a language I don't normally use) will turn
| up results that usually answer the question, but they're bloated
| with preamble and filler.
|
| I wonder how far Google could get with manual curation. Like if
| they said, these sites (eg, Stack Overflow, official
| documentation) have been around forever and have high-quality
| content, let's crank up their rankings for the appropriate
| classes of queries. That has its own problems, but it's gotta be
| better than the status quo.
| bun_at_work wrote:
| The thing is, even if Google _could_ they aren't incentivized
| to. They are more incentivized to show the ad-ridden content,
| because often the websites are using Google itself to display
| the ads.
|
| In the case described in the linked post, Google potentially
| benefits twice, financially. Why would they want to reduce
| their profit by showing the more relevant posts (those that
| quickly get to the answer)?
|
| I don't know though, maybe StackOverflow also uses Google for
| their ads, but a quick looks suggests they simply have less ads
| than the results above them in the article's example search.
| aaron695 wrote:
| [dead]
| johnfn wrote:
| I know I'm beating a dead horse at this point, but I think one of
| the most underrated advantages of ChatGPT is simply that it says
| everything in exactly the same tone and style. When I google for
| things, who knows what page I'm going to land on. It could be
| full of ads. It could have tons of content I have to parse before
| I get to what I care about, as said in OP. It could be written
| clunkily, in a way that's hard to parse, or it could be littered
| with spelling mistakes. It could be overly verbose, or explain
| things that I don't need to know. All this creates high variance
| in the actual time it takes to parse out what I need.
|
| When I ask ChatGPT it'll always give me the answer in a few
| paragraphs, and it's always written in the exact same way. What a
| boon!
|
| > How is this the number one link on Google?
|
| It's the number one link on Google because one proxy Google has
| to know if you got a result is that you lingered on the page for
| a long time. This is also, tangentially, why cooking recipe
| websites are so long. If you bounce immediately off a website,
| Google thinks that means that you didn't find it to be useful.
| ChatGPT does not have this problem.
| iambateman wrote:
| It used to be why Recipe websites were so long, but that's no
| longer the case.
|
| There's three reasons...(1) ad revenue, (2) there's a belief
| that the extended life stories confer copyright to recipes,
| which otherwise cannot be copyrighted and (3) everyone does it.
|
| Source: I made SimplifyRecipe.com, which requires diving into
| the minutiae of recipe authors.
|
| Otherwise, I agree that getting consistent results from GPT is
| super useful.
| SoftTalker wrote:
| Yes, who cares if the answer is hallucinated, as long as it's
| easy to read and stated in clear, confident-sounding language.
| Wowfunhappy wrote:
| I agree in general, but part of what makes ChatGPT great for
| coding is that I can test the answers. They either work or
| they don't.
| latexr wrote:
| > They either work or they don't.
|
| Or they work for a selection of cases but not others. Or
| they seem to work in a limited number of tests but aren't
| truly doing the right thing. Or they do work but have a
| security flaw that makes your service vulnerable.
|
| Coding solutions have tradeoffs and subtleties which go
| beyond "it did the thing right a couple of times when I ran
| it". If that's all it took to verify code is good, there
| wouldn't be any bugs; you can test code a person writes
| too.
| Wowfunhappy wrote:
| Yes, ChatGPT can't do all the work for you. You have to
| know how to test the code thoroughly and think of edge
| cases and performance tradeoffs and all those other
| subtleties.
|
| But contrast this with other types of information. If I
| ask ChatGPT "how hot is the surface of the sun?" and it
| answers "15 million degrees Fahrenheit", I have zero
| ability to verify that information. As a result, I don't
| find ChatGPT useful for most informational searches,
| except the ones related to coding.
|
| (The example answer is wrong according to
| https://www.space.com/17137-how-hot-is-the-sun.html,
| albeit in a way that I could see potentially confusing an
| LLM.)
| renegat0x0 wrote:
| The real problem is ad business. If chatgpt becomes monopoly we
| will see many ad banners. After several years of monopoly we
| will see chatgpt anders lacking so that you will have to see
| more banners in response. After some time quality of answers
| will depend on the amount of money you put into your chatgpt
| subscription. You will not be able to go back to google. There
| will be no google any more.
| EA-3167 wrote:
| The only really workable solution imo is that search
| companies need to make their money on searches, not ads;
| something like Kagi I guess. Any perverse incentive is
| inimical to a really good search engine.
|
| I think the internet is going to start to stratify into paid
| and "free" tiers going forward, and honestly it's about
| goddamned time.
| Maxion wrote:
| Especially for these type of simple syntax questions that
| autocomplete or copilot isn't getting. It's so so quick to ask
| ChatGPT for the answer, rather than finding the documentation
| for the thing you're looking for and parsing it.
| eastbound wrote:
| Can't wait until they (actually) monetize ChatGPT and maximize
| the time spent on the website, like Google. Can't wait until
| ChatGPT says that, when their grandma went to school, they too
| needed to mentally add 26 + 13, and the teacher would always
| frown on pupils when they gave the answer 31.
|
| ChatGPT's strength is that it's new on the market, needs to
| build an audience, and therefore their UI and UX are lean,
| devoid of gaming.
|
| Same as Google, up until 2008.
| johnfn wrote:
| I'm not convinced this is the case. Unlike Google, ChatGPT
| has clear monetization channels which are not advertising,
| like ChatGPT+, which is already doing very well, and it's
| easy to imagine further channels which allow access to
| specialized models. Additionally, unlike Google, you can only
| really get away with making your service crappy when you have
| such a strong moat that it's still significantly better than
| the competition. The only moat OpenAI has is its model, which
| is proving a lot easier to replicate than Google circa 2008's
| moat.
| add-sub-mul-div wrote:
| Cable TV has a clear monetization channel, surely there are
| no ads there.
| upmostly wrote:
| They have. We pay $20 per month to get priority access.
|
| A lot more than I've ever paid to use the Google search
| engine.
|
| Paid for service over ads is the new way forward.
| penjelly wrote:
| even the fact that you always go to that same window, with the
| same format and interface lowers cognitive load imo. Of course
| chatgpt hasnt been a magic bullet for me yet, but it definitely
| eases the pain of developing things outside your usual perview
| radres wrote:
| Definitely the fact that I am not going to deal with ads when I
| am looking for something is a gamechanger.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| Better title: "not knowing what a table of contents is costs you
| time" (the one article that this entire piece rests on has a
| table of contents at the top, but the author counts page down
| keystrokes to get to a heading that you could get to from there
| with one click.)
| altcognito wrote:
| Cheat sheets are the best for this sort of thing. Every language
| probably ought to have a set of them.
| IshKebab wrote:
| > And I know the reason - ads and SEO.
|
| Wrong! At least in the case of Python. The main reason Python
| search results are so bad is that the official documentation is
| _really badly organised_. People literally can 't find the
| answers they want there because everything is on one mega-page
| with a bunch of unrelated concepts. So Google ranks it badly.
|
| The author's example ("python iterate over dictionary") is a good
| one. I tried that search - doc.python.org is _NOT IN THE RESULTS_
| (at least for the first 3 pages).
|
| It's not hard to see why - the closest answer I could find is
| here:
|
| https://docs.python.org/3/tutorial/datastructures.html#loopi...
|
| but it's on a page that also talks about lists, tuples,
| assignment expressions, nested list comprehensions, etc. No
| wonder people don't want to read all that!
|
| And it doesn't even answer the question what `for x in somedict:`
| does - for that you have to go to this mega-page:
|
| https://docs.python.org/3/library/stdtypes.html#typesmapping
|
| and see that `iter()` is "a shortcut for iter(d.keys())".
|
| Compare it to Rust "rust iterate over hashmap".
|
| The 4th result is https://doc.rust-
| lang.org/std/collections/struct.HashMap.htm...
|
| It's just about hashmaps. The example at the top has iteration
| over one.
| earthboundkid wrote:
| Real Python is a great site. Why are we reading someone who can't
| tell good content from bad content?
| acaloiar wrote:
| I've been using Kagi [1] for both technical and non-technical
| searches recently, and not having to mentally filter ads out of
| results is a delight. The top result is almost always very good.
|
| [1] https://kagi.com
| [deleted]
| raybb wrote:
| Also love being able to prioritize or downrank sites in results
| muscaw wrote:
| For cli calls, I have been using a handy website called cheat.sh
|
| Basically, just go to cheat.sh/git and you get a list of useful
| examples for how to use the git command.
|
| I have it mapped to a small bash function so that I can just type
| 'cheat git' and I get the content right in my terminal.
| S04dKHzrKT wrote:
| A similar project is tldr.
|
| https://github.com/tldr-pages/tldr
|
| https://github.com/dbrgn/tealdeer
| dvt wrote:
| This is literally above the fold[1]. The Python website linked is
| actually pretty good, what a dumb click-baity blog post. I'll
| probably get downvoted by the "I use ChatGPT daily and it 15x'ed
| my productivity" crowd, but every time I have this debate, I get
| zero salient examples.
|
| [1] https://imgur.com/a/KFJ9DrB
| Hikikomori wrote:
| While search results have degraded OP certainly picked a bad
| example.
| WarOnPrivacy wrote:
| _This post may contain erotic or adult imagery. By continuing,
| you acknowledge that you are 18+ years of age._
|
| I am declining your promise of erotic imagery but thanks for
| thinking of me.
| Vecr wrote:
| That's a boilerplate disclaimer. There's nothing in the image
| other than a screenshot of a webpage showing only text.
| LatticeAnimal wrote:
| Should have 2020 in the title
| egypturnash wrote:
| buy a book, use the index
| cleandreams wrote:
| This is SEO. I read a food blogger on this. She had to make her
| recipes long, long, long with lots of fluff or it wouldn't get a
| good ranking.
|
| Google should stop this. It's just going to make ChatGPT more
| attractive.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-07-02 23:01 UTC)