←back to thread

20 years of Google Scholar

(blog.google)
412 points thepuppet33r | 2 comments | 18 Nov 24 18:01 UTC | HN request time: 0.426s | source
Show context
thepuppet33r ◴[18 Nov 24 18:01 UTC] No.42175024[source]▶
Yes, Google deserves to be distrusted and avoided as a whole, but Google Scholar is a genuinely net good for humanity.
replies(3): >>42175704 #>>42180078 #>>42181021 #
dumpHero2 ◴[18 Nov 24 19:00 UTC] No.42175704[source]▶
I have similar feeing for Gmail (it's effective anti spam engine), google maps and google docs (which pioneered shared docs. It feels outdated on many fronts now, but it was a pioneer).
replies(8): >>42175773 #>>42175878 #>>42176170 #>>42177151 #>>42177404 #>>42179179 #>>42186118 #>>42187586 #
1. coderintherye ◴[18 Nov 24 19:19 UTC] No.42175878[source]▶
Good for users of Gmail, but is it a net good? Gmail spam prevention is great for the Google Apps orgs I manage. However, for the other inboxes the vast majority of spam they receive comes from @gmail.com
replies(1): >>42177789 #
2. thaumasiotes ◴[18 Nov 24 22:27 UTC] No.42177789[source]▶
> Gmail spam prevention is great for the Google Apps orgs I manage.

Gmail is unlikely to let spam through.

But that doesn't make its spam filter great; it's also very prone to blocking personal communication on the grounds that it must actually have been spam. The principle of gmail's spam filter is just "don't let anything through".

It would be much better to get more spam and also not have my actual communications disappear.