smspence

Lately, I have been listening to Slacker Radio with a Premium account ($10/month), and it is very much like Spotify and/or Rhapsody, and I have been pretty impressed with how big the library of music is that can be played on-demand.

It's not a full car that is downloadable and printable. It's not at all what the misleading title of this post says.

Here is a link to the actual website for the vehicle, instead of the terrible blog write-up: http://www.urbee.net/home/

Yes, I clicked the provided link and read the entire article from start to finish. First, I want to say that I hope my first post did not sound like a personal attack on you. I was only trying to present my view of the article that you linked to. Next, I would like to try and back up the comments that I made about the article to hopefully make it a little more clear why I said that.

I referred to the article as opinion, hyperbole, and speculation, and here are some reasons why: When I first opened the article, I noticed that the subtitle starts with "Google’s disastrous decision to muck up its search results...", and then the first sentence of the article is "Google just broke its search engine." Calling this "disastrous" is, in my opinion, both speculation and a big exaggeration. I believe it's speculation because the SPYW option was released only two weeks ago, and it is clearly too early to tell if this will have any kind of a negative impact on Google or Google's users... let alone calling it a disaster (the exaggeration/hyperbole). Google has clearly not broken its search engine (more hyperbole, in my opinion). It works exactly the same as it did before, only with the additional option of being able to use SPYW. I would like to emphasize that SPYW is an option that can be toggled on or off at the top of any search page. It is easy to find these search settings/buttons on any search page, and if you would like more details please refer to [1] below.

Throughout the article, the author gives several made-up scenarios to illustrate what he believes to be critical flaws in Google's new SPYW option (although he ignores that it is in fact an option). The author gives the example of doing a Google search for "Facebook". I performed this search just now, and the number one result is Facebook.com, which is exactly what I would expect. The next several results include the Wikipedia entry for Facebook, a link to Facebook's iPhone app, a link to Facebook's Twitter account, and other websites that provide more information and news about Facebook. This is exactly what I would expect to see. I see absolutely no problem with this. The author tries to make it sound like he didn't see any of this, and that the only thing Google presented him with was a suggestion to add Mark Zuckerberg to one of his G+ circles, but this is simply not true. Try this search for yourself right now and let me know what you see. Go ahead and try it both with SPYW on or off (which can be toggled on/off on-the-fly with a single click at the top of the search page), and please let me know if you saw the same "disaster" that the author is talking about.

The author gives the example of searching for a plumber or information on how to fix a clogged toilet. He then says "What I don’t want to know is which link my boss consulted when his toilet was clogged. I bet I’m not alone." He doesn't want that (good, neither do I) and he doesn't have to ever see that in his results. He is giving his opinion of what he thinks is going to happen, and what he predicts will be the downfall of Google as we know it. Again, I am calling this opinion and speculation, because I have been trying all of these search queries that the author suggests, and I have not seen any of the problems he speaks of. I can only come to the conclusion that his complaints are not real, but are just his opinion of what he thinks Google might become in the future for some reason (some kind of slippery-slope argument, fear-mongering mentality? I can't figure it out).

Later, he gives some links to use cases that Google employees have come up with for SPYW. "Yet even the examples that Google employees have been showing off don’t seem very useful to me." They don't seem useful to him, but apparently they are useful to the person who came up with them.... That is the idea of having a "personalized" search option. If he doesn't find that to be useful, he can turn it off, so he won't see things that are not useful to him. In my opinion, this is a good thing. Then he says "If you don’t follow Lee and you do the same search, you won’t get that post." Again, that's the idea of the personalized search option..... and again, it is an option that can be turned off if you don't think it's useful.

Please, explore your Google search settings and check out the new Google "dashboard". You can fine tune exactly what comes up during "personalized" searches. Or you can turn off SPYW permanently if you wish. Also, if you hate it when Google tries to guess what you want, check out the "Verbatim" search option located under "More search tools" on the left side of any search page. The "Verbatim" option makes Google do only what you tell it to do. It won't even ask you "Did you mean...." anymore.

[1] Scroll down to the section heading "Can I turn off personal results?" here: http://support.google.com/websearch/bin/answer.py?hl=en&...

Please explain how they might "break search". I keep seeing comments on HN about how Google is messing up search, and also G+ is ruining peoples' lives somehow.

I have seen Google do absolutely nothing that you can't opt out of, or just plain ignore. For example, I technically have a G+ account, but I never ever click on G+ and I never actually see or use it, so it has no effect on my search results or my life at all. But i can see how it might add a lot of value for people who choose to use it. Again, i emphasize that it is a choice. Google is not holding a gun to your head and forcing you to use G+. They are never going to sacrifice accurate search by only presenting you with "social" search results.

What ignores this? This article is talking about the market share of different web browsers.... What are they ignoring? I don't understand how this comment has anything to do with the article.

Here is the main take-away from today's event: Apple made some cool tools to enable people to use really neat educational materials, and also simplifies the process of producing said material. Why are we going off on all these other tangents?

Most high school students don't have to buy textbooks at all. The school provides them. And nowadays, most schools already have iPads and laptops (school-owned, the parents do not buy them) that the students use in the class room. I imagine this is something that the schools will be interested in buying.

A close friend of mine is a 4th grade teacher, and it is amazing how much technology they have in the class room now. Laptops and iPads for almost every single student. This is not a school for "rich kids" either. It is an elementary school in a small town in Iowa, and not a "rich" area in any way.

I just laugh and roll my eyes when I read all the comments here that act like someone is going to hold a gun to a poor parent's head and force them to go without buying food because they have to buy iPads and "thousands of dollars" worth of books. Where is this coming from?

Investors just raised another $1 billion for Zynga. That's what happened. I don't understand the point of this article. The author is trying to make Zynga's IPO sound like a failure, when it is not.