Question-sites are ruining Google-searches!
-
I have gone to the step of blocking sites like "Stackexchange" for my searches on programming references and tutorials, because their helpfulness is minimal. I usually want some information about something I haven't worked with before in C#, (esoteria in .net, or some weird errors). I Google it and I get answers that links to dead sites or removed articles, (that's named perfectly, and all the up-votes and thank-yous to indicate that this was once exactly what you wanted), or there are 100 comments/answers about how stupid a "noob question" it is or "Google it". I sometimes ask a question on a forum or this site, (I like this site BTW, though "stupid, noob question", or a question has been removed for being "unhelpful", has happened a few times), now when I get a "Google it" response and the above scenario occurs, (I get results of others having had the same question and the same retarded "Google it" response), I just wanna kill somebody. I think that Q&A-sites just messes up the value of programming-related searches. I can see an infinite loop of "Google it" occurring at some point in the near future! Thank you for reading my rant ;-) -Frank
Frank Reidar Haugen wrote:
I think that Q&A-sites just messes up the value of programming-related searches
What sort of site would then provide the answer for the esoteric items that you are looking for? Very likely won't be the sites that one might suppose - the documentation for the application/library/etc because those are unlikely to document it.
-
I think the point is that if it is so easy as responsible people who understand how search engines work we should not just give the snide answer "Google it", but also answer it. You can leave a snide remark, but not answering it leaves the thread there. This happens again and again. And eventually the first couple pages of a google search are "noobs" asking an easy question and getting no answer. In some cases the person very well did google it and found nothing on the first page of the search. So they posted a new question and get the some result as an answer "Google it". But they did... ANd now those that answered just added to the problem. I get what you are saying. But it seems that those lazy folks exist on the front of this problem. After that, it may not be laziness but a broken system (search results in "google it" answers and no programmer willing to properly answer it). Maybe google needs to tweak their algorithm to omit "Google it" hits :)
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet. The interesting thing about software is it can not reproduce, until it can.
The fact is... everyone here is making a point and being right in his/her opinion. The most important point is: There are way much lazy people than legitimate enquirers asking things as it should be asked and having really problems to solve something. It is a pity, that those few get the tipical answer, I agree with you. But on the other hand... and taking as example two answers of mine reflecting the other position defended by Richard. How can I represent weighted graph in scheme with alist?[^] best way to design web Form to Insert,Update, Delete[^] I say "google it", but giving some of the links I firstly checked that might be usefull. One of them was even downvoted (I don't give a sh.. though), what I want to point out is: The make the question "how do I xxxxxx" with very few content as Richard said. One of them didn't came back or posted anything else, the other at least told "Thanks" but added "but I use...." because the answer was not matching the problem, then why don't describe the problem better? I even told him how to edit and add content, but nothing happened, the only edition was mine to add his "explanation". He didn't bothered to say anything else. And those two examples are still in the "good" part of the group described by Richard. As I said, I agree that "rights are paying for sinners" and this is not fair, but... if the user describes What have been tried?[^] correctly (i.e. finding info in google and put some examples of bad links) and describe the situation correctly, then that user won't take a "google it" answer
M.D.V. ;) If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about? Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
-
Especially if you get their attention: RTFM Normally works for me... :laugh:
Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it. --- George Santayana (December 16, 1863 – September 26, 1952) Those who fail to clear history are doomed to explain it. --- OriginalGriff (February 24, 1959 – ∞)
Lazy question: And... what does it means? :-O :-O Debate answer: Oh... oncle google says... "read the fucking manual" :cool::cool: ;P ;P :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
M.D.V. ;) If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about? Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
-
Richard MacCutchan wrote:
How can I solve this problem?[^]: Solution 1.
Do as I say, not as I do ;) I never said I am not a google breaking culprit. I try not to, but we all have those days. But in the end we must take responsibility that we are breaking the search engines. Also, you should notice that while I did give a link to LMGTFY and the found result at SO, I did in fact also provide the answer in the solution I posted. Thus, the next lazy programmer that googles it has the potential to find that QA and it will be valid. If however I just left the links it would not be valid (links go dead, and a link to a live query is most certainly not valid as it can change results)
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet. The interesting thing about software is it can not reproduce, until it can.
In that case it was a "short" answer. Have a look the links in my answer to you below to see the other side.
M.D.V. ;) If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about? Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
-
Lazy question: And... what does it means? :-O :-O Debate answer: Oh... oncle google says... "read the fucking manual" :cool::cool: ;P ;P :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
M.D.V. ;) If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about? Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
:-D Dat's De Bunny! :laugh:
Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it. --- George Santayana (December 16, 1863 – September 26, 1952) Those who fail to clear history are doomed to explain it. --- OriginalGriff (February 24, 1959 – ∞)
-
In that case it was a "short" answer. Have a look the links in my answer to you below to see the other side.
M.D.V. ;) If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about? Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
Nelek wrote:
In that case it was a "short" answer.
Have a look the links in my answer to you below to see the other side.We can not fix the lazy programmer nor can we make them come back. For all we know they realized they were not cut out for it (and that is fine). We can however make this site better. In the QA you referenced that is in fact appropriate. If the question is in fact not appropriate for QA there is little that can be done. We should either delete it or kindly explain why it is not appropriate for QA and in the case that it is a longer discussion/topic links to materials showing the poster how deep it is, is in fact the answer. It may not be what they are looking for, but not all answers are.
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet. The interesting thing about software is it can not reproduce, until it can.
-
Frank Reidar Haugen wrote:
I think that Q&A-sites just messes up the value of programming-related searches
What sort of site would then provide the answer for the esoteric items that you are looking for? Very likely won't be the sites that one might suppose - the documentation for the application/library/etc because those are unlikely to document it.
It's about the problem, and less specific. If my Google-fu or manual-skimming don't work, I ask. It is when I cannot search effectively through Google, (without disabling sites), because of questions, that the issue arise. I use this site a lot, and a Norwegian forum page. Else my Google-fu is my problem-solving tool! If there were more constructive answers to "stupid"/noob questions, this would never arise as an issue as it is starting to become now.
-
I have gone to the step of blocking sites like "Stackexchange" for my searches on programming references and tutorials, because their helpfulness is minimal. I usually want some information about something I haven't worked with before in C#, (esoteria in .net, or some weird errors). I Google it and I get answers that links to dead sites or removed articles, (that's named perfectly, and all the up-votes and thank-yous to indicate that this was once exactly what you wanted), or there are 100 comments/answers about how stupid a "noob question" it is or "Google it". I sometimes ask a question on a forum or this site, (I like this site BTW, though "stupid, noob question", or a question has been removed for being "unhelpful", has happened a few times), now when I get a "Google it" response and the above scenario occurs, (I get results of others having had the same question and the same retarded "Google it" response), I just wanna kill somebody. I think that Q&A-sites just messes up the value of programming-related searches. I can see an infinite loop of "Google it" occurring at some point in the near future! Thank you for reading my rant ;-) -Frank
need a way to exclude terms from the search results, as in, "exclude:Google it"
If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader.-John Q. Adams
You must accept one of two basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe, or we are not alone in the universe. And either way, the implications are staggering.-Wernher von Braun
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.-Albert Einstein -
need a way to exclude terms from the search results, as in, "exclude:Google it"
If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader.-John Q. Adams
You must accept one of two basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe, or we are not alone in the universe. And either way, the implications are staggering.-Wernher von Braun
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.-Albert Einstein -
need a way to exclude terms from the search results, as in, "exclude:Google it"
If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader.-John Q. Adams
You must accept one of two basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe, or we are not alone in the universe. And either way, the implications are staggering.-Wernher von Braun
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.-Albert EinsteinA Firefox add-on called Greasemonkey, (it can take scripts to to pretty amazing things), allow you to block sites,on google searches, (it hides them from you by manipulating what is being redered by Firefox), it also adds a neat "Block" button next to a search result to quickly add sites that bother you. Google used to have a "block"-list, that Google+ -users could add domains to, they removed it, (probably, many companies wanting to lure you in with 'search-term generated page titles', complained, and Google probably yielded, as a block-function, somewhat conflicts with the spirit of "Ad-Words" service) So there are ways, but google should make tools available to the users to manipulate the results you get. The Google AI, is good, but it's also, as all AI, a complete idiot, (search for something related to music a few times, and all your 'C#'-searches, will give you music-related results in stead of C# programming resources) But the core of the problem is less the google-results in themselves, and more the laziness of askers as wells as answerers on "ask"-forums. (regular and functioning forums, delete meaningless questions or answers). We, as the holders of the information, must be better and kinder in the sharing of it! -Frank
