
“Pinterest needs to be removed from Google IMO” - obtino
https://www.reddit.com/r/google/comments/85atho/pinterest_needs_to_be_removed_from_google_imo/
======
adrianmonk
I don't see why Pinterest does this to themselves. My main exposure to them is
through Google image search and links to their site.

So my first several experiences were like this. It left me with a terrible
first impression. It makes me wonder if the whole site plays games and tries
to waste my time.

I usually don't sign up for an account the first few times I encounter a site,
so in my mind it's a pretty critical time to make a good impression. Instead
they annoyed me so much I've practically decided never to create an account.

~~~
jypepin
Agreed on this. What's surprising to meis their success despite the logged in
experience not being better at all.

We're getting married, so my fiancée is (obviously) using pinterest for
everything - her dress, themes, you name it. And the wedding planner we work
with uses Pinterest too, we (try) to share it with them so they get an idea.

Even such a simple feature as sharing a board is a nightmare and wastes 5-10
minutes in every calls we have so the planner can finally find the board. Or a
crucial feature as "pinning" is even bad and obstructive. Be it with the
chrome addon or whatever other system.

Really don't see how they got so popular and really wonder why no other
competitor is entering the market and crushing them.

~~~
on_and_off
My 2 cents : they are popular because they are pretty much the only ones in
that pretty specific space.

It does not explain why no other company has tried to copycat them though.

~~~
kbenson
Shout out to the guy that runs pinboard. He posts here sometimes (regularly?
Rarely? Often?), and goes into his experience running a site like that by
himself.

~~~
aptwebapps
`idlewords, but that's that got to do with Pinterest?

~~~
kbenson
The comment I replied to noted "they are popular because they are pretty much
the only ones in that pretty specific space" while referring to Pinterest.
Pinboard is a competitor, is it not? Not at the same scale, of course, but it
is an alternative, a paid on at that, and is successful.

~~~
aptwebapps
I guess I don't think of them as competitors. They're both social bookmarking
sites but the interface and the way people use them seem very different.

~~~
upvotinglurker
Yup. Pinterest is less about saving the URLs/pages, than about curating a
selection of pictures and visually displaying them in a fashion-magazine
looking manner. Pinboard doesn't do that last I checked.

~~~
kbenson
Actually, plenty of people use Pinterest as a way to save curated lists of
URLs/pages. My daughters use Pinterest to make Christmas lists. my wife has
used it to save interesting looking recipes. Sometimes the display is core,
sometimes it's a nicety that makes it easier to browse.

I would hazard that the number of people looking to save bookmarks online
easily is a couple orders of magnitude more than those looking for fashion
magazine layout, _at least_.

Beyond that, it's pretty easy to slice up aspects of two companies so they are
or are not competitors. I think Pinterest and Pinboard fairly clearly are (and
since Pinterest is often mentioned along with Pinboard, I assume others think
so as well).

------
mrsteveman1
They seem to have gone to a lot of trouble to insert themselves between the
site users visited intentionally to find what they were looking for (Google),
and the site that actually provided what they were looking for.

They've essentially become a large MITM attack on Google Image results.

Edit: just tried a few arbitrary search strings on Google Images, it seems
improved compared to the past few weeks/months, somewhat.

For some searches, Pinterest results didn't appear at all. For "esp8266
enclosure", only 1 out of 15 on the "front page" points to Pinterest, but the
original image is still from Tindie, not Pinterest. The person who supposedly
pinned that image describes themselves as "Creative Digital Marketing, Web
designer, WebDev, crazy SEO".

Ok, maybe a real pin from a real person, _maybe_.

Then I decided to see what happens with a handful of more "NSFW" search terms.
The number of Pinterest results varied but significantly increased overall.

For some terms, in the 3 rows of images visible without scrolling, there were
19 images, and 11 of them (57%) pointed to Pinterest. None of them were images
originally posted on Pinterest, they all have a hover link to the original
site.

However, even though Pinterest is providing a link to the original site on top
of the image, clicking it doesn't always take you there.

A good bit of the time, Pinterest has chosen to redirect you to a "blocked
site" page instead, and only _after_ they have already displayed an image from
a site that they deemed "inappropriate". And then shortly afterward a giant
popup prompting the user to login or create an account filled the screen.

[1] (safe for work)
[https://i.imgur.com/XuOvwvi.jpg](https://i.imgur.com/XuOvwvi.jpg)

~~~
stevekemp
Search for things like "Acorn Tattoo", and similar terms and you find
pinterest spam is all there is in the google image search results.

Their behavior is eerily reminiscent of expertsexchange, back in the day. They
had a similar high ranking for lots of things, but the result-pages were all
horrid and non-useful to actual visitors.

Happily stackexchange surpassed expertsexchange, and I hope that something
comes to kick pinterest from its niche too - one of only two sites I wish to
fail (the other being linkedin, for similar evil reasons).

------
CM30
It should, but this also illustrates a problem with Google Search that they'll
need to grapple with in the future. Namely, that while they should treat all
sites equally, in practicality there's not really much incentive to on their
part.

Think about it. Let's say Google does remove Pinterest altogether, banning the
site as a punishment for 'gaming' the system.

What then? The people that do search for Pinterest will find it missing, and
likely assume Google screwed up/their search engine is broken. They won't know
Google banned the site or what for, they'll just think 'Pinterest should be
coming up, it isn't, so Google is broken'.

And I suspect that underpins a lot of instances where Google gives larger more
popular sites and services a slap on the wrist for using black hat SEO. Google
knows that if they really did treat them 'equally', then the average Joe would
think Google's search engine was a broken mess because it doesn't bring up
what they expect it to.

However, on the flip side by not banning them or punishing them, you get stuff
like this where it seems like large sites are allowed to break rules with
impunity and smaller ones are hit with the banhammer for a single offence.
It's an interesting conundrum.

~~~
raquo
Which is why they should have done it before Pinterest got so big in the first
place.

And honestly I don't think any significant amount of people search Google
images wanting Pinterest results. People want images, they don't care where
they're from. AFAIK there is almost no OC on Pinterest anyway.

~~~
dvfjsdhgfv
>AFAIK there is almost no OC on Pinterest anyway.

And this is the key point. By removing Pinterest from the search results the
user doesn't lose almost anything.

~~~
toomuchtodo
This brings up a great point. Why does Google not just extract whatever
information Pinterest is providing and provide that directly in Google Images
as SERP? If none of the content in Pinterest is original, what value are they
providing the user?

Pinterest is the "experts-exchange.com" of digital imagery, except EE at least
had (gated) original content.

~~~
DanBC
> what value are they providing the user?

Curation. Pinterest is brilliant for some users and some uses.

------
JohnTHaller
While they're at it please remove Yelp. The page that comes up on mobile does
not appear to be the one Google indexes. It only shows the first sentence of a
few reviews. Clicking Read More or More Reviews bounces you straight to the
Google Play Store to install the Yelp app.

~~~
teddyfrozevelt
If they did this, they would get slammed with lawsuits considering their own
rating system competes with Yelp.

~~~
yellowapple
I suspect if Yelp clearly runs afoul of Google's policies (and "don't compete
with Google" is not one of those policies) and the page rank demotions are
explicitly documented to be because of chronic violations of such policies,
then such lawsuits would be uphill battles at best.

------
shiado
While they are at it please remove LinkedIn. You can't actually view anything
on any page without logging in. Why is it listed at all? Seems pretty
deceptive to me.

~~~
vilius
Oh and w3schools.com needs to go below MDN because it's less informative.

Even today I wanted to read about transform-origin and landed on w3schools
[0], where MDN article [1] is clearly superior.

[0] [https://www.w3schools.com/cssref/css3_pr_transform-
origin.as...](https://www.w3schools.com/cssref/css3_pr_transform-origin.asp)

[1] [https://developer.mozilla.org/en-
US/docs/Web/CSS/transform-o...](https://developer.mozilla.org/en-
US/docs/Web/CSS/transform-origin)

~~~
tambourine_man
I know it’s not a popular opinion, but I actually like W3schools. Most of
their infamous errors are gone and they are usually more “to the point” than
Mozilla docs, which are a sometimes too prolific and not as clear.

~~~
koboll
It's "to the point" in the sense of being a more concise basic introduction.
But MDN hits the right balance of being comprehensive yet accessible in a way
nothing else does.

Plus W3Schools' very name is an SEO hack, so their Google rank is built upon
fundamental dishonesty.

~~~
pjc50
How is "w3schools" an SEO hack more than any other name?

~~~
oevi
Because it implies an association with the W3C

------
jws
In days of old it was pretty easy to ban a site from your Google search
results. It looks like they have removed that function.

I wonder why? I know I liked having certain low value (to me) sites not
clutter up my results.

A little article about the feature, sorry it is going to try to throw an
interrupting DIV at you– [https://searchengineland.com/google-block-sites-
feature-1464...](https://searchengineland.com/google-block-sites-
feature-146409)

~~~
ValentineC
It's in the article you linked to, but I suppose Google expects everyone to
use their Personal Blocklist Chrome extension now:
[https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/personal-
blocklist...](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/personal-blocklist-by-
goo/nolijncfnkgaikbjbdaogikpmpbdcdef?hl=en)

~~~
aerique
Ah, so they removed it to peddle their Chrome browser.

~~~
callumlocke
This kind of extension is available for every browser.

~~~
nasredin
They are usually broken because Google often pushes shady obfuscated updates.

IIRC the OFFICIAL "Personal Blocklist" was broken for a long time due to this.

AFAIK there's still no way to block entire TLDs.

So basically Google doesn't give a shit about you!

------
underwater
I used to use Pinterest regularly. It was a good way to capture ideas and
share them with others. Now I cringe whenever I accidentally click on a
Pinterest link. The product is dead to me, there is zero chance I'd ever
willingly install or open the app.

It's strange to see what was originally a useful tool turn into well-funded
SEO spam.

------
SeanBoocock
A complicating factor in all of this is the unfolding anti-trust cases against
Google and other large digital platforms (see:
[https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/20/magazine/the-case-
against...](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/20/magazine/the-case-against-
google.html)). Choices that Google might have once made to improve search
results for users are now under extra regulatory scrutiny. I imagine Google
executives would be very careful about making any moves that could be cast as
freezing out competition, even if that competition is abusing Google's
platform.

------
Pxtl
The most infuriating case is the reverse-image search. When I use reverse
search for an image I'm trying to find a source or a complete version or
context for an image flying about on social media.

And what I get is often a solid wall of Pinterest hits providing zero info.

~~~
jaclaz
>The most infuriating case is the reverse-image search.

Exactly, that is also in my experience when it is the most frustrating.

On "normal" searches (let's say searching for an electronic device of some
kind, hoping to find the manufacturer/support/specs) what I find increasingly
disturbing is the number of links for Amazon offerings.

------
vbezhenar
I always thought that presenting different content for Google Search Bot and
users is bannable offence. Not so much for big businesses, it seems.

~~~
adventured
That's correct, it is for normal sites. At a minimum it will get you a
dramatic downranking that will practically remove all of your content from
Google. LinkedIn and Quora are both protected from those rules for example, as
with Pinterest. It's Silicon Valley back scratching.

It's also a _very_ clear abuse of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, in my opinion.
As anti-trust moves in on Google in the coming years, this should be held up
as one of many examples of persistent market abuse and consumer harm (anti-
competitive behavior, using the monopoly to restrict consumer choice).

------
joshu
I search for a lot of DIY stuff and frequently the image search results are on
pinterest. Often the underlying link is shown as pinterest and not the
original link (presumably because someone saved it from pinterest instead?)
and I can't figure out the fucking original site.

Pinterest in search results is awful garbage, it seems.

------
Gustomaximus
To me the simplest solution would be to add 'Stop showing domain' in the drop
down arrow under where they currently have 'Cached' in search results. It
would be useful to users and also help Google understand when a site is
annoying a bunch of people.

...Or is this an opportunity for an extension someone wants ot build where you
can select sites/domains and it auto injects somnething like
-site:pintrest.com into all searches.

~~~
satbyy
There is Google's own "Personal blocklist" extension that does exactly that

[https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/personal-
blocklist...](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/personal-blocklist-by-
goo/nolijncfnkgaikbjbdaogikpmpbdcdef)

~~~
Oishikatta
It doesn't actually.

The problem with Pinterest is in image results - the extension does nothing
for them.

Second, the extension no longer works properly as it hasn't been updated in
years.

------
paradroid
LinkedIn requires logging in because the Supreme Court rules they couldn't
really stop us from scraping public profiles. Forcing us to login makes it
easier for them to control who has access to what content.

~~~
otterley
IAAL. There's been no Supreme Court ruling on the matter, only a district
court decision ruling that the CFAA can't be used to charge scrapers with a
crime. And that case is currently being appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals (hiQ Labs v. LinkedIn, case no. 17-16783).

~~~
paradroid
(thumbsup). But that's my overall take.

------
mvkel
Isn’t this the best practice for, like, everyone?

Name one social network that lets you view its content without a significant
reg wall being displayed.

You can’t see a single tweet without logging into twitter.

Browsing Facebook? Good luck seeing past that login box that dominates half
the browser screen.

Want information about a restaurant on Yelp besides its address? Better login.

Not sure why Pinterest is being singled out here.

------
hapnin
Adding -site:pinterest.* to the search works too.

------
ajnin
I agree that it's quite annoying, but you can already remove it yourself from
the search results by adding "-site:pinterest.com" in the query.

~~~
roselan
I don't want to do that each time, plus pininterset.in or .br will takes it's
place.

~~~
latexr
Do `-site:pinterest.*` to block all domains.

But I agree, I also don’t want to have to do that every time.

------
scottmcdot
A few weeks ago I shared something very similar from r/Showerthoughts [1].

[1]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16220638](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16220638)

~~~
exodust
That's a good exchange between user 'jquery' from Pinterest, assuming they're
who they say they are, and user 'xg15'. Nice work raising the issue of nag
screen and non-dismissable modal.

------
blakesterz
> "I'm searching for a specific piece of technical hardware "

What specific piece of technical hardware shows up anywhere near the first
page of results in Google that's from pintrest? I can't think of a single time
I've seen pintrest in the search results and I search for various technical
things all the time? Just curious since this surprises me. I thought pintrest
was non technical stuff usually.

~~~
bradford
I'm a hobbyist woodworker.

I was recently searching for an unusual wood-joint, and I had to give up
because the google search results were absolutely polluted with pinterest.

~~~
bootlooped
Did you try using search operators?

unusual wood joint -pinterest.com

\- searches google for "unusual wood joint" minus any results from
pinterest.com

~~~
Whitestrake
Try `-site:pinterest.com` to remove any results from the website, rather than
any results that contain the text "pinterest.com". A minor distinction, but
one that could change your results slightly.

------
WheelsAtLarge
I say don't get rid of it but give me the option to remove it from my search.
There's a bunch of sites I would rather not see in my search all the time.
Yes, I know I can do a custom search but I'd be happy to have a "not see x
domain in my search" option. If I remember right there were other search
engines in the past that had the option.

Come on Google give me the option.

~~~
bagacrap
From the Reddit comments:

This extension can block domains from Google search and it's made by Google.
[https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/personal-
blocklist...](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/personal-blocklist-by-
goo/nolijncfnkgaikbjbdaogikpmpbdcdef?hl=en)

~~~
cjg
Unfortunately it doesn't work on image searches.

------
xg15
Some people in this thread are comparing the situation to that of news site
paywalls and noting the recent change in google image search. I think there is
something to the comparison and it highlights the fundamentally different
opinions about the purpose of a search engine:

Users want a search engine to find information they are looking for.

Businesses and sites want a search engine to advertise which information they
_could_ provide - but _not_ lead directly to the pieces of information in
question.

I think it's worth to make this divide visible and start a discussion which
kind of search engine we'd like to have.

------
squarefoot
There were some ways to block Pinterest continuous pestering for subscription,
but it got annoying and rather than supporting a model I consider unfair to
the users I removed them from my surfing list.

It should also be noted that most problems I read on the commentary here would
be easily solved if Google re-enabled the discussion filter they conveniently
removed years ago to prevent users to filter out commercial sites from their
queries. That move was pure evil and thanks to it searching has become harder
than before.

[https://productforums.google.com/forum/#!topic/websearch/Psb...](https://productforums.google.com/forum/#!topic/websearch/Psb6OmlLJTg)

[https://www.seroundtable.com/google-discussion-search-
dead-1...](https://www.seroundtable.com/google-discussion-search-
dead-18854.html)

------
RandyRanderson
Here's what I use to remove bad results:

[https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/personal-
blocklist...](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/personal-blocklist-by-
goo/nolijncfnkgaikbjbdaogikpmpbdcdef?hl=en)

~~~
cjg
Unfortunately it doesn't work on image searches.

------
anfilt
Just use -site:pinterest.com

Problem solved

------
olefoo
Googlers with the power to change things; if you're reading this you will make
many people happy and return utility to google searches that currently end up
with captive images and no context.

------
tabtab
There's a problem bigger than Pinterest here: images AND any content that is
not where Google expects them or can link to. The "infinite scrolling" fad
contributes to this as there is no longer a page to link to. Google and Bing
should penalize sites for making it difficult to link to specific images and
content.

For example, they can create a "2 page down" rule. If it takes more than two
presses of the Page Down button (or equivalent per mouse/finger) to see
indexed content, then penalize their rank score.

------
thrownaway954
what i'll never understand is "why a wall?"

why not just use a non-blocking banner at the bottom or top of the page? the
only thing a wall does is piss people off since you are blocking the content
that they came to see and it results in backlash like this? besides... isn't
the whole pinterest model about getting exposure for the images that people
post and getting people to sign up? i think that who ever is in charge needs
to rethink what they are doing.

------
danr4
Just A Bookmarklet that removes fixed elements like annoying signup overlays:

javascript:(function()%7B(function () %7Bvar i%2C elements %3D
document.querySelectorAll('body *')%3Bfor (i %3D 0%3B i < elements.length%3B
i%2B%2B) %7Bif (getComputedStyle(elements%5Bi%5D).position %3D%3D%3D 'fixed')
%7Belements%5Bi%5D.parentNode.removeChild(elements%5Bi%5D)%3B%7D%7D%7D)()%7D)()

------
walid
I have an account on Pinterest because I like the service but having to sign-
in for the simplest of things surely bugs me. Sometimes I just want to see one
image and I end up having to navigate a bunch of sign-in pages just to see
something. Recently I've found myself skipping Pinterest pages just because of
the hoop jumping that signing-in creates.

------
bringtheaction
Meanwhile perhaps the Personal Blocklist by Google ads-on for Chrome can help?

Not sure if it works on image search also.

[https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/personal-
blocklist...](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/personal-blocklist-by-
goo/nolijncfnkgaikbjbdaogikpmpbdcdef)

~~~
jaclaz
Whether it works or not, if you think a bit about it, you need to use a google
product (chrome) to correct a dis-service that google is making.

------
zerostar07
Along with istockphoto and the majority of stock photo sites for deceptively
using the word "free".

------
TomK32
I have an filter to hide pinterest from my image search results. All the white
space, it's fantastic.

~~~
vit05
But google offers the option to put a minus signal before the name of the site
you do not want receive results from. Is a filter better than this?

search: concrete+houses -pinterest

~~~
TomK32
My filter is part of the adblocker and kicks in every single time. That's way
better, no need to remember adding it.

------
whywhywhywhy
Been saying this myself for a while now and reporting Pintrest links when I
can be bothered. Complete abuse of the system to use it as the top of their
funnel and as usual people who advocate the service don't even realise it's
doing this awful behaviour.

------
ckocagil
Quora too, please.

~~~
Depllo
What's the issue with Quora?

------
latexr
The way to exclude Pinterest from your search results, directly from the
search box, is `-site:pinterest. _`. It excludes_ all* Pinterest domains, but
not other pages that mention it.

But I agree Pinterest should be completely removed by default.

------
GordonS
Is there a Firefox extension that can remove Pinterest links from Google
search results?

It really is infuriating when I click them and get a signin page over a bunch
of images that seem to have no relation to what I searched for.

------
logicallee
as a workaround, if you get very polluted results on a particular Google
search, you can add the search term "-site:pinterest.com" without quotation
marks to your query, thereby narrowly excluding it.

------
marban
Same could/should be said about Lyst when it comes to fashion.

------
inconvergent
Another way to look at it is that you need Pinterest results in google image
search in order to help finding content on Pinterest that infringes your
copyright.

------
yalogin
How many users does pinterest have? Is it popular and still growing? Why are
they not going public yet?

I have never knowingly gone to Pinterest and so don’t know much about it.

------
racer-v
When I get a Pinterest login popup, I just click the button at the bottom that
says "Not now". Then I can browse the images.

------
nevster
It may be unrelated but what I find annoying is how pinch to zoom is so broken
for Google image search using Safari on an iPhone.

------
LawnDart1
So I'm probably not the only one who adds "-pinterest" to my searches. Never
signing up for pinterest.

------
unixhero
/offtopic

I for one really dig Pinterest for my artsy hobbies. It's like a internet-
curated image search with some quality assurance.

Love it.

------
intrasight
All my google images searches now include "-pinterest". This has only recently
been necessary. Why?

~~~
ckocagil
Perhaps you need this?

[https://openuserjs.org/scripts/laidbacktempo/Google_View_Ima...](https://openuserjs.org/scripts/laidbacktempo/Google_View_Image)

------
ppbutt
Monopoly and complacent governements

------
JackFr
And the worst part is, I don't even understand WTF Pinterest is.

------
rabboRubble
[what I want to search] -site:pinterest.com

------
hungerstrike
I hate this business model of using your audience to steal other sites
content. Why doesn't Google link directly to the source of the content instead
of Pinterest anyway? Maybe they don't care; they did invent AMP, which has
some parallels with the way Pinterest works.

Anyway, when I started using DuckDuckGo on my phone to get away from AMP - I
noticed that whenever I search for recipes on DuckDuckGo - they generally link
to a site called Yummly which is even worse than Pinterest. Please complain to
DDG about this if you care!

And speaking of searching on my phone, Apple won't even let me change the
search engine string to use "encrypted.google.com" which would have gotten me
Google results without the awful AMP links.

My point in rambling on about all these different topics is that none of these
asshole corporations seem to want to let me have control over anything. I
don't want to live like this. Generally, when I get annoyed, I just stop
playing their game. At this point I have stopped watching TV and I have left
Facebook, Twitter and Reddit and _I hope that you do too_.

~~~
bornonline1
I agree with you. You have to log in to every single website for the
'personalization sake'. I hate personalization and the login.

------
feelin_googley
Someone gave an example of searching for "IBM Leapfrog" and getting numerous
Pinterest results.

I tried that search and only got one Pinterest result in the top 10.

I had no problem getting the text and images using a text-only browser. Could
Javascript be the enabler for this Pinterest/Google annoyance?

Here is a quick little script to dump all the text from a Pinterest page; note
how much is devoted to SEO and ads. .jpg URLs are wrapped in anchor tags for
convenience.

    
    
        curl https://www.pinterest.com/pin/509469776569152019/ \
        |exec tr '<' '\12' \
        |exec sed 's/, \"/\
        \"/g;s/{/\
        /g;s/}/\
        /g;s/\[/\
        /g;s/\]/\
        /g;/\":/!d' \
        |exec sed '/ \"/!d;2s/^/<pre>/;
        /\.jpg\"/{s/\"/<\/pre><a href=\"/3;
        s/\"/\" style=margin:40px >viewjpg<\/a><pre>/4;};
        $s/$/<\/pre>/' > 1.htm ;
    
        firefox file:///1.htm ;
    

With respect to LinkedIn, here is an amusing experiment to test the theory
that your time means nothing to some web developers: Try signing up for a
temporary account with a 10-minute email address from 10minutemail.com.
LinkedIn will not inform you that this is an unacceptable email address.
LinkedIn will proceed to show you Google ReCaptchas for at least 10 minutes,
and perhaps longer.

~~~
julianwachholz
Some throw away email sites accept incoming email on any domain, so if you
have a spare one you can just point your MX record to the site and use that as
a throwaway email. I believe most sites don't do DNS lookups when checking for
scrap email addresses.

------
gt_
I haven’t had any of these problems while using DuckDuckGo.com

~~~
thraway180306
Yeah, I've been sporadically trying them out for many many years and never
lasted a week, until last year. I use DDG exclusively since half a year now
and rarely even feel compelled to use !g google redirect. Congrats @yegg and
the team!

~~~
eecks
I tried the same but I still find myself using !g all the time when I really
want to find something.

------
lupinglade
Have to agree. Pinterest is a cancer to the Internet.

------
staunch
It's just not good for the world that a single company controls a basic
fundamental function of the internet. It needs fixing.

Google Search needs to be replaced by an open source decentralized system. And
then users themselves can control which sites do well and which don't.

------
twblalock
I don't see the problem here. The most popular sites are showing up in search
results. Pinterest is a popular site. It seems like that's the way search
engines are supposed to work.

If you don't like the fact that Pinterest is a popular site, fair enough --
but that's a personal opinion, and it's not a good enough reason for Google or
any other search engine to suppress Pinterest images in search results.

~~~
grepthisab
May I ask if you're affiliated with Pinterest in any way? I'm reading your
responses and while I have a very open mind, I feel like you're really
handwaving the obvious (to me and many others) problems Pinterest causes and
defending them very strongly. This of course doesn't mean you're affiliated,
I'm just curious.

I am also good friends with one of the original Pinterest engs and that person
defends it in the same, almost irrational, way, but I probably would too if my
stock value depended on Pinterest being ingrained into Google search results.

~~~
twblalock
I have no affiliation with them. I don't like Pinterest more than anyone else
here. I just don't see how Google is doing anything wrong. By the way, I'm not
affiliated with Google either. I shouldn't have to say that.

