←back to thread

The man who killed Google Search?

(www.wheresyoured.at)
1884 points elorant | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.42s | source
Show context
neilv ◴[] 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 ◴[] 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 ◴[] 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. JoshTriplett ◴[] No.40136748[source]
> Hyperbole that is quite obviously hyperbole

It's not at all obvious that the author intends to sound hyperbolic. At the risk of Poe's Law here, they come across as saying exactly what they intend to say, perhaps attempting to appeal to an audience looking for such portrayals.

replies(1): >>40151829 #
2. Nevermark ◴[] No.40151829[source]
Pinning everything on one manager, no matter how related and relevant, is obviously hyperbolic.

A lot of people, and whover they report to, right to the top, are responsible too.

But the fact remains, that this manager is (according to the essay) strongly associated with major product misfires. At best, they didn’t manage to influence decisions down better paths.

And the enshittification of Google is so obvious, so bad for customers and what has become a utility for the Internet in general, that identifying and shaming those responsible seems like useful customer-citizen feedback to me.

People need to push back as the quality of the online environment matters.

No respect for the value extractors who keep showing up to ride on the coattails of the value makers! (Even when they are the same people.)

The gentleman being called out, or another representative, is welcome to clarify why Google Search is really better than it presents. Or why they are not responsible for its precipitous quality drop - I.e. insurmountable constraints and challenges or whatever their view is. Although those kinds of excuses are not very credible when ad revenue over optimization is the obvious problem.

They are even more welcome to reverse the rot.