[hourago]

By the author's metric is even worse to read a book. If you are looking for the exact answer to your exact code maybe that is the problem.

To get free training so you can solve your problem yourself and understand the overall situation seems a very good deal. The example to complain about seems very badly chosen.

I think that Google is getting worse and that advertisements in webpages should be regulated. But to complain that you are being taught to fish instead of given a fish seems too entitled.

[LordShredda]

A book has an index, a bunch of sources at the end, and maybe a further reading section. The book tends to be more thorough since it doesn't have word limits or up votes to cater to. I wouldn't use the book example here as they tend to be more of a reference if not a how to guide for a very specific topic

[hourago]

How is it different that the page linked in the article? I do not see why that page is so bad, it looks like an average page from a book with a linked index at the top.

[TillE]

There's a world of difference between a well-written, well-edited book and SEO spam. The latter is not making a genuine attempt to actually teach you, that's not the point.

[hourago]

This is the link: https://realpython.com/iterate-through-dictionary-python/

It does not look like SEO spam to me. The site seems actually nice and well produced.

I may be missing something, thou. Why is that page so bad that the author does not want it in the list of results?

[philipwhiuk]

If you grabbed a 'Java Basics' book, you would not expect the author to explain the entire implementation details of ArrayList before telling them about for-each.

But somehow the author of this article thinks that this kind of unnecessary level of detail is appropriate.