Hacker News Reader

Comment by marginalia_nu | Hacker News Reader

I've been dabbling in this general field as well, I do think there's new things to be made here. StumbleUpon was great, but I think it can be greater still.

I started with <https://search.marginalia.nu/explore/random> but then I made <https://explore.marginalia.nu/> which I feel is the superior version.

View on HN

Random drive-by user feedback: I like Random density better - the number of sites I don't want to visit is greater than the number which I'm interested in, Explore is too modal/singular at a time. The 20x density of the Random page is quicker to scan and discard results within seconds to try and find something I'm willing to click into that piques my curiosity, as I may reload the Random page a few times to get a hit I like.

Yeah I'm not planning on retiring any of the services. They require virtually no resources or maintenance, odds are I'll make even more attempts at exploring this domain in the future.

Having both an exhaustive link database from the search engine, as well as 300,000 screenshots makes for a lot of opportunities to experiment.

As a heads up, it isn't compliant with the ePrivacy Directive (aka "the EU cookie law") that the site can't be used without giving consent. Consent must be given freely. If the cookie is purely functional and the site can't function without it, then consent is not required. If the cookie is optional then consent is required but it can't be forced.

The cookie is purely functional and necessary to the functionality, but I'll still ask for consent even if is not required.

It is not consent if the only option is to say yes.

I want the visitor to be informed that clicking the button places a cookie on their computer and why that is so that clicking the button is an informed choice. The other option is to not click the button.

To try and perhaps explain a different way, that's exactly what's not legal. According to the directive, consent must be free, and sites must also be usable if no consent is given. The setup where you either accept cookies or you can't use the site at all is exactly what's disallowed.

Right, but the site can't be used without the cookie since it's required for the functionality. Am I really not allowed to inform my visitors of this fact (even though I'm not required to)?

If you'd like you can replace the "Cookie Consent" text with "Cookie Notice", and "Consent To The Cookie And Begin" with a single "Begin".

I'm not a lawyer to understand the implication of asking consent on something that doesn't require consent. Sounds like a non-issue to me, and yak shaving. I would doubt that anyone would bat an eye at that.

However, you that notice also states that "and which websites you would like to see more of.". I'm not sure how that information is stored in the backend and how often is deleted, but that could be considered profiling.

You could have users consent to the preference information only, standard history cookies being implicit/essential functionality.

Alternatively 2, just change the text to ~ "this functionality essentially requires cookie to avoid repetition, and drilling down based on preferences", with a "sounds good to me" button. Might want to have cookies expire on browser close.

TL;DR don't sweat it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com