this post was submitted on 15 May 2024
1324 points (98.5% liked)

Programmer Humor

23147 readers
1124 users here now

Welcome to Programmer Humor!

This is a place where you can post jokes, memes, humor, etc. related to programming!

For sharing awful code theres also Programming Horror.

Rules

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
(page 6) 46 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

So many SEO trick to put yourselves into top google search for traffic.

I have google for bug and stuff, and most common bug can be found on shitty content Java tip page with broken format, lot of ads, and sometime untrue/outdate information.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

2020 has become the decade of reading books. Search results these days are so bad.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 1 year ago

You didn't include a version in your query. You also could try using quotes, though this specific entry may not be helped by it (e.g. "in operator"). For most things, you can click a link with the older version and somewhere there is typically a dropdown or something to change the version and, if not, you'll at least know which section/etc. it is in in the new documentation.

If you don't include a version, it's probably going to pull up questions/answers that it finds most match in general and maybe people just aren't asking that question for your version.

I think there's a lot to hate about modern search results, but I also think there's some opportunity to search better. I do miss the days when AND, OR, and NOT operators actually worked all the time and as expected.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 11 months ago

How aboout you do your own code? Badumtiish

[–] [email protected] -3 points 1 year ago (7 children)

I've started relying more on AI-powered tools like Perplexity for many of my search use-cases for this very fact - all results basically warrant a pre-filtering to be useful.

load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›