zlacker

> "I only see sites that are so good that they constitute the mainstream"

The problem as I see it is that the mainstream websites are not good. Search results that gave a broader range of hits than just that sort of thing would be much, much more useful.

If I want, for example, to find what laptops people consider the best, none of those sites help me.

>>JohnFe+(OP)
Because the "mainstream" sites pay people pennies a word to crank out content like "best gaming laptops."

There are sites that do some good gear reviews for relatively specialized equipment--especially not gadget/electronics. But this isn't the 1990s when PC Magazine would have a 600-page issue with a big chunk devoted to the best printers as evaluated by their on-payroll staff.

I'll occasionally put a review of something up on my site but I have neither the money or interest in doing multi-product comparisons. That's pretty much impractical outside of something like Wirecutter (which I generally think does a pretty good job).

>>JohnFe+(OP)
Help me out here - could you give me examples of "what laptops people consider the best" pages that <i>aren't</i> in the top of Google? I still don't understand, and I want to.

>>JohnFe+(OP)
The other problem is that for every "good" non-mainstream website there are like 4000 that are so much worse than the mainstream. It is a problem with scale. If everyone has a voice, without some metric to say who has authority, how do you pick the gem from the masses?

>>distor+07
Sometimes you can get an answer that's better and filtered through actual experience by adding reddit to the search query, but if you're explicitly buying consumer goods, idk why he would be surprised that that result would be a bunch of hyper commercial listicles.