No I don't have an agenda. I happen to agree with the author. And I also happen to think your opening argument was rude, irrelevant and wrong - in equal measures. Maybe not intentionally rude, but unnecessary none the less.
What's more, neither Tim nor myself said that Go never works. Just that Go is a lousy search term and that "go lang" usually yeilds better results. My screenshots are evidence of that (and your reasoning for dismissing them is completely wrong because nobody else had commented on those examples. So don't give me that crap about "and others")
The issue here is that you've decided to post the typical easy reps via unrelated negative, and did so by overstating the authors point about the quality of Go as a search term. But then, sadly, you were too bloody stubborn to admit when you were wrong despite numerous developers (read: people who actually know what they're talking about on this matter) politely trying to demonstrate that a) not all users get the same results, b) popular results for similar search patterns will be biased in everyones results and c) not everyone uses Google.
But who cares about experience and expertise when people like you can voice an opinion after only 5 minutes of button bashing on thier keyboard. who cares about the fact that several go developers have all said that it's just easier to get into the habbit of using "go lang", after recieving disappointing results in the past. And who cares that Google themselves advice using golang for searches, because obviously Google are less of an authority on this subject than you clearly are.
Anyhow, we're never going to agree on this and you're not even interested in this subject anyway. So I suggest we quit while we're ahead.
>No I don't have an agenda. I happen to agree with the author. And I also happen to think your opening argument was rude, irrelevant and wrong - in equal measures.
"Enough with this old wives tale" was rude?
And yet you used: "people like yourself", "trolls and egos", "lazy negative posts", "you've ignored everyone else that's replied to you", "you're not even interested in this subject anyway", "people who actually know what they're talking about on this matter",
against my very simple statementthat his queries also work with "go" -- and it's not due to some "filter bubble".
Well, FUCK YOU, your insults and your condescending tone.
As for your points:
(a) "not all users get the same results" -- I replied to this, testing the "personalised bubble" effect. What else exactly do you think is in play? Divine intervention?
(b) "popular results for similar search patterns will be biased in everyones results" -- irrelevant, since I used the very terms Tim Bray tried. Why weren't they "biased" in HIS results? Isn't he a member of "everyone"?
(c) "not everyone uses Google." -- almost everybody does, and Tim for his examples used (and even works at) Google. Irrelevant again.
> "Enough with this old wives tale" was rude? And yet you used: "people like yourself", "trolls and egos", "lazy negative posts", "you've ignored everyone else that's replied to you", "you're not even interested in this subject anyway", "people who actually know what they're talking about on this matter",
You're selectively sampling data there. Those comments of mine are from later on in this debate - where you've been equally condescending. At the start I was polite.
> a) "not all users get the same results" -- I replied to this, testing the "personalised bubble" effect. What else exactly do you think is in play? Divine intervention?
Indeed you did. Albeit just the once. More tests would be required if you truly cared about disproving the bubble effect as your results could easily have fallen into the (b) point I raised.
> b) "popular results for similar search patterns will be biased in everyones results" -- irrelevant, since I used the very terms Tim Bray tried. Why weren't they "biased" in HIS results? Isn't he a member of "everyone"?
[sigh] Because they might not have been popular when he searched for them. His blog might have caused others to Google those terms and thus skew the results (in fact it definitely has caused others to Google his search terms as we're here arguing about it now). This is why I posted examples of other search terms, which you clearly haven't looked at yet. If you're not going to look at my examples, then why don't you try a few more irregular searches of your own.
In this whole argument you've basically taken one example as proof that your argument works every time. You've not even attempted other irregular search patterns of your own (or perhaps you have but they proved my point so you opted to ignore them as well?) so I really don't know how you can be so confident when you assert your point so absolutely. You do realise that multiple experiments need to be performed if you want to prove a statistical average? Just as myself and all the other Go developers have done with our time spent troubleshooting code.
> c) "not everyone uses Google." -- almost everybody does, and Tim for his examples used (and even works at) Google. Irrelevant again.
Of course it's relevant. You're arguing that "Go" is good enough on it's own - Google searches are just an example. If your point was valid then your results would be similar in other search engines. Later confining your point to one search engine seems a little like moving the goal posts mid-match.
What's more, neither Tim nor myself said that Go never works. Just that Go is a lousy search term and that "go lang" usually yeilds better results. My screenshots are evidence of that (and your reasoning for dismissing them is completely wrong because nobody else had commented on those examples. So don't give me that crap about "and others")
The issue here is that you've decided to post the typical easy reps via unrelated negative, and did so by overstating the authors point about the quality of Go as a search term. But then, sadly, you were too bloody stubborn to admit when you were wrong despite numerous developers (read: people who actually know what they're talking about on this matter) politely trying to demonstrate that a) not all users get the same results, b) popular results for similar search patterns will be biased in everyones results and c) not everyone uses Google.
But who cares about experience and expertise when people like you can voice an opinion after only 5 minutes of button bashing on thier keyboard. who cares about the fact that several go developers have all said that it's just easier to get into the habbit of using "go lang", after recieving disappointing results in the past. And who cares that Google themselves advice using golang for searches, because obviously Google are less of an authority on this subject than you clearly are.
Anyhow, we're never going to agree on this and you're not even interested in this subject anyway. So I suggest we quit while we're ahead.