Most active commenters
  • jrflowers(5)
  • romanhn(4)

←back to thread

The man who killed Google Search?

(www.wheresyoured.at)
1884 points elorant | 15 comments | 23 Apr 24 16:43 UTC | HN request time: 3.136s | source | bottom
Show context
neilv ◴[23 Apr 24 17:48 UTC] No.40134839[source]▶
I think this article would work better if it were written entirely like textbook traditional investigative journalism. And less like the modern TV opinion personality, or the random strong-opinion Web comments in which many of the rest of us (including myself) indulge.
replies(8): >>40134879 #>>40135262 #>>40135594 #>>40135904 #>>40136387 #>>40136703 #>>40137636 #>>40138408 #
romanhn ◴[23 Apr 24 17:51 UTC] No.40134879[source]▶
Agreed. I struggled to keep going after "computer scientist class traitor". A very juvenile take that reflects poorly on the author, IMO.
replies(4): >>40135277 #>>40135352 #>>40137151 #>>40139031 #
Nevermark ◴[23 Apr 24 18:20 UTC] No.40135277[source]▶
Hyperbole that is quite obviously hyperbole is a well accepted literary device. It is a form of highlight via creative exaggeration of non-critical points, that is transparent, not deceptive, in service of making serious adjacent points. [0]

The point here is to highlight the actually cartoonish level of dysfunction and damage with an intentionally cartoonish flourish.

The "villian" in this case can be colorfully interpreted as the real world isomorphism of a mustache stroking, side sneering perpetrator, from any usually fictional world-stakes good vs. evil story.

Intentional exaggeration also communicates a bit of self-awareness, that gives heavy crisis alarms more credibility. The author's levity demonstrates a higher level awareness and humility, by making fun of his own extraordinarily serious thesis.

Finally: gallows humor. Add humor when talking about depressing things to relieve the anxiety that often inhibits discussion and contemplation of difficult topics.

[0] See famous "juvenile" writer Mark Twain.

replies(3): >>40135675 #>>40136748 #>>40138437 #
1. romanhn ◴[23 Apr 24 18:50 UTC] No.40135675[source]▶
Hyperbole is well and good in fiction and personal opinion pieces. I suppose my, and parent commenter's issue, is that we expected a certain type of writing, but got another. And that's fine. I don't have a dog in this fight, but to me it went beyond hyperbole and into personal attack territory. I called it juvenile because the descriptors lack nuance in the same way that "management bad, programmer good" arguments do. Having spent quite a bit of time on both sides, it's pretty clear that motivations, incentives, and constraints are not black and white, so I'm a bit more sensitive when I see people mocked without having full context.
replies(3): >>40135779 #>>40137660 #>>40140467 #
2. jrflowers ◴[23 Apr 24 18:58 UTC] No.40135779[source]▶
> people mocked without having full context

This is a good point. This 3700 word article titled “The Man Who Killed Google Search” about Prabhakar Raghavan does not contain context for why the author would dislike Prabhakar Raghavan or speak ill of him professionally.

replies(1): >>40136158 #
3. romanhn ◴[23 Apr 24 19:30 UTC] No.40136158[source]▶
To be clear, I meant the author does not have full context.
replies(1): >>40136852 #
4. jrflowers ◴[23 Apr 24 20:27 UTC] No.40136852{3}[source]▶
That makes sense. It is possible that Google search got better and not worse since it was taken over by the guy that used to run Yahoo search, in which case context would thoroughly vindicate the choice to promote SEO spam sites and make ads and search results nearly indistinguishable.
replies(1): >>40138117 #
5. davidgerard ◴[23 Apr 24 21:40 UTC] No.40137660[source]▶
I notice you're not supplying that alleged "full context".
replies(1): >>40137947 #
6. romanhn ◴[23 Apr 24 22:09 UTC] No.40137947[source]▶
Obviously I don't have it. The author doesn't either and he is the one making the big claims. Regardless, I'm not arguing the extent to which Prabhakar Raghavan contributed to Google Search quality, I haven't even heard the name before this post. I'm not a fan of the writing style, that is all.
replies(2): >>40141519 #>>40141568 #
7. robertlagrant ◴[23 Apr 24 22:32 UTC] No.40138117{4}[source]▶
This is like that scene in the Simpsons where Lisa tries to teach Homer that correlation does not equal causation by telling him that a rock keeps bears away, and he responds by wanting to buy the rock.

Correlation isn't causation. Don't just buy that someone is fully to blame because someone told you they were fully to blame.

replies(2): >>40139355 #>>40139535 #
8. jrflowers ◴[24 Apr 24 01:20 UTC] No.40139355{5}[source]▶
What part of the article would you refute aside from generally disagreeing with the idea that a manager can be considered responsible for what they’re in charge of? I’m not sure “management possesses an indelible philosophical unknowability” was Lisa’s point
9. etc-hosts ◴[24 Apr 24 01:48 UTC] No.40139535{5}[source]▶
Zitron spends paragraphs trying to convince the reader that Google Search sucks now mostly because of the efforts of one person.

I don't understand the correlation isn't causation argument in this context. If no one ever tried to convince others of their thesis, with numerous arguments, what's the point of writing?

replies(1): >>40139699 #
10. jrflowers ◴[24 Apr 24 02:13 UTC] No.40139699{6}[source]▶
Robert’s thesis is that there are smart people (like Lisa and himself) that agree that outcomes — no matter how specific or documented — should never be used to criticize managers, and hopelessly stupid people (like Homer) that do not take that position by default.

He could have said “perhaps there is a disconnection here” but rather opted to volunteer that he is in fact Very Smart and others are Very Dumb. With a position like that any writing that’s meant to convince the reader is pointless as there exists only ontological truths (things that he already agrees with) and pointless ramblings of cartoon buffoons (things that he does not already agree with)

replies(1): >>40142760 #
11. Nevermark ◴[24 Apr 24 04:09 UTC] No.40140467[source]▶
> it went beyond hyperbole and into personal attack territory.

> the descriptors lack nuance

> motivations, incentives, and constraints are not black and white

Hyperbole isn't a knife. Any more than a political cartoonist's brush. It is satire. Biting humor.

The more ridiculous the caricature, the less you are supposed to take the details literally.

The "culprit" is a lightening rod. Taking the heat for what is obviously the result of a lot of people's seemingly poor or unfortunate judgements. Google search was a thing of beauty. Now it is an ugly swamp I have personally stopped trying to wade through.

12. davidgerard ◴[24 Apr 24 07:08 UTC] No.40141519{3}[source]▶
Then you're loudly making a non-claim that things in general can't be written. However, Zitron has literally supplied and linked his evidence.
13. jrflowers ◴[24 Apr 24 07:16 UTC] No.40141568{3}[source]▶
This makes sense. If you personally don’t like someone’s writing style it means that they do not have the factual basis to back up their claims even if they provide them. The exonerating context exists because the meanness online cannot be both correct and not to your stylistic preference
14. robertlagrant ◴[24 Apr 24 10:43 UTC] No.40142760{7}[source]▶
> Robert’s thesis is that there are smart people (like Lisa and himself) that agree that outcomes — no matter how specific or documented — should never be used to criticize managers, and hopelessly stupid people (like Homer) that do not take that position by default.

None of the statements in this is the case, other than that there are smart people.

replies(1): >>40153526 #
15. ◴[25 Apr 24 04:46 UTC] No.40153526{8}[source]▶