[rootusrootus]

> Sounds like a Google problem and apparently only a Google problem.

I want something like webrings to become A Thing again. A user curated search engine. And the users doing the curated need to be vetted. I don't know if this is even possible, but I get tired of having to come to HN to get a human recommendation that is miles better than the algorithmic crap from the current search engines.

[adolph]

There is the "awesome list" phenomena:

Search "medical information awesome list"

https://github.com/NeovaHealth/awesome-health

https://github.com/lalaithan/awesome-health

https://github.com/jeromecc/awesome-health

Fork and make your own!

[lupire]

Web of trust, not web rings.

Post your bookmarks, share to your friends, encourage your friends to do the same. Import those bookmarks into a search engine site fliter extension.

[hattmall]

T100 sites and the like seemed to be the peak of discovering interesting and relevant content to me.

[cecilpl2]

> And the users doing the curated need to be vetted.

It comes back to the age-old question: Who vets the vetters?

[echelon]

Unsolvable since it's a network of fallible humans we attempt to topologically score.

You can make decent attempts, such as academic peer review. Even this system perpetuates its own problems (beta amyloid) and has perverse incentives (publish or perish, falsified results), though.

Semantic web had some good ideas about this. Networks of signed FOAF data attached to articles and posts. You could form a side graph of trust information that you could revoke at any time.

[mitchdoogle]

You do. I imagine people or groups curating lists of pages or sites - they decide what to put on their lists, but you decide to include them in your personal search engine or not. Or you could fork their list and edit as you see fit.