One of my favourite cafes ... thirty years ago now ... the barista would set up my drink when she saw me walk through the door, by the time I'd reached the counter she was handing it to me with a big smile.
Tipped her generously on her last day there, got a big hug for it.
Use of fire considerably pre-dates H. sapiens, with anthropological evidence dating to 1.7 -- 2 million years ago. Sapiens diverged from common ancestors about 600,000 years ago.
"We" (Homo sapiens) did not invent fire. Our predecessor species were already using it.
Firestarting is harder to pin down and may be within the scope of homo evolution.
"iPhone" was an Infogear, later Cisco, trademark, for the InfoGear iPhone (1997--2000 / InfoGear, Cisco/Linksys 2006--2007), which was licenced to Apple.
I was at Cisco when the Apple iPhone was announced. It was rumored to be happening, so Cisco rushed out a Linksys VoIP(?) phone rebranded (it might have just been a sticker) as an "iPhone" so they could defend the trademark. They quickly reached an agreement with Apple. I remember they might have been getting their VPN included on the device. I'm sure there was a similar issue with iOS, and that caused me to get a lot of not-so-relevant emails from recruiters looking for mobile devs.
"Google will discontinue third-party niche search engine access to full-web search" would be far clearer.
Given that the title supplied is effectively editorialised, and the original article's title is effectively content-free ("Updates to our Web Search Products & Programmable Search Engine Capabilities"), my rewording would be at least as fair.
HN's policy is to try to use text from the article itself where the article title is clickbait, sensational, vague, etc., however. I suspect Google's blog authors are aware of this, and they've carefully avoided any readily-extracted clear statements, though I'll take a stab...
Here's the most direct 'graph from TFA:
Custom Search JSON API: Vertex AI Search is a favorable alternative for up to 50 domains. Alternatively, if your use case necessitates full web search, contact us to express your interest in and get more information about our full web search solution. Your transition to an alternative solution needs to be completed by January 1, 2027.
We can get a clearer, 80-character head that's somewhat faithful to that with:
"Google Search API alternative Vertex AI Search limited to 50 domains" (70 chars).
That's still pretty loosely adherent, though it (mostly) uses words from the original article. I'm suggesting it to mods via email at hn@ycominator.com; others may wish to suggest their own formulations.
Google's entire (initial) claim-to-fame was "PageRank", referring both to the ranking of pages and co-founder Larry Page, which strongly prioritised a relevance attribute over raw keyword findings (which then-popular alternatives such as Alta Vista, Yahoo, AskJeeves, Lycos, Infoseek, HotBot, etc., relied on, or the rather more notorious paid-rankings schemes in which SERP order was effectively sold). When it was first introduced, Google Web Search was absolutely worlds ahead of any competition. I remember this well having used them previously and adopted Google quite early (1998/99).
Even with PageRank result prioritisation is highly subject to gaming. Raw keyword search is far more so (keyword stuffing and other shenanigans), moreso as any given search engine begins to become popular and catch the attention of publishers.
Google now applies other additional ordering factors as well. And of course has come to dominate SERP results with paid, advertised, listings, which are all but impossible to discern from "organic" search results.
(I've not used Google Web Search as my primary tool for well over a decade, and probably only run a few searches per month. DDG is my primary, though I'll look at a few others including Kagi and Marginalia, though those rarely.)
PageRank was an innovative idea in the early days of the Internet when trust was high, but yes it's absolutely gamed now and I would be surprised if Google still relies on it.
Fair play to them though, it enabled them to build a massive business.
Though I'd think that you'd want to weight unaffiliated sites' anchor text to a given URL much higher than an affiliated site.
"Affiliation" is a tricky term itself. Content farms were popular in the aughts (though they seem to have largely subsided), firms such as Claria and Gator. There are chumboxes (Outbrain, Taboola), and of course affiliate links (e.g., to Amazon or other shopping sites). SEO manipulation is its own whole universe.
(I'm sure you know far more about this than I do, I'm mostly talking at other readers, and maybe hoping to glean some more wisdom from you ;-)
Oh yeah, there's definitely room for improvement in that general direction. Indexing anchor texts is much better than page rank, but in isolation, it's not sufficient.
I've also seen some benefit fingerpinting the network traffic the websites make using a headless browser, to identify which ad networks they load. Very few spam sites have no ads, since there wouldn't be any economy in that.
The full data set of DOM samples + recorded network traffic are in an enormous sqlite file (400GB+), and I haven't yet worked out any way of distributing the data yet. Though it's in the back of my mind as something I'd like to solve.
I'd also suspect that there are networks / links which are more likely signs of low-value content than others. Off the top of my head, crypto, MLM, known scam/fraud sites, and perhaps share links to certain social networks might be negative indicators.
You can actually identify clusters of websites based on the cosine similarity of their outbound links. Pretty useful for identifying content farms spanning multiple websites.
Google’s biggest search signal now is aggregate behavioral data reported from Chrome. That pervasive behavioral surveillance is the main reason Apple has never allowed a native Chrome app on iOS.
It’s also why it is so hard to compete with Google. You guys are talking about techniques for analyzing the corpus of the search index. Google does that and has a direct view into how millions of people interact with it.
> That pervasive behavioral surveillance is the main reason Apple has never allowed a native Chrome app on iOS.
There is a native Chrome app on iOS. It gets all the same url visit data as Chrome on other platforms.
Apple blocks 3rd party renderers and JS engines on iOS to protect its App Store from competition that might deliver software and content through other channels that they don't take a cut of.
Yes indeed, they have an impossibly deep moat and deeper pockets. I'm certainly not trying to compete with them with my little side project, it's just for fun!
Tipped her generously on her last day there, got a big hug for it.
There's something no machines can replace.
reply