Hacker News Reader

Comment by gavanwoolery | Hacker News Reader

Google is somewhat good a discerning credibility, IMHO. At least, whenever I search for something I tend to get exactly what I'm looking for without a bunch of spammy links. Of course, this could be because most of the stuff I search for is just on Stack Overflow or Wikipedia. :)

View on HN

If you start your search term with the phrase "howto", chances are wikihow.com is among the top results.

There are many similar websites who focus on low quality content optimized for search engines.

wikihow is awful. Because it is burying useful content with their superfluous garbage.

OTOH StackOverflow employs similar tactics but it is legit and usually useful content.

Should Google discriminate between these two? If, yes based on what criteria? (Remember, wikihow pages look like they're user generated, legit content) Is there any objective criteria?

I personally would like wikihow to take its place in hell, ehm I mean obscurity. Right next to w3schools.

w3schools is at least useful: short API summary plus an example and the pages load a lot faster than Mozilla's MDN

StackOverflow ranks answers based on how many upvotes it gets. In other words, it establishes a user's credibility based on his answers' popularity...

Yeah, but popularity on StackOverflow is related to "does it work for me," a metric that ultimately depends on evaluation by an impartial machine (or a human using their knowledge of the impartial machine to perform the same evaluation). You can't get popular on SO by answering with random snippets from TAOCP.

Or maybe you can and I'm missing a business opportunity. A TAOCP+OraclePropaganda bot sounds like something that might make bags and bags of money.

How do you know the up-votes on a StackOverflow answer were not fake/bots/paid for? How do you know a GitHub starred/watched repository is really useful and not some job applicant's astroturfing campaign to make it look like their code is widely-used?

>How do you know the up-votes on a StackOverflow answer were not fake/bots/paid for?

Because the quality of the top voted answers speaks for themselves in 99% of the ocassions.

I disagree, I find surprisingly often, the top one or two voted answers have low quality in many of the types of searches I end up doing on StackOverflow. Ultimately, it ends up being a resonable ranking when you have a smaller set of answers, and a good mod(?) community that's effective at filtering out actual spam.

Sometimes a longstanding answer has so many upvotes that it stays at the top even if it's no longer the best answer. In cases like that, there's usually a comment that explains why that method is no longer preferred and what you should do instead -- sometimes pointing to the better answer. And if no such comment exists, be kind and add it.

The more elementary the question, the more upvotes you get. So your credibility is also dependent on the superficiality of the questions you are answering, even more so I'd say.

This is the problem: SO ends up favoring more shallow knowledge as time marches on.

You can't use popularity metrics to mean anything substantive.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com