Hacker Read top | best | new | newcomments | leaders | about | bookmarklet login

Is it bad that I've actually found my answer on some of these sites haha. But yeah, they're pretty low quality in general.


sort by: page size:

Personally, I found this post interesting. I had never seen the site they linked before, and I found it to be a generally fascinating observation.

Why do you feel it's low quality?


Yeah, this site isn’t bad; the comment I was initially responding to was more a general commentary on a trend that admittedly doesn’t really apply here.

It’d still be nice to get a summary “about” link but at least you can go right home.


That and I feel like the actual QUALITY of the content is pretty low, a la Yahoo answers with (mostly) correct grammar. Some of the answers are "insightful", or maybe I'm not looking at the right topics, but for the most part, I don't see much value in it.

I actually agree it isn't that useful. At least for me. My attitude is that high quality sources are worth more than low quality ones.

I consider their quality to be consistently low. This one is basically a weak summary of a Wikipedia article or two along with some overzealous assumptions.

I found most of these sites to be pretty low on content...

By questionable you mean unofficial, right? Because your wording seems to imply these sites are somehow bad.

They are the worst I’ve seen as well.

Yes, people tend to share the best of the best. However these results seem especially bad, like bottom 10% bad.


They can't be that good if you happen to know this and be writing about it on the internet.

in fairness, I regularly find information that's actually useful to me on about.com. Not the highest quality site, but I certainly wouldn't rank it with the demand medias of this world.

Yeah many of them are quite silly, I’m not really sure what the value is of the site. I perused several in my age group, and they were just clichés.

Correct, because it's all pretty much low-quality content by most standards.

The site itself isn't bad, there's a fair amount of decent advice on there, although nothing that isn't really available elsewhere.

I've definitely noticed worse results from Google search.

I just get page after page after page of "content" that appears to be either GPT written or written by somebody who has no idea about the topic.

They all seem to follow a pattern, they have a table of contents, and they take sentences from real sites regurgitate them and put them together into semi-random paragraphs.

If you know nothing about the topic it appears on the surface to be legitimate. And I bet to any quality engineers it all seems totally legitimate, because they're not experts in these fields.


Yeah, it's pretty bad. Questions that they pay for are generally of poor quality. When you pay for something, people rush in to produce as much quantity as they can. Even if they are also attracting good ones, they can be hard to find in the onslaught.

Some of the websites that do that have solid content though. Not good enough for me to pay them though so I end up clicking the back button and using alternative sources.

The response you saw probably wasn't very surprising to anyone who has spent time looking at the /newest page. It's fun to find the good submissions early, but there's a lot of low-quality submissions to sift through to find the good ones.

Authoritative seeming sources are not always a good thing. Anytime you search for a game guide/faq/hint you get drivel from the big name sites that are super short on content and have bad advice. Almost in all cases the content I’m looking for is in some tiny blog that barely ranks but matches all the search words.

I'm sure you can find some consistently bad quality content out there.
next

Legal | privacy