Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I think you and I have different working definitions of 'search quality'. My definition is that the sites you find by searching for something give you the information you want.

I think 'bowing to big copyright' is no different than 'bowing to Chinese censors' or 'bowing to Administration staffers' or 'bowing to conservative thinkers'. All of them affect what results you get vs what you asked for. That those web pages have information that some other folks don't want you to see, is a discussion between page provider and complainer, not a fight the search engine should get into.

Using blekko.com as an example. You could create a slashtag with all the best torrent sites you can find on the web, and then you and anyone else who uses your slashtag could be searching all those sites for what is useful information to them. As a copyright holder they could search those sites too (and presumably they do) and attempt to take action against the sites if they chose to. The search engine is a window between two spaces, and while sure as a choke point it provides an easy target for those would would want to control the greater masses, it doesn't improve the 'quality' of the service when that occurs. It is of demonstrably lower quality so some folks.



I think we have the same definitions. I was just being unclear. My intent was to express that their change was not motivated by improving search quality.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: