For some searches the whole screen on Google is now ads(twitter.com)
twitter.com
For some searches the whole screen on Google is now ads
https://twitter.com/spakhm/status/1489480845979095040
461 comments
I'm still bitter that they've deprioritized results from SongMeanings.net in favor of garbage like Genius. The former is one of the only sources for lyrics from smaller acts, especially from the 90's to early 2010's. Since it's from the pre-Web 2.0 era, it's disappeared from Google's search results.
Same with Sheldon Brown’s website on bicycle maintenance. Much of the information on his site is still the best resource on the internet but instead Google would rather serve irrelevant results that show ads.
Same with all organic content. It's just all bullshit SEO spam now, I haven't landed on some dude's blog in ages, and some dude's blog is my favorite part of the web.
It’s only a matter of time till it gets ripped and hosted on another ad filled website like all the fake stack overflow websites these days. So at least the material is not lost.
> but instead Google would rather serve irrelevant results that show ads.
Does showing Google Adsense ads actually result in a higher ranking in organic search results?
It makes total sense for their business model, to the detriment of users. I've just never considered that before.
Does showing Google Adsense ads actually result in a higher ranking in organic search results?
It makes total sense for their business model, to the detriment of users. I've just never considered that before.
Gosh! It’s been a while that none of my searches ended up on that site. Now I know the reason.
Same with images, I used to search for historical images, but it’s all a wave of stockimage this and that, and ofcourse flipping pinterest, which usually is just a link to real content anyway.
Google Search is aptly named, for finding something relevant and without ads plastering is almost impossible.
Anyway, I am happy with DDG now.
Google Search is aptly named, for finding something relevant and without ads plastering is almost impossible.
Anyway, I am happy with DDG now.
I get songmeanings from Google sometimes but I personally like Genius due to the annotated and upvote/downvoted comments and it is a more visited site so I get why it's ranked higher.
Maybe someday web 7.0 will remember than engagement doesn't equal quality and there's a long enough tail of people that would pay for a good search engine that they'd support your small company just fine, and the hockey sticks, venture capitalists, and the masses can go drown in adwords.
Totally agree. Genius is such a great app. I remember being pretty upset when I read this article a few years ago, which shed light on Google's anti-competitive behavior against small companies that make a difference that Google can't make themselves.
https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-features/genius-law...
https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-features/genius-law...
[deleted]
I don't know anything about google internals, but in many other applications the search engine is optimized on long-term engagement and profit data. I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out google optimized page rankings based on the profit google earns from it's ad business on the page.
The evidence supporting this is the 4 YouTube videos at the top of the list, followed by 3 of those 4 YouTube videos on page 2 (LOL).
Google results have for a while stopped having anything to do with the actual search query. In the past they were magical, like Google could almost read your mind and guess exactly what you mean, but nowadays you can type in the exact search string, and still have the first page of results where Google just ommited half of the string to give you sponsored content. Like even for simple "C# <name of class>" why are the first few results for pages that sell programming courses?????
It's gone to absolute shitter and it's just not worth using outside of a very narrow set of circumstances(when you actually do want to buy something I guess?)
It's gone to absolute shitter and it's just not worth using outside of a very narrow set of circumstances(when you actually do want to buy something I guess?)
Seems like the SEO people have successfully reverse engineered Google‘s algorithms.
I must disagree with this notion.
For one, google now encourages and helps SEO - it's no longer a taboo term that leads to lifetime blacklisting - so google is publicly explaining and apologizing sometimes to SEO's (and others who listen/watch/read john mueller and co)
secondly in reference to the bad results and SEOs ruined google - um no. Google ruined google. Google went to war against SEO and disappeared much of the good on the web as collateral damage.
Google also got creative with ranking things based on things that push youtube up and other google properties for many results - as well as news type publications - which means for many queries it's now pay to play - pay adwords to rank 1st page or lose 90%+ visibility. And many good sites can't afford to pay per click to be on the first page.
Google is giving you results it wants you to think are 'good' - which has been pushing many of the results we actually want far and away. (Which interestingly sends more traffic to google properties adding to their value, and forces other to pay for adwords or not be seen by most in the world)
in my humble, and yet biased, and not very broadly researched (fairly focused), opinion.
For one, google now encourages and helps SEO - it's no longer a taboo term that leads to lifetime blacklisting - so google is publicly explaining and apologizing sometimes to SEO's (and others who listen/watch/read john mueller and co)
secondly in reference to the bad results and SEOs ruined google - um no. Google ruined google. Google went to war against SEO and disappeared much of the good on the web as collateral damage.
Google also got creative with ranking things based on things that push youtube up and other google properties for many results - as well as news type publications - which means for many queries it's now pay to play - pay adwords to rank 1st page or lose 90%+ visibility. And many good sites can't afford to pay per click to be on the first page.
Google is giving you results it wants you to think are 'good' - which has been pushing many of the results we actually want far and away. (Which interestingly sends more traffic to google properties adding to their value, and forces other to pay for adwords or not be seen by most in the world)
in my humble, and yet biased, and not very broadly researched (fairly focused), opinion.
That’s an interesting point. Was this passively intentional from Google? What methods could be used to generate more accurate results? How accurate do they want the results?
If the business model would be somehow changed to non-ad based, then there might motivation for the change.
Or google, they’re just interested in making more money
[deleted]
I have the opposite experience most of the time. I’ve been trying to use DuckDuckGo as my default search engine but I end up clicking my Google bookmark a lot of the time because the DDG results are so low quality.
I have no doubt there are edge cases where Bing/DDG outperform Google, but most of the time I have better luck with Google.
I have no doubt there are edge cases where Bing/DDG outperform Google, but most of the time I have better luck with Google.
Yeah, Google is still my default browser, though I haven't used other engines enough to develop a strong opinion here.
I'll add that I could have been more clever with my query. For instance, if I surround the lyric in quotes, Google returns the right result first.
Original query: like you didn't care I don't know why lyrics r&b
Improved query: "like you didn't care I don't know why" lyrics r&b
At the end of the day, I'm not frustrated with Google. I use it every day and it saves me lots of time. It just amuses me that in some cases, other engines that probably use simpler search algorithms are objectively better. And in this case, I think it's fair to expect Google to produce the right result on page 1.
I'll add that I could have been more clever with my query. For instance, if I surround the lyric in quotes, Google returns the right result first.
Original query: like you didn't care I don't know why lyrics r&b
Improved query: "like you didn't care I don't know why" lyrics r&b
At the end of the day, I'm not frustrated with Google. I use it every day and it saves me lots of time. It just amuses me that in some cases, other engines that probably use simpler search algorithms are objectively better. And in this case, I think it's fair to expect Google to produce the right result on page 1.
Most of the time duckduckgo doesn’t even acknowledge quotations. I can’t tell if it’s because there aren’t results for when the query contains quotations or if they simply don’t acknowledge them most of the time. Either way it’s annoying and it makes me go back to google every time.
I think you also need to put a + in front, for ddg to pay attention.
Do you have an example query?
These are some I found in my search history, where I then switched to !g. Not sure if all these examples still fail to produce results with the matching string (but they still seem to have issues, upon a quick glance):
"packages not in the aur"
rake "invalid session id"
"pacman -Qm"
arch "The pgAdmin 4 server could not be contacted"
"previous definition of HTML_NAMESPACE was here"
illustrator "print preview" is darker
systemd Loaded: bad-setting "has a bad unit file setting"
"packages not in the aur"
rake "invalid session id"
"pacman -Qm"
arch "The pgAdmin 4 server could not be contacted"
"previous definition of HTML_NAMESPACE was here"
illustrator "print preview" is darker
systemd Loaded: bad-setting "has a bad unit file setting"
Funny enough, when I search for your second query on Google right now, the top result for me is your comment right here.
I'm still on dogpile. It gets me where I need to go most of the time.
I'll check it out!
I’m now using Kagi (beta paid search engine), but I have used DDG for some years and rarely had to fall back to google. Most of the time it was only to make sure there really is no result, as DDG ignores what you searched for even more aggressively than Google.
Same here, one thing I find especially annoying with Bing/DDG/Brave is that they not only return worse results, but sometimes completely nuke certain search terms, e.g. try "aoi jav" (NSFW) in Bing image and video search. It gives zero results. Regular text search gives a few, but also looks heavily censored. Try the same thing in Google and you get millions of results.
Don't fully understand what is going on here. Safe search is disabled. Worse results would be expected, but zero results seems like an excessive amount of censorship. Other similar search terms work fine.
Don't fully understand what is going on here. Safe search is disabled. Worse results would be expected, but zero results seems like an excessive amount of censorship. Other similar search terms work fine.
I have found that for technical results, and niche programming, and anything really to do with IT, google gives top results. For just about everything else, use any other search engine.
Absolutely opposite of that in my experience. Search for anything technical and Google gives me pages selling programming courses, or it just omits the technical part of the query(like the name of the class) and serves pages upon pages of generic results that have absolutely nothing to do with what I'm searching for. It used to be the top engine for programming-related searches, now it's easily the worst.
Its possible that the VPN I am typically on changes my results from yours, as my VPN is quite specific to a research institution, and it is known how google curates results based on that information.
Has to be pretty niche for that still to be the case in my experience. If I search for help on, say, a bit of python syntax I get endless low quality webpages from Google.
Maybe they get the most of their user feedback from their own engineers.
have you tried Bing recently? I tried DDG for almost a year and in every other search I had to switch to Google. I started using Bing a couple months ago and now I only try Google as a last resort (and most often than not I end up not finding what I want)
For what is worth, DDG's main provider is Bing so it's nor surprising they returned similar results.
Oh that's interesting, TIL.
Source?
>We also of course have more traditional links in the search results, which we also source from multiple partners, though most commonly from Bing[0]
They add more than just Bing results as they mention but it's the main provider. You can also confirm by checking results for different queries.
0. https://help.duckduckgo.com/results/sources/
They add more than just Bing results as they mention but it's the main provider. You can also confirm by checking results for different queries.
0. https://help.duckduckgo.com/results/sources/
It's getting bad enough where I'll put in a two word search, and one of them is unique and the obvious main keyword, but not necessarily obscure, and somehow the first several results still don't have the word. It's frustrating to the extreme.
You can recreate this behavior with HN's Algolia search API. The common parameter that behaves how we expect is "query". Using "similarQuery" causes all sorts of weird behavior. I think it drops words until it find results, and considers each token optional.
It kinda gave me insight I to why Google is sucking so bad. Give us the option at least.
It kinda gave me insight I to why Google is sucking so bad. Give us the option at least.
The same thing happened to me! https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26544730
Google results for lyrics used to be filled with hundreds of scummy SEOed sites that stole content from each other. I wonder if some SEO-blocking algo change has had the effect of blocking all song lyrics from google results.
Google results for lyrics used to be filled with hundreds of scummy SEOed sites that stole content from each other. I wonder if some SEO-blocking algo change has had the effect of blocking all song lyrics from google results.
I tried for few months, but unfortunately DDG results are really poor for local searches. Whenever I want to find something in Polish, half of the results are from some autotranslated websites. Also Google is the only one that shows local business in a useful way.
Sounds like a pretty easy division of when to use which search engine though, no? Better than the hit-or-miss issue being completely random at least
Absolutely! I switched back to Google as default, but still search things also with DDG.
Under Search tools there is a toggle for all results/verbatim. If you switch it to verbatim it will give you something closer to you want. I hate that it is this way, and that most of the old google hacking tricks don't work.
The problem is that Google is no longer a search engine for the world wide web. It is an app that can answer questions, that happens to also have a web front end
The problem is that Google is no longer a search engine for the world wide web. It is an app that can answer questions, that happens to also have a web front end
but they reported great financial results.
Now that they are taking every spot above the fold for ads for any lucrative query, it will be much harder to maintain YoY % revenue growth figures that exceed viewership growth. Or bigger video monitors, I guess, that make the 'fold' taller.
fuck yeah they did :P
[deleted]
I do not hold any love for Google but to be fair when I look up songs by lyrics, or lyrics by the name of the song or the combination it works just fine for me.
But they probably know that I never klick on ads unless specifically searching to buy something
But they probably know that I never klick on ads unless specifically searching to buy something
What was the lyric?
"like you didn't care I don't know why lyrics r&b" was my query
It would be nice if this worked, but in Google's defense, this is an odd combination of an exact search phrase of common words and then a couple categorical terms that don't have to actually appear on the page. If you help it by searching for just the quoted phrase you want without the additional terms it puts the result you want both as the top result and in a pullout at the top of the page: https://www.google.com/search?q=%22like+you+didn%27t+care+I+...
But google used to be able to handle cases like this without quotes...
Haha yeah, I was wondering when someone would suggest this. Last night, after I got the result back immediately from DuckDuckGo and Bing, I returned to Google and added quotes around the lyric itself, and it returned the right result immediately.
A simple keyword search wouldn't get so confused.
I'm going to point to this from yesterday
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30185229
It's easy to judge but AFAIK if they prioritize order it's possible more searches come up with bad results than good. That doesn't mean they shouldn't try to do better but we, or a least I, really have no idea which is better, on average, order dependent or order independent.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30185229
It's easy to judge but AFAIK if they prioritize order it's possible more searches come up with bad results than good. That doesn't mean they shouldn't try to do better but we, or a least I, really have no idea which is better, on average, order dependent or order independent.
Or if they assumed the order was meaningful, which they apparently don't.
They only hire the best of the best!
They only hire the best of the best!
What, did you really have 'lyrics r&b' inside the double quotes? That's not part of the phrase in the lyrics (I'd guess), so your own fault then.
I wouldn't expect that "r&b" would help the query.
and DDG, first result
https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffcm&q=like+you+didn%27t+care+I+do...
and DDG, first result
https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffcm&q=like+you+didn%27t+care+I+do...
Was it Save Your Tears by The Weeknd?
Yup! The version I was looking for was a slowed & reverb version that I later found on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkXCAKgqD3M
I was able to find it with this search: https://www.google.com/search?q=%22like+you+didn%27t+care+I+...
Wow, same results here. That's pretty poor.
Weirdly the problem is "r&b". If you take that off you get the song immediately...
I'm just gonna throw this out there as I'm noticing it more and more at this point since switching languages.
What the actual F has happened to google search results for programming issues?
I used to be able to google a question and get, more or less, a right answer from a forum or stack overflow.
Recently, many coding tutorial websites have clearly figured out how to hack googles pageranks and now instead of one 'right enough answer', its 5 clone 'tutorial' websites, with all the same crappy answer that isn't actually what I was asking. Like I can't use google for coding questions any more. Not like I was able to previously. Also, Stackoverflow with bangs from ddg are broken and it thinks I'm a robot. No answer except to go to SO directly and search.
What the actual F has happened to google search results for programming issues?
I used to be able to google a question and get, more or less, a right answer from a forum or stack overflow.
Recently, many coding tutorial websites have clearly figured out how to hack googles pageranks and now instead of one 'right enough answer', its 5 clone 'tutorial' websites, with all the same crappy answer that isn't actually what I was asking. Like I can't use google for coding questions any more. Not like I was able to previously. Also, Stackoverflow with bangs from ddg are broken and it thinks I'm a robot. No answer except to go to SO directly and search.
Python has been the worst for me; it's almost impossible to find the official documentation for modules/functions.
Defining search aliases or custom search engines in the browser with URLs like '''https://www.google.com/search?q=site:docs.python.org+%s''' is probably the reasonable thing to do.
Defining search aliases or custom search engines in the browser with URLs like '''https://www.google.com/search?q=site:docs.python.org+%s''' is probably the reasonable thing to do.
https://devdocs.io is nice when you're searching for official documentation.
Reminds me of Dash: https://kapeli.com/dash
Thanks for dropping that link. This thing looks fantastic
I have the same experience. I assume these websites are just content farms trying to give away free introductory training for Python programming. Later, they try to upsell you to buy training. I see the same when Googling common Git issues.
Ditto, moving from Scala to Python and Go for a stint shocked me with the craptacular state of search results for "easy/popular" languages. Next stop was an extension for blocking particular sites in search.
This has been a game changer for me. I got it for this very reason
https://iorate.github.io/ublacklist/docs
https://iorate.github.io/ublacklist/docs
It is especially bad when all of those "tutorial" websites are pay-walled Medium sites too
SO search results have also been broken for about 8 years unless you know how to filter for recent results. There is no good search on the internet anymore. I'm to the point where I wish I could !g2 bang DDG to go to the first result on the second page of search results.
This is sad and a recent development, i was using google to search for manuals/api docs as it was better than builtin indexing. But now-a-days official sites are never the first link.
100%.
Spurious garbage SEO programming sites showing unhelpful code snippets in particular have had a big productivity hit on my coding.
I wonder what the people working on those sites think about what they’re doing.
Spurious garbage SEO programming sites showing unhelpful code snippets in particular have had a big productivity hit on my coding.
I wonder what the people working on those sites think about what they’re doing.
Same boat here, the only reason I switch DDG to Google was to find more relevance on programming / CS issues. But I feel like it's getting worse.
GeeksForGeeks is the prime culprit and lotsa times what geeksforgeeks has is just the docs.
Agreed, the most vexing thing about this is that DDG is now promoting the exact same tutorial sites that Google is : Geekforgeeks, etc
What's the point in having different search engines if they copy each other's search results?
What's the point in having different search engines if they copy each other's search results?
Yeah I’ve noticed this too. But also the rest of the front page is often either seo spam (like those Pinterest links which catch whatever search term you’ve used) or shopping sites. I’ve found google search to be increasingly hostile to its customers.
I guess we’re not the customers. Use duckduckgo or something else.
I guess we’re not the customers. Use duckduckgo or something else.
My biggest feature request: A check box that says, "[ ] I'm not buying anything"
I don't know how technically hard this would be to implement. Or what business model will resist adding it. I just know that most of my web searches are NOT me trying to buy stuff. They're usually looking up information.
Like, how does the load sensing algorithm work on my LG washer? No chance I'll ever find out by searching the web. Only 200 links to different places I can buy a new one. Or maybe some videos explaining that the feature exists, and "oh and would you like to buy one?"
Maybe I want to know if my GadgetMaster 3000 will work with my WidgetWanker Mark II. Nope, but here's 100 places you can buy those, or maybe the THINGDOODLE brand of knockoffs.
Ok, I'm ranting. Point is: give me a way to restrict my search to only those pages that aren't selling anything. Maybe the heuristic is that the page hasn't changed in 6 months, or uses outdated tags like <marquee>, or some fancy semantic analysis of the page copy. I don't know. I just wish search results weren't so utterly dominated by e-commerce sites or affiliate spam.
I don't know how technically hard this would be to implement. Or what business model will resist adding it. I just know that most of my web searches are NOT me trying to buy stuff. They're usually looking up information.
Like, how does the load sensing algorithm work on my LG washer? No chance I'll ever find out by searching the web. Only 200 links to different places I can buy a new one. Or maybe some videos explaining that the feature exists, and "oh and would you like to buy one?"
Maybe I want to know if my GadgetMaster 3000 will work with my WidgetWanker Mark II. Nope, but here's 100 places you can buy those, or maybe the THINGDOODLE brand of knockoffs.
Ok, I'm ranting. Point is: give me a way to restrict my search to only those pages that aren't selling anything. Maybe the heuristic is that the page hasn't changed in 6 months, or uses outdated tags like <marquee>, or some fancy semantic analysis of the page copy. I don't know. I just wish search results weren't so utterly dominated by e-commerce sites or affiliate spam.
> My biggest feature request: A check box that says, "[ ] I'm not buying anything"
The primary purpose of ads isn't to get you to buy something. It's to plant a brand in your brain so that next time you do want to buy something, you'll think of the brand.
Ads are very good psychological manipulation.
The primary purpose of ads isn't to get you to buy something. It's to plant a brand in your brain so that next time you do want to buy something, you'll think of the brand.
Ads are very good psychological manipulation.
If we are to believe advertisers are so great at their jobs, why can't they produce any meaningful metrics that don't commit egregious sins of statistical analysis?
Here's a thing that I am absolutely convinced happens. Ad network tracks purchases. Ad network track ad impressions. Ad network correlates the two and finds that 90% of people who saw the ad also bought the product. But they conveniently "forgot" to check if the ad impression was before or after the purchase.
I'm confident this is happening because the only times I see ads for anything I'd be interested in buying is after I've already bought the damn thing.
Here's a thing that I am absolutely convinced happens. Ad network tracks purchases. Ad network track ad impressions. Ad network correlates the two and finds that 90% of people who saw the ad also bought the product. But they conveniently "forgot" to check if the ad impression was before or after the purchase.
I'm confident this is happening because the only times I see ads for anything I'd be interested in buying is after I've already bought the damn thing.
If 1 out of 100 impressions leads to a purchase it's alredy a good performance. The effort to improve this rate is not always worth it. That's the reason we are spammed with ads.
> If 1 out of 100 impressions leads to a purchase it's alredy a good performance.
But do they at all take into account the fact that probably about 50 out of 100 ad impressions lead to an "I'll NEVER purchase anything from the purveyor of this ad-spam shit!" reaction?
But do they at all take into account the fact that probably about 50 out of 100 ad impressions lead to an "I'll NEVER purchase anything from the purveyor of this ad-spam shit!" reaction?
I'm not convinced even 1 out of 100 is happening. If advertising is having an impact, it would be measurable. If it's not measurable, there's no impact.
This
I’m not talking about ads. I’m talking about the “natural” search results.
Of course those are also really ads in a sense, but somehow there’s got to be a way to provide a real search engine that doesn’t show only e-commerce sites. I’ll pay for it!
Of course those are also really ads in a sense, but somehow there’s got to be a way to provide a real search engine that doesn’t show only e-commerce sites. I’ll pay for it!
This is the summary of the second hit on Duck Duck Go (the first hit is a troubleshooting article about the feature):
> A built-in load sensor automatically detects the laundry load and a microprocessor optimizes washing conditions such as ideal WATER LEVEL and washing time. Turbo drum washing (option) When "Punch + 3" washing wings turn, the washing tub turns in the opposite direction.
I accidentally searched for this:
load sensing algorithm work on my LG washer?
Adding "how does the" to the beginning of the search gives this as the second hit:
> Water level sensing in LG washers is done differently from how you may be used to seeing it done in other brands. Whirlpool, GE, Electrolux and others use an air tube connecting an air dome on the tub to a pressure sensor with a physical diaphragm or transducer that "feels" the water level increase as an increase in pressure inside the air tube.
Which seems more promising, but I didn't click through.
> A built-in load sensor automatically detects the laundry load and a microprocessor optimizes washing conditions such as ideal WATER LEVEL and washing time. Turbo drum washing (option) When "Punch + 3" washing wings turn, the washing tub turns in the opposite direction.
I accidentally searched for this:
load sensing algorithm work on my LG washer?
Adding "how does the" to the beginning of the search gives this as the second hit:
> Water level sensing in LG washers is done differently from how you may be used to seeing it done in other brands. Whirlpool, GE, Electrolux and others use an air tube connecting an air dome on the tub to a pressure sensor with a physical diaphragm or transducer that "feels" the water level increase as an increase in pressure inside the air tube.
Which seems more promising, but I didn't click through.
Appreciate the effort, but my example was for clothes load sensing (what it does before determine the water required.)
I've watched it at work and as best as I can tell, it takes inertial mass readings by wiggling the drum using a specified current, and measuring how far the drum oscillates. Or maybe it predetermines the amplitude and measures the power required?
I'm just guessing. What I want to find out: is either of my guesses close? Is there something else I'm not seeing? Why does it do this 4 times in a row? (In between "wiggles" it will rotate the drum a few times to—my guess—redistribute the load and get an average from the four readings.
Maybe its rose-tinted glasses looking at the web of yesterday, but I have this sneaking suspicion some nerd out there has an entire website devoted to arcane appliance details like this. I would very much like to find and bookmark that site!
I've watched it at work and as best as I can tell, it takes inertial mass readings by wiggling the drum using a specified current, and measuring how far the drum oscillates. Or maybe it predetermines the amplitude and measures the power required?
I'm just guessing. What I want to find out: is either of my guesses close? Is there something else I'm not seeing? Why does it do this 4 times in a row? (In between "wiggles" it will rotate the drum a few times to—my guess—redistribute the load and get an average from the four readings.
Maybe its rose-tinted glasses looking at the web of yesterday, but I have this sneaking suspicion some nerd out there has an entire website devoted to arcane appliance details like this. I would very much like to find and bookmark that site!
The problem I am seeing is that yes, someone will write the exact nerdy explanation on how it works - on a private Facebook group, which you will never find in any search engine. I'm a member of several automotive FB groups and the wealth of knowledge there is enormous - but ultimately it all gets swallowed up in Facebook's belly and is not available for easy search like it used to be. It's a real tragedy.
Yeah the replacement of forums with facebook is one of the worst things to happen to the web. Like craigslist, many of them still exist, but are just not very active.
I am pretty sure they measure moment of inertia by applying a know torque and note the acceleration?
Google doesn't care if you buy anything...
They are selling clicks to companies that are selling things.
As long as you click on an Ad, google makes money, regardless if you buy something or not.
As long as you click on an Ad, google makes money, regardless if you buy something or not.
But the “I’m not buying anything” box would never be implemented by Google because their whole existence is based on tracking us to find out they or their real customers can extract every last dollar from us. It’s all surveillance ad based…
Hopefully DDG and others don’t turn into that tho
Hopefully DDG and others don’t turn into that tho
Google is incentivised by you relying on them instead of a competitor, shortly followed by page loads. Giving you what you want immediately, particularly when they know that you know what your searching for is a niche interest, isn’t in their best interests.
You're not duckduckgo's customer either (their primary revenue source is keyword based advertising), or the customer of anything else you don't pay for.
The only one I know of that at least plans to have a simple two-way relationship with search users as their customers is Kagi. Currently it's in free beta with a waitlist (took a week for me). When they go live they intend it to be a paid, subscription service with no advertising. So far I've found it good, and I'll gladly pay when the time comes.
The only one I know of that at least plans to have a simple two-way relationship with search users as their customers is Kagi. Currently it's in free beta with a waitlist (took a week for me). When they go live they intend it to be a paid, subscription service with no advertising. So far I've found it good, and I'll gladly pay when the time comes.
I am on Kagi Beta but IMO they do not have a valid monetisation strategy that I would pay for. Their current pricing model is planned to be $30 a month for an 'all you can eat' subscription, or $10 a month for a 'lite' membership that gives you 20 searches per day and then charges you $0.02 per search after that on a pay-as-you-go model (but if you check your search history, you may be suprised how many searches you actually do!). Users who join the $10 lite plan for instance and then do 70 searches a day (I hit much more than this during a full day of programming!) would get hit with an overage bill of $25 at the end of the month, as well as the next months 'lite' charges of $10.
On the 70 searches point too, if you search for "business news" and then click the news360 tab to get news results, I believe this is actually counted as 2 searches so would get charged at 4 cents if in the overages category.
When I searched up I thought maybe $5 a month, or possibly $10 at a push, but $30+ will be too much for mass market adoption in my opinion. I also think there is an inevitable situation that someone searches a lot and suddenly finds themselves getting a $100 bill after they signed up for $10 a month!
Unfortunately there isn't a way around the price too from an architecture perspective because it's a high cost engine to run - the costs are driven by the fact that Kagi uses the paid Google and Bing api's, then adds a bit of it's own index and instant answers, but the Google and Bing API's both charge quite a lot per request (c$0.015 per request).
Search quality is usually pretty good (until it isn't), and it's getting better as it's manually tweaked to meet common queries, but the maps search is pretty much unusable. The search doesn't seem to "understand" queries in the same way Google does, particularly ones that are semantically hard (despite the results coming from google, Kagi reshuffles them). The founder, Vlad, seems pretty great though and is very active in the discord community. I really wish them luck, and particularly that they manage to crack the cost/pricing challenge they have.
However I have gone back to Google with adblock as my daily driver as I just didn't get the same quality of results, and found myself going back to Google enough times to make it frustrating. I appreciate it is a beta though, and that it will only get better over time.
On the 70 searches point too, if you search for "business news" and then click the news360 tab to get news results, I believe this is actually counted as 2 searches so would get charged at 4 cents if in the overages category.
When I searched up I thought maybe $5 a month, or possibly $10 at a push, but $30+ will be too much for mass market adoption in my opinion. I also think there is an inevitable situation that someone searches a lot and suddenly finds themselves getting a $100 bill after they signed up for $10 a month!
Unfortunately there isn't a way around the price too from an architecture perspective because it's a high cost engine to run - the costs are driven by the fact that Kagi uses the paid Google and Bing api's, then adds a bit of it's own index and instant answers, but the Google and Bing API's both charge quite a lot per request (c$0.015 per request).
Search quality is usually pretty good (until it isn't), and it's getting better as it's manually tweaked to meet common queries, but the maps search is pretty much unusable. The search doesn't seem to "understand" queries in the same way Google does, particularly ones that are semantically hard (despite the results coming from google, Kagi reshuffles them). The founder, Vlad, seems pretty great though and is very active in the discord community. I really wish them luck, and particularly that they manage to crack the cost/pricing challenge they have.
However I have gone back to Google with adblock as my daily driver as I just didn't get the same quality of results, and found myself going back to Google enough times to make it frustrating. I appreciate it is a beta though, and that it will only get better over time.
Just a few notes. Search costs money and it seems we needed to get to 2022 to realize that. We made a choice of user = customer so yes the cost is real, and it is suddenly on the user. What they get in return is (at least a promise of) a superior search experience with a product that has many features that Google and similar ad-supported search engines simply never can.
Our $10 plan is likely going to give the user 1,000 searches. 80% of users search less than that monthly, even average HN users (who are majority of our beta users). We will also have pay as you go option ($1 per 80 searches) and $30/mo for people who want to support Kagi.
I would argue that our monetization strategy is valid as it is the only one that at least has a chance of making the business sustainable. Whether enough people would pay (which is what I think you were getting at) is another matter.
Yes our Maps is completely broken now. But at least we are building our own Maps (together with our own Search and a Browser, not an easy feat). The vision is ambitious, I'd love a world where at least a portion of it is realized.
Our $10 plan is likely going to give the user 1,000 searches. 80% of users search less than that monthly, even average HN users (who are majority of our beta users). We will also have pay as you go option ($1 per 80 searches) and $30/mo for people who want to support Kagi.
I would argue that our monetization strategy is valid as it is the only one that at least has a chance of making the business sustainable. Whether enough people would pay (which is what I think you were getting at) is another matter.
Yes our Maps is completely broken now. But at least we are building our own Maps (together with our own Search and a Browser, not an easy feat). The vision is ambitious, I'd love a world where at least a portion of it is realized.
> 80% of users search less than that monthly, even average HN users (who are majority of our beta users).
I suspect 80% of your users also are not daily-driving though, are also using other search engines at the same time, and have not set Kagi as a default on all their computers and their mobile devices (which I did!). In order to do that I had to change my mobile browser from Safari to Firefox, which is part of the reason I suspect most people have not done this.
1000 sounds like a lot more than 33 a day - particularly when if it is a search with a lens applied that drops to c16 per day, or a search that then clicks through to images.
I also think that the people that are willing to pay for search are likely to be the 'power users' which use search more. If your target market is 'people who are willing to pay for search, but don't use search that much' I suspect you will be limiting the market that find the subscription valuable.
> I would argue that our monetization strategy is valid as it is the only one that at least has a chance of making the business sustainable. Whether enough people would pay (which is what I think you were getting at) is another matter.
I think the problem is a monetization strategy is only valid if people are willing to pay for it. Anyone can create a monetization strategy that is designed to cover costs, but it's not going to lead to a sustainable business unless it generates more value for customers than the fee provides.
I suspect 80% of your users also are not daily-driving though, are also using other search engines at the same time, and have not set Kagi as a default on all their computers and their mobile devices (which I did!). In order to do that I had to change my mobile browser from Safari to Firefox, which is part of the reason I suspect most people have not done this.
1000 sounds like a lot more than 33 a day - particularly when if it is a search with a lens applied that drops to c16 per day, or a search that then clicks through to images.
I also think that the people that are willing to pay for search are likely to be the 'power users' which use search more. If your target market is 'people who are willing to pay for search, but don't use search that much' I suspect you will be limiting the market that find the subscription valuable.
> I would argue that our monetization strategy is valid as it is the only one that at least has a chance of making the business sustainable. Whether enough people would pay (which is what I think you were getting at) is another matter.
I think the problem is a monetization strategy is only valid if people are willing to pay for it. Anyone can create a monetization strategy that is designed to cover costs, but it's not going to lead to a sustainable business unless it generates more value for customers than the fee provides.
I don't know how the paid search API of Google and Bing work, but I will say one thing here. When I'm searching for technical data, I often search, and click through to more than one thing. I also tend to modify search terms, too, trying to winnow the results a bit.
My point being, there is a lot of potential for "show the same search results again, because the user re-searched 5 minutes later" and "show the same search results, but filter locally on an additional word" too.
If Google/Bing give "1000 results per search", then there is also value in storing that single search too. I guess:
- I'm not sure how the API works, so I can't add much value here
- But, even though it adds local cost for storage and DB, caching searches per user could reduce costs in some scenarios
Because, while I love the idea of paid search... I think I do 100s of searches per day, so if you pay for each page of search results, and winnowing down results with additional terms....
My point being, there is a lot of potential for "show the same search results again, because the user re-searched 5 minutes later" and "show the same search results, but filter locally on an additional word" too.
If Google/Bing give "1000 results per search", then there is also value in storing that single search too. I guess:
- I'm not sure how the API works, so I can't add much value here
- But, even though it adds local cost for storage and DB, caching searches per user could reduce costs in some scenarios
Because, while I love the idea of paid search... I think I do 100s of searches per day, so if you pay for each page of search results, and winnowing down results with additional terms....
Completely agree with almost everything you have said, but to clarify on your caching point:
> But, even though it adds local cost for storage and DB, caching searches per user could reduce costs in some scenarios
There may be some opportunity to do this, and caching results would be a good idea, but most forms of caching are explicitly banned from the Google and Bing API T&Cs. Some caching is allowed in some circumstances, but this will limit the usefulness of caching to reduce costs.
> Because, while I love the idea of paid search... I think I do 100s of searches per day, so if you pay for each page of search results, and winnowing down results with additional terms....
Agree with this - and at your usage levels plus $1 per 80 searches plus the $10 fee for 30 / day, you will be talking about $40+ per month, or $480 per year - enough to buy a new Macbook every 2.5 years :)
But IMO having been on the discord group the founders have got themselves into a trap of thinking "Charging per query is the only way we can make the sums financially work because we use both the Bing and Google APIs, thus we will need to get users to accept to paying per query".
> But, even though it adds local cost for storage and DB, caching searches per user could reduce costs in some scenarios
There may be some opportunity to do this, and caching results would be a good idea, but most forms of caching are explicitly banned from the Google and Bing API T&Cs. Some caching is allowed in some circumstances, but this will limit the usefulness of caching to reduce costs.
> Because, while I love the idea of paid search... I think I do 100s of searches per day, so if you pay for each page of search results, and winnowing down results with additional terms....
Agree with this - and at your usage levels plus $1 per 80 searches plus the $10 fee for 30 / day, you will be talking about $40+ per month, or $480 per year - enough to buy a new Macbook every 2.5 years :)
But IMO having been on the discord group the founders have got themselves into a trap of thinking "Charging per query is the only way we can make the sums financially work because we use both the Bing and Google APIs, thus we will need to get users to accept to paying per query".
> Agree with this - and at your usage levels plus $1 per 80 searches plus the $10 fee for 30 / day, you will be talking about $40+ per month, or $480 per year - enough to buy a new Macbook every 2.5 years :)
The proposed pay per use is an independent tier, not on top of any other.
The proposed pay per use is an independent tier, not on top of any other.
> The proposed pay per use is an independent tier, not on top of any other.
Pay per use is on all tiers if you go above the quota, the quota just changes based on tier. It’s been made pretty clear on discord that none of the tiers will be ‘all you can eat’.
A bottom PAYG tier is different to what I last heard although it doesn’t actually change the monthly cost of $40 for OP though.
Pay per use is on all tiers if you go above the quota, the quota just changes based on tier. It’s been made pretty clear on discord that none of the tiers will be ‘all you can eat’.
A bottom PAYG tier is different to what I last heard although it doesn’t actually change the monthly cost of $40 for OP though.
Yes, pretty much everything is still open regarding pricing, and we are having a public discussion about it.
> I think the problem is a monetization strategy is only valid if people are willing to pay for it.
There are people willing to pay for it, the question is will there be enough. A doomed monetization strategy would be one where people are willing to pay for it, but you lose money on every transaction.
> 1000 sounds like a lot more than 33 a day - particularly when if it is a search with a lens applied that drops to c16 per day, or a search that then clicks through to images.
Not sure where you got this from. Search via lens does not cost as 2 searches. It is costing 1 search and we are making changes in the future where it will count as less than 1 search.
There are people willing to pay for it, the question is will there be enough. A doomed monetization strategy would be one where people are willing to pay for it, but you lose money on every transaction.
> 1000 sounds like a lot more than 33 a day - particularly when if it is a search with a lens applied that drops to c16 per day, or a search that then clicks through to images.
Not sure where you got this from. Search via lens does not cost as 2 searches. It is costing 1 search and we are making changes in the future where it will count as less than 1 search.
> Our $10 plan is likely going to give the user 1,000 searches.
Do you intend to make the search limit a daily thing, or will it only apply over the whole month?
For me at least, I have spikes in my search behavior, like when I'm working on some difficult project, while on other days there's not much going on. While having a search budget would maybe get some getting used to, I could see myself working with it if I had a way to plan ahead.
It would help if there was UI support for this, similar to what mobile phones have in the "Mobile Data" settings (data used/remaining, usage graphs and so on). I'm also on the beta right now, but haven't seen anything like that when looking just now.
Do you intend to make the search limit a daily thing, or will it only apply over the whole month?
For me at least, I have spikes in my search behavior, like when I'm working on some difficult project, while on other days there's not much going on. While having a search budget would maybe get some getting used to, I could see myself working with it if I had a way to plan ahead.
It would help if there was UI support for this, similar to what mobile phones have in the "Mobile Data" settings (data used/remaining, usage graphs and so on). I'm also on the beta right now, but haven't seen anything like that when looking just now.
> Do you intend to make the search limit a daily thing, or will it only apply over the whole month?
Monthly for sure, even passing unused one to next month.
We are building a UI for consumption data right now :)
Monthly for sure, even passing unused one to next month.
We are building a UI for consumption data right now :)
I've been using kagi for a while. I was using google+ublacklist, and (mostly) searx prior to that. I only care about search, every other feature (maps, listicles, etc) is worthless to me.
So far I've been quite pleasantly surprised. I didn't need to de-prioritize anything yet, and most of my queries are technical. I would pay for it, but like you say, I'm not sure how much.
5$ for unlimited searches is something I'd go for without even thinking. For 10$, I already question whether is it actually better than using searx where I get comparable results. I can get a VPS cheaper than than and run my own customizable searx instance for that cost.
I'm not doing anything fancy, but I don't want to think about the query count. You can stack-up hundreds of searches per day sometimes, just because you're looking up something interesting, then do next to nothing for days.
I'm not saying I wouldn't pay for more, but I don't see the gain.
I definitely see the problem with the API cost of the underlying calls though. That feels like a huge argument that having your own index is important to compete in the market.
So far I've been quite pleasantly surprised. I didn't need to de-prioritize anything yet, and most of my queries are technical. I would pay for it, but like you say, I'm not sure how much.
5$ for unlimited searches is something I'd go for without even thinking. For 10$, I already question whether is it actually better than using searx where I get comparable results. I can get a VPS cheaper than than and run my own customizable searx instance for that cost.
I'm not doing anything fancy, but I don't want to think about the query count. You can stack-up hundreds of searches per day sometimes, just because you're looking up something interesting, then do next to nothing for days.
I'm not saying I wouldn't pay for more, but I don't see the gain.
I definitely see the problem with the API cost of the underlying calls though. That feels like a huge argument that having your own index is important to compete in the market.
I'm also trialing kagi and have been very happy. $30 might seem steep but I'm happy to be supporting future enterprise for competition in the field.
> I definitely see the problem with the API cost of the underlying calls though. That feels like a huge argument that having your own index is important to compete in the market.
A Google size index that is potentially able to replace google results would probably cost $100m-$1B to build. We have a fraction of that built for noncommercial results (try Noncommercial lens in Kagi to see how it works).
A Google size index that is potentially able to replace google results would probably cost $100m-$1B to build. We have a fraction of that built for noncommercial results (try Noncommercial lens in Kagi to see how it works).
Aside from the upfront cost, how much do you think a query would cost? I know it's a bit hand-wavy as it depends on the infrastructure itself, but maybe you already have an order of magnitude of the projected cost? I wonder just how much margin google/bing is actually making with the API.
I guess kagi is currently running at a loss?
I guess kagi is currently running at a loss?
> Aside from the upfront cost, how much do you think a query would cost?
My best guess is at about $0.5 per 1,000.
> I guess kagi is currently running at a loss
We are in beta and not chargining any money, so yeah by definition we are running at loss.
My best guess is at about $0.5 per 1,000.
> I guess kagi is currently running at a loss
We are in beta and not chargining any money, so yeah by definition we are running at loss.
I hope they penalize websites with heavy tracking or advertising. We might get back to a sane web if this takes off.
They can grow their market by offering 10 free searches a day, and I think that would be enough to entice a lot of folks to switch.
Offer a paid API, and I'd bet they'd have a real growth story.
They can grow their market by offering 10 free searches a day, and I think that would be enough to entice a lot of folks to switch.
Offer a paid API, and I'd bet they'd have a real growth story.
"I hope they penalize websites with heavy tracking or advertising."
I hope they give me a easy way, to set my own priorities (but I would choose that option).
I hope they give me a easy way, to set my own priorities (but I would choose that option).
>Currently it's in free beta with a waitlist (took a week for me)
When did you apply? I filled out their survey at the end of december and haven't even received a confirmation email. I tried again a few weeks back with a gmail address, and still nothing. So I guess at least it's already at Google-level customer service.
When did you apply? I filled out their survey at the end of december and haven't even received a confirmation email. I tried again a few weeks back with a gmail address, and still nothing. So I guess at least it's already at Google-level customer service.
Around the new year. No idea how the waitlist is managed. I was pleased at how prompt it was after signing up for the Github Copilot beta several months ago and not having heard a peep out of them.
Very strange then, it almost feels like I've been shadow-banned from a service I haven't even used yet considering that I tried to request an invite with 3 different email domains (to rule out any domain whitelist) on 2 different platforms (to rule out any typeform website issues), waiting at least 3 weeks in between (to rule out any rate-limiting).
There doesn't even appear to be any contact email aside from the discord which is also invite-only. Kind of soured me on the whole experience.
There doesn't even appear to be any contact email aside from the discord which is also invite-only. Kind of soured me on the whole experience.
I’ve had a similar experience but heard back from the Founder that many of the invites from before January 8th didn’t go through, and that he manually approves a new batch every few weeks now
>heard back from the Founder that many of the invites from before January 8th didn’t go through
That makes this situation even weirder. Why not just re-send them, considering that they should have the collected email address sitting right there? If it's a typeform issue, then some sort of message on their site would have been nice. I mean it's one thing if this was a free product, but the fact that they are planning to provide a paid search engine but can't manage the task of sending email invites and don't have any contact address* just ruins any enthusiasm I had of being a customer.
* I realize the founder has his email listed in the FAQ page, but emailing the founder for an issue like this seems quite gauche. And besides I did try reaching out on social media but didn't get any response.
That makes this situation even weirder. Why not just re-send them, considering that they should have the collected email address sitting right there? If it's a typeform issue, then some sort of message on their site would have been nice. I mean it's one thing if this was a free product, but the fact that they are planning to provide a paid search engine but can't manage the task of sending email invites and don't have any contact address* just ruins any enthusiasm I had of being a customer.
* I realize the founder has his email listed in the FAQ page, but emailing the founder for an issue like this seems quite gauche. And besides I did try reaching out on social media but didn't get any response.
I got an invite within several days of waitlisting back in January. Unfortunately the invite expired before I got around to signup, so no idea how the service actually performs...
We found out that many invite emails ended up in spam unfortunately. We will soon send a re-invite to everyone (knowing another email can frustrate those that already got it).
At least for me there's nothing in spam either. And I've tried with both a gmail address as well as a self-hosted one so I'm confident the issue is not on my end.
I heard back pretty promptly.
I agree with the “if you’re not paying, you’re not the customer” mantra.
I do believe we should pay (a reasonably small amount! :)) for products that companies provide. It’s the “free” model that got us into this mess.
I do believe we should pay (a reasonably small amount! :)) for products that companies provide. It’s the “free” model that got us into this mess.
I’d pay a lot of money for 2012 era-ish Google search…
Unfortunately, I’m sure they rake in magnitudes more cash from ads than they ever would from subscriptions.
Unfortunately, I’m sure they rake in magnitudes more cash from ads than they ever would from subscriptions.
I don't see many people signing up with the pricing plans they have in mind.
I don't get how Pinterest hasn't been removed from existence by Google. There is literally no one who is ever searching for things that wants a Pinterest link, but the incredible persistence of Google in showing me Pinterest is amazing.
Though this kind of goes to the related question: why Google don't allow you to setup your profile to nuke domains from consideration when you search, I do not know - it would completely divorce them from any responsibility for search result manipulation and make everyone happier.
Though this kind of goes to the related question: why Google don't allow you to setup your profile to nuke domains from consideration when you search, I do not know - it would completely divorce them from any responsibility for search result manipulation and make everyone happier.
There's a great chrome extension called "unpinterested" that automatically adds -site:pinterest.* to all google queries. It's improved my use of google by an east 20%.
It's so bad you'd almost think google has a stake in pinterest at this point.
It's so bad you'd almost think google has a stake in pinterest at this point.
They did have exactly that feature for a while, unless I'm dreaming. But they got rid of it.
IIRC, it was canned because it was linked to search performance and was abused on an industrial scale for negative seo.
Such a blacklist could be limited to one's personal account though but, I guess, since there is no monetisation benefit for google they don't care to offer it?
Such a blacklist could be limited to one's personal account though but, I guess, since there is no monetisation benefit for google they don't care to offer it?
It's fraud, effectively. I've seen a bunch of people that are not tech savvy do Google searches, and they have no idea they're clicking on ads. I pointed this out a few times and they seem to not care anyways.
Google knows this very well and they pretend like they're giving search results, but the majority of users are getting ad search results instead.
It is basically the yellow pages on the internet model that a few people tried and Google killed. I'm not sure what we can learn from the fact that Google is regressing into the model they killed in the first place.
Yup. Our competitor advertises against our company name, and Google helpfully optimises the text of their ad -- some ML algorithm finds text most likely to be confused with the search results. Optimising for "clicks" is just optimising garbage.
What's worse is that it's particularly acute with financial services where most ads are scams.
"the majority of users are getting ad search results instead."
The Majority.
The Majority.
> Use duckduckgo or something else.
Duckduckgo hasn't been any better for me lately. It seems like search as a whole is failing to respond to the latest round of SEO tricks. It takes a lot more work to find what I'm actually looking for, regardless of which engine I use.
Duckduckgo hasn't been any better for me lately. It seems like search as a whole is failing to respond to the latest round of SEO tricks. It takes a lot more work to find what I'm actually looking for, regardless of which engine I use.
DDG uses Bing as its search provider, and Bing isn't any better than Google right now when it comes to prioritizing ads and dark patterns[1].
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28517187
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28517187
Bing is one source among many. https://help.duckduckgo.com/duckduckgo-help-pages/results/so...
You don't get the first page of ads on DDG though, a simple change of settings equals none at all.
How is pinterest not just banned unless you do site:pintrest or whatever.
If you are not logged into some of these sites you can't actually get to stuff either. Annoying.
If you are not logged into some of these sites you can't actually get to stuff either. Annoying.
I'm beginning to realise that Google are happy for Pinterest to monopolise all image search since it requires a lot of resource and is difficult to monetize.
Not sure why they are allowing them to take over the rest of search though?
Not sure why they are allowing them to take over the rest of search though?
I'd pay $10/month for a nerd-only, developer-friendly, pro-small-biz, precision search that works like 2008 version of Google. Something that I use dozens of times a day, is totally worth paying for.
It is inevitable. It's coming. Algolia? Please?
It is inevitable. It's coming. Algolia? Please?
I've seen some people mention Kagi[1], but it's a closed beta. Hope they're successful, because I would also gladly pay $10/month to get a search engine that actively resists spam.
[1] https://kagi.com/
[1] https://kagi.com/
I'd pay probably more, particularly if it has no ads and no tracking (sorry, I meant "personalized results").
But would you pay $120 / month ? Because AFAIK that's what Google makes using the current version.
Disclaimer: I work for Google but in no way related to search, business models, or product decisions. My words are my own.
Disclaimer: I work for Google but in no way related to search, business models, or product decisions. My words are my own.
Pinterest links can be removed from Google searches using the "Unpinterested" browser extension for Firefox and Chrome, but it breaks Google Maps searches and it was never patched to correct the issue.
> But also the rest of the front page is often either seo spam (like those Pinterest links which catch whatever search term you’ve used) or shopping sites.
Hey now, SEO spam is often packed to the brim with high revenue ads.
Hey now, SEO spam is often packed to the brim with high revenue ads.
Kind of an aside but it seems like there are SEO pages which dynamically adjust their displayed text in the search results to your search query...how does that work? Isn't search result text indexed in advance? Or is this some sort of paid feature from google, where your search terms are injected into a template?
Whatever it is it's really annoying because usually these results link to another search on a shopping site and more often than not those results come up empty anyway.
Whatever it is it's really annoying because usually these results link to another search on a shopping site and more often than not those results come up empty anyway.
They are usually search result pages with the keyword in the url parameter, and they link to those search results elsewhere on their site for Google to find
But they show up in the cached google search preview as well. I search for something that doesn't exist, and you get 5 "shopping" sites that have faked URLs and faked product entries for the non-existant product.
Like you see in the cached textlines: "Buy reptilecandy here, low prices!!" or something, and the URL to the site seems legit, trustedstore.com/reptilecandy/ but if you click on it you just get to the shop top page with no reptile candy in sight.
Like you see in the cached textlines: "Buy reptilecandy here, low prices!!" or something, and the URL to the site seems legit, trustedstore.com/reptilecandy/ but if you click on it you just get to the shop top page with no reptile candy in sight.
Have you found a site that sells reptile candy? I’ve been searching forever. Failing to find it had been my greatest regret.
This actually turned out to be an example of what was discussed... if you google "reptilecandy" (as one word) you get some of these weird search results that do look like they have a category on the shop that has Reptile Candy, with the appropriate Title and search excerpt.
Clicking on one of the sites linked in the search results gives:
https://www.zazzle.com/reptile+candy+favors
And on their shop page it seems they have a section called "Reptile Candy & Favors". But if you click on the category above, Candy & Favors, there is no sub-section list so the sub-section is probably entirely dynamically generated.
So there's something weird going on, I wonder how those dynamic categories end up in googles search excerpts. Can they pay google to inject non-existant pages and sections into the results? (the search result in question was not marked as an Ad though)
Clicking on one of the sites linked in the search results gives:
https://www.zazzle.com/reptile+candy+favors
And on their shop page it seems they have a section called "Reptile Candy & Favors". But if you click on the category above, Candy & Favors, there is no sub-section list so the sub-section is probably entirely dynamically generated.
So there's something weird going on, I wonder how those dynamic categories end up in googles search excerpts. Can they pay google to inject non-existant pages and sections into the results? (the search result in question was not marked as an Ad though)
I call this the squeeze.
Google, even after all its attempts, is still a one trick pony. They have to grow at least 20% year over year to justify the market cap. They weren’t able to create a two pillar company like Amazon (AWS + Retail) so what do uncreative master executives naturally turn to? Of course their only cash cow.
“ Rabban! I place you in charge of Arrakis. It's yours to squeeze, as I promised. I want you to squeeze and squeeze and squeeze!” - Dune
Google, even after all its attempts, is still a one trick pony. They have to grow at least 20% year over year to justify the market cap. They weren’t able to create a two pillar company like Amazon (AWS + Retail) so what do uncreative master executives naturally turn to? Of course their only cash cow.
“ Rabban! I place you in charge of Arrakis. It's yours to squeeze, as I promised. I want you to squeeze and squeeze and squeeze!” - Dune
This year they’ll make the screen 20% bigger! Everyone gets a folding phone!
I've been thinking of that Harkonnen line more and more lately. The film reminded me of it. The unfortunate thing is, as in Dune, the squeeze can last for many years. This is why they warned us about monopolies.
I can totally see Sundar Pichai riding a sandworm.
Surely GDN and Play Store are generating billions in profit?
Just as I saw this link a notification popped up on my Pixel phone:
> Trending: "Turkey inflation rate" > See search results
I've already put a lot of effort into purging as many categories of Google spam notifications from my phone as possible, but they just keep adding new categories that I have to track down and opt out of individually. And the only way to silence them from the notification itself is to block all notifications from that app/service.
I paid good money for this phone — just stop with the OS-integrated spam! It's a never ending game of spam whackamole with Google these days. I guess various product owners are incentivised to increase "engagement" or whatever, but right now they're just increasing my engagement with Apple's product pages.
> Trending: "Turkey inflation rate" > See search results
I've already put a lot of effort into purging as many categories of Google spam notifications from my phone as possible, but they just keep adding new categories that I have to track down and opt out of individually. And the only way to silence them from the notification itself is to block all notifications from that app/service.
I paid good money for this phone — just stop with the OS-integrated spam! It's a never ending game of spam whackamole with Google these days. I guess various product owners are incentivised to increase "engagement" or whatever, but right now they're just increasing my engagement with Apple's product pages.
I like my pixel phone. It runs GrapheneOS, and it only took a few hours of futzing to get the camera to perform like stock.
(The wireless charging stand is a different story. It has a fan, and the only way to disable the fan involves running some system extension that requires deep kernel integration with the factory version of Android. Other than that, it's been remarkably trouble free.)
(The wireless charging stand is a different story. It has a fan, and the only way to disable the fan involves running some system extension that requires deep kernel integration with the factory version of Android. Other than that, it's been remarkably trouble free.)
I've been considering graphene. I'd love to hear more about any other usability issue or problem you've experienced no matter how small, if you have the time. it's surprisingly difficult to find detailed accounts of this online (even via DDG!) I am aware of graphene's features from the website but can't find a comprehensive list of, for example, which UK banking apps categorically don't work, or which other features or obscure minor setting is missing.
I run /e/ OS ( a de-Googled Android clone) on a Fairphone 3+ device as my daily driver and it's been quite liberating being freed from the yolk of Google exploitative practises.
FYI, the word I think you meant to use is 'yoke'
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/yoke (definition 3a)
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/yoke (definition 3a)
The problem with profit optimising companies is that they don’t know when to stop. They will keep squeezing every last drop of blood out of their products, and their employees, until the business fail, or a competitor gets competitive enough. Especially when they hire a “General Manager” who’s only expertise is to force a 10% cost reduction on the business every year. Until the business is a dead corpse. But by then of course the CEO has already skipped ship and started the cycle again with another company.
I feel like using search engines has become a "jargon arms race" where you have to be smart enough to figure out the right combination of synonyms for what you want, that advertisers, seo spammers, and regulators haven't figured out how to stimey yet. Jargon is almost like a different language at this point, where if you know how to speak in esoteric jargon you have unfettered access to information, and if you don't, then information rapidly approaches unobtainable.
Even that doesn't help in cases as Google will interpret your jargon filled query to something that's a lower common denominator and return irrelevant results regardless.
Absolutely. It will either ignore the terms, or claim that no results are found.
Perhaps it no longer indexes as much as it used to, at least for noncommercial content.
Perhaps it no longer indexes as much as it used to, at least for noncommercial content.
To be fair, it depends on the screen. The submission makes it sound like the whole first page is ads, but there’s 4 ads at the top instead of the usual 2-3. It happens to extend to the fold in this Twitter user’s browser.
I scroll past all ads out of habit[0], so honestly this doesn’t impact my Google usage. Wish I didn’t have to train that muscle, but here we are. :(
[0] my pihole breaks the links anyway
I scroll past all ads out of habit[0], so honestly this doesn’t impact my Google usage. Wish I didn’t have to train that muscle, but here we are. :(
[0] my pihole breaks the links anyway
UBlock Origin - available on all major browsers, including iOS (er, this has adblock, but not uBlock in particular) and Android, my friend.
uBlock Origin available on iOS? Please explain!
Ah, my bad - though you can use many of the same block lists, iOS only has a concept of content blockers, so you have to use DNS Cloak with a content blocker. Or you can use Brave on iOS which has adblock.
Or you can run pihole and get DNS-level blocking for your entire network with no extensions/config on individual devices.
Also with pihole, you almost never run into the dreaded “it looks like you’re using ad block!”.
Also with pihole, you almost never run into the dreaded “it looks like you’re using ad block!”.
As a pihole alternative, I highly recommend using dnscrypt-proxy. It can provide the same system/network level DNS ad blocking but it also ensures all your outgoing queries are encrypted and spread across different resolvers so no one can use your DNS activity to profile you. I also find the blocking/forwarding rules are more powerful than pihole’s.
That said, pihole or any DNS level blocking is pretty weak compared to what uBlock Origin and provide. Like a parent commenter said, it doesn’t prevent you from seeing the google ads, it just keeps the links from working. Most big sites know not to make their ads so easily blocked.
That said, pihole or any DNS level blocking is pretty weak compared to what uBlock Origin and provide. Like a parent commenter said, it doesn’t prevent you from seeing the google ads, it just keeps the links from working. Most big sites know not to make their ads so easily blocked.
Can you also setup iOS to tunnel home so as to leverage your pihole DNS on mobile?
You could send your DNS queries over a VPN to your home network... but that’s pretty roundabout and will have a big performance hit. Instead you can just run a pihole-like DNS resolver on iOS directly. I like DNSCloak, which just runs dnscrypt-proxy under the hood.
[deleted]
well, there’s https://1blocker.com/ anyway
I was/would be okay with that but now you also get adds in-between organic results too
Firefox + Ublock & Privacy Badger, on desktop and mobile. I also use Blokada on Android. This combination stops most ads, and if a few sneak through it is easy to create a custom rule.
While I still find Google useful, especially Google Scholar, I've primarily moved to DuckDuckGo for most casual searches.
While I still find Google useful, especially Google Scholar, I've primarily moved to DuckDuckGo for most casual searches.
It’s a band-aid. Just let Google slowly die, it’s already time when you should pull the plug – the patient is brain-dead for several years and there is no hope.
Use DuckDuckGo it’s a lot better with relevant search results and privacy friendly.
Use DuckDuckGo it’s a lot better with relevant search results and privacy friendly.
Do you find a advantage of privacy badger vs blocking all third party cookies? I just dump my full cache everytime I close Firefox.
“The easiest way to stop piracy is not by putting antipiracy technology to work. It's by giving those people a service that's better than what they're receiving from the pirates.”
-Gabe Newell
When the pain of watching ads becomes greater then the pain of setting up a way to block ads.
Blocking ads will become the norm.
They're doing this to themselves.
When the pain of watching ads becomes greater then the pain of setting up a way to block ads.
Blocking ads will become the norm.
They're doing this to themselves.
We have a group of local newspaper sites in the UK which cover just about every area and they have clearly adopted a business model of squeezing every last drop of ad revenue they can before the inevitable happens.
There is virtually no actual news on these sites anymore unless it is click bait that elicits a lot of comment.
I'm beginning to think that google are doing the same.
There is virtually no actual news on these sites anymore unless it is click bait that elicits a lot of comment.
I'm beginning to think that google are doing the same.
The more Google becomes user unfriendly or annoying the more people will shift to different search engines. I've legit seen people that aren't tech savvy use DuckDuckGo, which for me personally was quite surprising. Even my father (58y) switched to DDG without me even noticing it!
Now that I think about it, I don't use search engines very much anymore, at least not in the traditional way. My searches are almost all site:$foo.
Actually, a good majority of my searches are site:reddit.com {product I am looking for}, or site:news.ycombinator.com {some tech thing I want to find again}.
I think there is a comparison here to how inbound telephone calls, or to some extent email, have been made useless by marketers. Google searches for "Phoenix {thing}" tend to be almost all yelp/yelp clone spam.
edit: this made me actually look in my history. It seems that by far the thing I am using google for the most is image search. Second from that is spelling/grammar sanity checks.
Actually, a good majority of my searches are site:reddit.com {product I am looking for}, or site:news.ycombinator.com {some tech thing I want to find again}.
I think there is a comparison here to how inbound telephone calls, or to some extent email, have been made useless by marketers. Google searches for "Phoenix {thing}" tend to be almost all yelp/yelp clone spam.
edit: this made me actually look in my history. It seems that by far the thing I am using google for the most is image search. Second from that is spelling/grammar sanity checks.
I just try to do as close to first party searches as I can instead. Like, use the Reddit search to search Reddit, or use Yelp to search for businesses, and when I don’t know what site to search from, I just use DuckDuckGo.
I find it easier than typing out “site:” especially since my browser allows me to just start the URL and then tab into a search on that site.
I find it easier than typing out “site:” especially since my browser allows me to just start the URL and then tab into a search on that site.
I've been using shorthands for websites for a while now, "aw pipewire" looks for "pipewire" on Arch Wiki, "c cassandra" looks through my confluence, "re hotas" is for reddit and so on. It's very easy an intuitive. I'm using Vivaldi, but I'm pretty sure it's a feature in many other browsers that let you add a custom search engine.
The Facebook stock debacle from yesterday makes me think that maybe there is a limit to how user-hostile a tech giant can be before it really starts to hurt their bottom line. For a while it seemed like companies like FB had captured enough of the market that they seemed impervious to backlash from their many controversies, too big to fail in a way. It’s too early to tell if this is the beginning of FB’s demise, but it looks like letting resentment towards your product build among your user base can come bite you in a very real way after all.
FB used outrage as a way to increase engagement and it worked for a while, but now FB is increasingly a non-desirable place to hang out. Instead you can go to TikTok where you will find mostly amusing and at times informative content. When Apple added restrictions that cut off oxygen to FB, FB started a PR campaign to paint it as one grave injustice. It seems like that was met with a collective shrug. Who cheers for the bad guy?
All that is to say, it seems like Google has been in this value extraction mode for a while and I don’t see what the long term plan is. They don’t seem to be innovating much, but are instead intent on squeezing as much money as they can from their existing assets. And while that may work in the short term, FB has shown tech giants are not invincible. I’ve seen a lot of talk online lately about how bad the quality of search results have gotten. If a credible competitor emerges, I think a lot of users would gladly switch. If/when that happens, Google better hope they don’t find themselves in FB’s position where they can’t acquire their way out of their rut.
FB used outrage as a way to increase engagement and it worked for a while, but now FB is increasingly a non-desirable place to hang out. Instead you can go to TikTok where you will find mostly amusing and at times informative content. When Apple added restrictions that cut off oxygen to FB, FB started a PR campaign to paint it as one grave injustice. It seems like that was met with a collective shrug. Who cheers for the bad guy?
All that is to say, it seems like Google has been in this value extraction mode for a while and I don’t see what the long term plan is. They don’t seem to be innovating much, but are instead intent on squeezing as much money as they can from their existing assets. And while that may work in the short term, FB has shown tech giants are not invincible. I’ve seen a lot of talk online lately about how bad the quality of search results have gotten. If a credible competitor emerges, I think a lot of users would gladly switch. If/when that happens, Google better hope they don’t find themselves in FB’s position where they can’t acquire their way out of their rut.
…a limit to how user-hostile a tech giant can be before it really starts to hurt their bottom line…
Reading that line I just realized that google lost me as a YouTube viewer in the past two weeks. I used to follow a bunch of ~100k subscriber channels that produced content every couple of weeks on building things and how to build things. I'd generally watch one or two 10-30 minute videos a day.
They've cranked the ads through the roof to the point that I'd see the same 6 second Liberty Mutual bit three times before the video even got through its introduction along with a couple other ads.
I now realize its been days since I even went to the site. So I guess for this n=1 we've found the limit.
Reading that line I just realized that google lost me as a YouTube viewer in the past two weeks. I used to follow a bunch of ~100k subscriber channels that produced content every couple of weeks on building things and how to build things. I'd generally watch one or two 10-30 minute videos a day.
They've cranked the ads through the roof to the point that I'd see the same 6 second Liberty Mutual bit three times before the video even got through its introduction along with a couple other ads.
I now realize its been days since I even went to the site. So I guess for this n=1 we've found the limit.
Have you tried Youtube premium? We always say companies should move out of the ad revenue model and start charging for the services instead of pushing more ads. For me, paying Youtube premium has been a great decision.
Here’s the problem - if you don’t already watch a lot of YouTube the non pay version is such a bad experience that you avoid watching on it so you’d be unlikely to want to pay for it.
Seconding this comment. I grumbled at first about paying for it but frankly after more than a year I’ve come to realize it’s money well spent considering how much use my family gets out of it.
We as a society have become allergic to paying for services. It's understandable but detrimental in the long term.
I figured this out about a year ago. As well as ad-free viewing I get YouTube Music, so I don't need to pay for an additional music service.
Now, if they would only stop with the censorship. When in the history of mankind have the censors ever been the good guys?
Now, if they would only stop with the censorship. When in the history of mankind have the censors ever been the good guys?
>>When in the history of mankind have the censors ever been the good guys?
I mean.....removing pedo or gore content from Youtube is still censorship. Just the kind that we probably all agree with. The way you view censorship(and censors) mostly depends on whether they remove content you want removed or not, and that line can massively vary even in western societies(for instance I love the fact that in Germany any nazi-related content is actually criminal, but many Americans gasp at the very concept - however the line is there even in America, but it's just placed in at a different point).
I mean.....removing pedo or gore content from Youtube is still censorship. Just the kind that we probably all agree with. The way you view censorship(and censors) mostly depends on whether they remove content you want removed or not, and that line can massively vary even in western societies(for instance I love the fact that in Germany any nazi-related content is actually criminal, but many Americans gasp at the very concept - however the line is there even in America, but it's just placed in at a different point).
> When in the history of mankind have the censors ever been the good guys?
It's not called censorship when it is the right and reasonable thing to do. In many cases, it is simply decision making done collectively by society. For example, we don't tend to allow blatantly religious proselytizing in public schools by teachers. Is that censorship? Maybe? Is it controversial? Not really.
Education is actually a good example -- as decisions are constantly made in terms of what is and is not made available to students. It's easy to find decisions that are blatantly wrong -- for example, banning "A Big Mooncake for Little Star," which is a book about a little kid eating a cake. (But there are other choices that are obviously correct, such as banning books in school libraries that are blatantly misleading.
Whether something is considered censorship is often a matter of perspective.
It's not called censorship when it is the right and reasonable thing to do. In many cases, it is simply decision making done collectively by society. For example, we don't tend to allow blatantly religious proselytizing in public schools by teachers. Is that censorship? Maybe? Is it controversial? Not really.
Education is actually a good example -- as decisions are constantly made in terms of what is and is not made available to students. It's easy to find decisions that are blatantly wrong -- for example, banning "A Big Mooncake for Little Star," which is a book about a little kid eating a cake. (But there are other choices that are obviously correct, such as banning books in school libraries that are blatantly misleading.
Whether something is considered censorship is often a matter of perspective.
It doesn’t feel that great to help a company that’s dominating video hosting to help them muscle into the music streaming business through a bundle offer. But otherwise, yes: we might all be better off if Google made more from subscriptions and less from ads.
Since the end of WW2, Germany has made spreading Nazi propaganda and denying the holocaust illegal.
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/germanys-laws-ant...
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/germanys-laws-ant...
I agree with you 100%. I've had it for quite a while. When I see Youtube without being logged in, I really can't imagine using the at all with the current level of ads - it's gotten way worse in the past few years.
I also like having access to YouTube music but like so many things with streaming, you're not certain to get continued access to stuff you like. I've started buying MP3's of songs that I like again so that I don't have to worry that Google will stop carrying the music any more or raise prices on YouTube Premium to a level I don't like.
I have less and less trust for the big companies that provide these services so I'm focusing more on self-hosting and some form of ownership. It's not just MP3's. I'm also making sure that I'm using FOSS for my note taking (Joplin), backups (duplicati) and other such things. Some of this stuff is too valuable to me to risk losing access to.
I also like having access to YouTube music but like so many things with streaming, you're not certain to get continued access to stuff you like. I've started buying MP3's of songs that I like again so that I don't have to worry that Google will stop carrying the music any more or raise prices on YouTube Premium to a level I don't like.
I have less and less trust for the big companies that provide these services so I'm focusing more on self-hosting and some form of ownership. It's not just MP3's. I'm also making sure that I'm using FOSS for my note taking (Joplin), backups (duplicati) and other such things. Some of this stuff is too valuable to me to risk losing access to.
I'd buy YouTube premium if YouTube was still an independent company. Even if paid YouTube doesn't serve you ads, they are still collecting analytics you and building out your Google profile. No thanks.
They are doing that if you don't pay too.
Right, so I just use AdBlock, PiHole, and NewPipe. I'd pay but I'm not gonna pay and be the product at the same time.
People aren't going to pay for companies they've had enough of. People open to the idea of paying would pay to companies that would treat them better.
Honestly I’ve been interrupted by relentless pleas so many times for YouTube premium that I just don’t consider it a “positive” thing. I could cancel my Patreon payments to the content creators and redirect that money to Google, who would then give a small fraction of it to the creators. That doesn’t seem like I’m dealing with an ethical hosting service.
I’ll probably look through the Patreon pages in a few weeks, see who I still care about, and see if they have alternative video feeds that aren’t so ad littered. Those can remain, the rest I’ll cancel.
I’ll probably look through the Patreon pages in a few weeks, see who I still care about, and see if they have alternative video feeds that aren’t so ad littered. Those can remain, the rest I’ll cancel.
I use Premium too! Also try threatening to cancel and it will lower the price :P
It does feel like a bargain, all things considered. Plus you get YouTube Music.
I want to support the content creator first and foremost. That's not how premium works.
I know the creators get at least some of it. I have no idea if it's more or less than they would get with ads. I also pay for premium, and I'm fine with Google getting some of it. After all, it's not free to host and stream millions of petabytes of data. I really enjoy YouTube without the ads. It might actually be one of the last videos streaming services I'd get rid of.
I'm pretty sure there's an LTT video where Linus says he makes the most money-per-view from Premium users. Unfortunately I can't find it.
How does Linus make money? - 2020 Update: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zt57TWkTF4
Don't forget the lack of dislike counts, which makes it harder to distinguish good tutorials from scams shilling some service.
Also, why are you not using uBlock origin?
Also, why are you not using uBlock origin?
YT Premium is an alternative to ad blocking that at least supports the creators whose content one watches.
Why not use both? You can support the content creator with a higher per-view rate and still block ads in other places.
I quit because I was getting 2-3 30 second ads per video, 5 minute videos that is.
Ended up getting an ad blocker on my iphone and deleting the app. I now have to use youtube.com and settle for 720p, but it's far and away better than the shit ads it served.
Don't get me started on the relevancy of the ads.
Ended up getting an ad blocker on my iphone and deleting the app. I now have to use youtube.com and settle for 720p, but it's far and away better than the shit ads it served.
Don't get me started on the relevancy of the ads.
You may have been in the heavy ads group from some sort of A/B experiment on how the number of ads they show affects engagement. YouTube runs these sorts of experiments all the time to improve "metrics". I've heard that there's even a long-running "control group" that doesn't get ads on YouTube.
May I suggest an ad blocker just to hammer the nail?
[deleted]
I started using the Vinegar iOS app to remove ads and other crap from youtube. Still surprised that Apple hasn’t pulled it from their store (afaik).
You must be watching them on mobile, right? I get 0 ads on Firefox on my Mac, I'm assuming ublockorigin blocks them.
Oh and on mobile ios they’ve removed the ability to sort channel videos by popularity or age…
Popular sort was a great way to find what a new channel was about
Popular sort was a great way to find what a new channel was about
Odyssee is fine if you can find content on it. Otherwise, use Brave. YouTube is pretty great if you use Brave.
The account I logged into Youtube... female facebook shill sock puppet. The feminine hygiene ads are down right discusting. N <= 2, If I see 3 ads, I just close the window.
There is the Scottish electrical engineer, that although his accent is really thick, its refreshing, but with the adds for cell phones/no and FHP/no.
There is the Scottish electrical engineer, that although his accent is really thick, its refreshing, but with the adds for cell phones/no and FHP/no.
> FB used outrage as a way to increase engagement with their product and it worked for a while, but now FB is increasingly a non-desirable place to hang out.
> Instead you can go to TikTok where you will find mostly amusing and at times informative content.
Tiktok does this very well. I usually end up feeling good after using TikTok. On the other hand Twitter makes me stressed, FB is not much used by my friends age group or only used for memes, and Instagram is now showing me two ads every three stories that is really a pain to use.
> Instead you can go to TikTok where you will find mostly amusing and at times informative content.
Tiktok does this very well. I usually end up feeling good after using TikTok. On the other hand Twitter makes me stressed, FB is not much used by my friends age group or only used for memes, and Instagram is now showing me two ads every three stories that is really a pain to use.
Should we be concerned if the goal of a social network is to just make people feel well? (This is a serious question to ponder as a society perhaps (or just for me).) The goal of these products of course is to keep people around.
Not to feel good as a goal but certainly as an effect of positive human interaction and experience. It's a desired outcome that interaction with the product makes you happy.
I'd be less concerned about that than social networks designed to make people angry at each other.
>Instead you can go to TikTok where you will find mostly amusing and at times informative content.
TikTok has by far the best recommender system I have ever tried. After an hour of use the system had correctly narrowed down my interests of exoplanets, space exploration, technology, and startups.
However that also means TikTok is the most hypertuned echochamber. I hope people don't get their political views from TikTok.
TikTok has by far the best recommender system I have ever tried. After an hour of use the system had correctly narrowed down my interests of exoplanets, space exploration, technology, and startups.
However that also means TikTok is the most hypertuned echochamber. I hope people don't get their political views from TikTok.
Your intuition is correct. According to [1] it can take 2 hours of browsing and interacting with transphobic content to get straight into neo-nazi content. Many people don't ever see such videos, and don't think it's on the platform - it does become a very hypertuned hyperfocused echo chamber.
[0] https://www.mediamatters.org/tiktok/tiktoks-algorithm-leads-...
[0] https://www.mediamatters.org/tiktok/tiktoks-algorithm-leads-...
Are there any papers on this matter that are not made by explicitly political think tanks?
The web page you linked seems like it was written by someone who lives in a basement and has never logged off of Twitter.
“ We defined “prominent far-right figures/prominent far right talking points” posts as those that contain prominent far-right figures such as Ben Shapiro, Alex Jones…”
“ We defined “racist/white supremacist” posts as those which… support white supremacy by using white supremacist talking points such as “white pride” or “white lives matter.””
So do white lives not matter? Seems like whoever wrote this hates themselves and is racist.
“ We defined “prominent far-right figures/prominent far right talking points” posts as those that contain prominent far-right figures such as Ben Shapiro, Alex Jones…”
“ We defined “racist/white supremacist” posts as those which… support white supremacy by using white supremacist talking points such as “white pride” or “white lives matter.””
So do white lives not matter? Seems like whoever wrote this hates themselves and is racist.
Bravo, best self-own I've seen in a while. And thanks for letting us know you're the kind of poster who unironically echoes white supremacist talking points.
Where do normal people go from Google? I've seen plenty of billboards for DDG, and even radio ads, but how likely is it that a user will switch (& persist) when their browser is controlled by the offending company that isn't afraid of implementing dark patterns to get the users back? Anecdotally, I have a senior citizen neighbor who asked me to look at her computer because of ads (I figured malware/adware) and she was somehow already using Firefox as her browser, so her problem was just resolved by installing uBlock Origin.
Users defecting from FB have a number of options, driven by their in person network, search doesn't. How do new search engines communicate that Google is turning up the (ad/spam) heat and they need to escape the pot? Search results are subjective (that's why Google uses human raters), so what does it take for users, en masse, to start questioning their search results quality and/or excessive number of ads?
Users defecting from FB have a number of options, driven by their in person network, search doesn't. How do new search engines communicate that Google is turning up the (ad/spam) heat and they need to escape the pot? Search results are subjective (that's why Google uses human raters), so what does it take for users, en masse, to start questioning their search results quality and/or excessive number of ads?
Bing, Yandex, and DDG are more than serviceable. Furthermore, you have to imagine every search counts. Sure, Siri results might come directly through Google but that doesn't mean they won't lose some other fraction of your searches if you set your default search on Safari to be Bing.
Yandex in particular is way better than Google for finding illegal content in my experience.
Yes, because it is based in russia, but not for long
https://www.aroged.com/2021/12/13/sites-with-pirated-content...
I wonder what is next. Baidu?
I talked to my nephew a while back. He’s part of the young generation and work in construction. He advised me to switch from Google to DDG.
You're misreading the situation. It's not user hostility that's inherently the issue, it's that the demographics are aggressive and Facebook is failing to capture the younger, more captive audiences.
FB is not losing because it's user-hostile. It simply was outcompeted by TikTok because it has a better and more engaging video product.
FB went with jacking people's emotion with rage, fear, and other scare tactics. Monsters Inc however showed us there's more power in laughter than screams. It's a shame nobody on FB's board ever watched a movie.
> Monsters Inc however showed us there's more power in laughter than screams. It's a shame nobody on FB's board ever watched a movie.
To be fair, everything in Monsters, Inc. was made up.
To be fair, everything in Monsters, Inc. was made up.
Seemingly, so is everything on FB!
The top reply to the linked tweet shocked me:
> further evidence to long $GOOG tbh
> further evidence to long $GOOG tbh
Our lives will suck but at least we’ll be swimming in money!
I can't speak to the market, but for me personally the restrictions on ad targeting and more specifically conversion tracking is what made me think FB loses a lot of value - not the reverse in user growth. Though that's not great for a long term window.
It seems the most profitable users don't care and typically engage with the ads. Or they used to before apple came in and lowered the quality.
Arguments about ethics/ads aside
It seems the most profitable users don't care and typically engage with the ads. Or they used to before apple came in and lowered the quality.
Arguments about ethics/ads aside
I think the risk here is that adblocking can only grow (and maybe Manifest v3 is the only answer Google has had to that so far). As people become more frustrated with Google they either complain to their friends/family or search online for help and inevitably learn about adblocking.
Once they do that they become lost to Google forever.
Perhaps the only holdout is mobile. But otherwise ad-tech is poisoning the well for themselves.
Once they do that they become lost to Google forever.
Perhaps the only holdout is mobile. But otherwise ad-tech is poisoning the well for themselves.
Speaking of Manifest v3, I really hope all these adblock extensions secretly work together and on the day Manifest v3 is released, they all display a gigantic red-backgrounded warning on startup telling the user Google Chrome has turned evil and suggesting them switching to Firefox or some other browser.
Adblocking works just fine on mobile too, with a few more jumps, at least on adnroid.
I remember digg. Network effects can turn on you.
Their bottom line was hurt by Apple, not by their anti consumer policies.
It isn't an either or situation. Personally I used to watch Youtube quite a bit more but barely watch it at all these days thanks to their oppressive censorship policies.
In my experience people making these "freedom stands" are a statistical minority that in no way influences actual mass markets, much like those Greenpeace people chaining themselves to oil & gas equipment to stop it from being used.
I mean, it's nice and noble but the vast majority of people don't follow you and corporations don't care as long as you don't become a social and political landmark. If you go quietly for sure it doesn't matter to their bottom line.
People generally give stuff up for prosaic reasons, instead such as: too many ads, favorite content producers moved to another platform, content they like becomes paid, their social circles don't consider the platform cool anymore, etc.
I mean, it's nice and noble but the vast majority of people don't follow you and corporations don't care as long as you don't become a social and political landmark. If you go quietly for sure it doesn't matter to their bottom line.
People generally give stuff up for prosaic reasons, instead such as: too many ads, favorite content producers moved to another platform, content they like becomes paid, their social circles don't consider the platform cool anymore, etc.
>In my experience people making these "freedom stands" are a statistical minority that in no way influences actual mass markets
>.., favorite content producers moved to another platform,..
This was my grip against youtube, it wasn't merely a principled stand. Numerous independent content creators that I had followed and subscribed to on Youtube have been either censored, demonetized or blocked completely in the last couple of years. It doesn't matter to your bottom line until you censor, discourage, or otherwise drive away enough people where it does start to matter, as Facebook found out a few days ago. Perhaps Youtube/Google is such a monopolistic revenue juggernaut that it can continue to censor, demonetize and ban content creators liberally and without any coherent standards and still churn out a profit. We'll see.
>.., favorite content producers moved to another platform,..
This was my grip against youtube, it wasn't merely a principled stand. Numerous independent content creators that I had followed and subscribed to on Youtube have been either censored, demonetized or blocked completely in the last couple of years. It doesn't matter to your bottom line until you censor, discourage, or otherwise drive away enough people where it does start to matter, as Facebook found out a few days ago. Perhaps Youtube/Google is such a monopolistic revenue juggernaut that it can continue to censor, demonetize and ban content creators liberally and without any coherent standards and still churn out a profit. We'll see.
They just need to keep content creators happy, which is a much smaller customer base. So if numbers really start falling that's going to be a much easier thing to fix.
And keep in mind that content creators have their own interests ($$$, fame, etc) not all of which align with their viewers' interests.
And keep in mind that content creators have their own interests ($$$, fame, etc) not all of which align with their viewers' interests.
[deleted]
In principle making a some-of-the-web search engine is a tractable problem. Start by indexing known high quality, preferably moderated sites. Allow trusted users to upload their bookmarks for indexing. And so on...
My guess is the reason there are so few competitors is economics. You can't get investment as long as Google stock is a sure bet. Few will pay for your service as long as Google is answering their questions. Advertisers aren't interested as their money is more effectively spent on Google. Therefore you can't build an audience sure to lack of revenue/capital.
My guess is the reason there are so few competitors is economics. You can't get investment as long as Google stock is a sure bet. Few will pay for your service as long as Google is answering their questions. Advertisers aren't interested as their money is more effectively spent on Google. Therefore you can't build an audience sure to lack of revenue/capital.
it s really a mess. Searching for 'viper' brings up 'Viber' as the first result, the rest is cars except for a link to 'viperidae'. It's a goddamn snake, google
Just add another word "viper snake" and the problem is solved. I don't see the problem. You wouldn't shout "viper" at a random person and expect them to correctly guess you're talking about a snake at first guess.
I mean, I’d assume it was a snake. Not sure what else I’d assume they were talking about.
Also, Google isn’t a person. I wouldn’t expect someone to understand what I’m trying to say if I yelled “site Colin stackoverflow.com fizz buzz” at them either.
The bigger issue is that Google didn’t even interpret “viper” as any form of “viper” at all and instead corrected it to a nonsense word that’s a company name.
Also, Google isn’t a person. I wouldn’t expect someone to understand what I’m trying to say if I yelled “site Colin stackoverflow.com fizz buzz” at them either.
The bigger issue is that Google didn’t even interpret “viper” as any form of “viper” at all and instead corrected it to a nonsense word that’s a company name.
> I mean, I’d assume it was a snake. Not sure what else I’d assume they were talking about.
Shout it at me and I'd be fifty-fifty whether it's a snake or a car (the Dodge V-10) you mean. But I'm a car nut; I'd assume for normal (English-speaking) people the snake would be the obvious default meaning.
Shout it at me and I'd be fifty-fifty whether it's a snake or a car (the Dodge V-10) you mean. But I'm a car nut; I'd assume for normal (English-speaking) people the snake would be the obvious default meaning.
[deleted]
English is not my native, i wasn't sure it's a snake
For me it's a different results bubble, but still a mess: Dodge Viper, a brand of booze, a tattoo parlor, two different video-game characters called "viper", a "tactical clothing" store, a Go library, a bar, a TV series, an iOS design pattern. To get actual snakes I have to search for "vipers".
Gaming mice?
Looks fine to me
http://0x0.st/oXzN.png
http://0x0.st/oXzN.png
For some searches the results don't include my search terms. They just go silently straight to the "did you mean?" results.
this is such an infuriating user experience. no, I did not mean, that’s why I typed it, damn it! I think they’ve even started ignoring my quoted search terms!
They are getting to be so terrible, what kind of bureaucracy motivates them to throw away their crown jewel? Is Adwords the only self-made product they have that actually works anymore? Maybe their business model is only Adwords and selling surveillance data, and our understanding simply hasn't caught up to that fact yet.
Most people are fairly resistant to changing their behaviour because of annoyances. Take broadcast TV for example. From the 50's to the early aughts, TV's only competition was theatres, and its in-home convenience let it win that competition handily in terms of the hours people spent watching TV versus going to the theatre. Television providers took full advantage and the percentage of ads by airtime steadily increased. Shows that were designed around commercial breaks in one era had to be cut down in length and have additional breaks added when rerun in later eras.
There was no meaningful competition, either from alternative media distributors or between broadcasters to see who could offer more actual content per hour. It wasn't until streaming came along that cable TV finally started dying. This isn't a huge issue for cable companies, since most have pivoted into operating as ISP's and streaming itself. It's only a matter of time before cable TV is no longer offered as a service by the companies created to offer it.
Google's search engine has few competitors. Even the search function on many websites is inferior to a google search restricted to that site. The ads in google search results can be scrolled through in seconds, although Google constantly plays games to make it harder to tell where the ads stop. Their search algorithm is now suspicious in how it sorts the non-ad results of many searches. All of this is annoying to users, but is it annoying enough to force users onto other search engines? Google appears to be determined to find out just how much spam is too much.
Will DuckDuckGo or other alternatives to google gain traction as a result of this? Probably some, but probably not much. They likely won't make much of a dent in Google's bottom line until they offer something compellingly superior to Google, just as streaming is superior to broadcast TV.
There was no meaningful competition, either from alternative media distributors or between broadcasters to see who could offer more actual content per hour. It wasn't until streaming came along that cable TV finally started dying. This isn't a huge issue for cable companies, since most have pivoted into operating as ISP's and streaming itself. It's only a matter of time before cable TV is no longer offered as a service by the companies created to offer it.
Google's search engine has few competitors. Even the search function on many websites is inferior to a google search restricted to that site. The ads in google search results can be scrolled through in seconds, although Google constantly plays games to make it harder to tell where the ads stop. Their search algorithm is now suspicious in how it sorts the non-ad results of many searches. All of this is annoying to users, but is it annoying enough to force users onto other search engines? Google appears to be determined to find out just how much spam is too much.
Will DuckDuckGo or other alternatives to google gain traction as a result of this? Probably some, but probably not much. They likely won't make much of a dent in Google's bottom line until they offer something compellingly superior to Google, just as streaming is superior to broadcast TV.
I wonder if there would be a good way to monetize a search engine such that returning great results gets them paid.
Like a check in if you found what you were looking for, give a penny. Or potentially not what you were looking for, but something that you are happy you found. Thus giving back good info to the search engine and only pay a nominal amount when you get what you want.
Like a check in if you found what you were looking for, give a penny. Or potentially not what you were looking for, but something that you are happy you found. Thus giving back good info to the search engine and only pay a nominal amount when you get what you want.
The not so happy thing about this is that at this point the entire web is somewhat flawed. Too many sites have produced too much junk content just to game Google. A fundamentally new approach is needed to identify and surface “organic” (whatever that may mean) results. So I suspect (albeit with no data to show for it) that even if we just switched all ads off we still wouldn't be happy with the results that we see.
Google’s revenue model has been at odds for far too long with identifying and weeding out SEO spam. I don't mean 'spam' here in a derogatory way, but rather everyone who has a legitimate and interesting product and has had their back against the wall and was forced to play the SEO game and become a 'search spammer' As a result 'spammers' (again, pretty much every site these days) 'won' because it was and still is the only way to survive.
Google’s revenue model has been at odds for far too long with identifying and weeding out SEO spam. I don't mean 'spam' here in a derogatory way, but rather everyone who has a legitimate and interesting product and has had their back against the wall and was forced to play the SEO game and become a 'search spammer' As a result 'spammers' (again, pretty much every site these days) 'won' because it was and still is the only way to survive.
> The not so happy thing about this is that at this point the entire web is somewhat flawed. Too many sites have produced too much junk content just to game Google. A fundamentally new approach is needed to identify and surface “organic” (whatever that may mean) results. So I suspect (albeit with no data to show for it) that even if we just switched all ads off we still wouldn't be happy with the results that we see.
Honestly, I suspect that if you deprioritize pages with ads, referral links and sponsored content in search results, this problem will mostly solve itself.
The glut of garbage on the web comes from people trying to make a quick buck online, and I suspect Google is happy to show that content because the garbage is laden with Google or their partners' ads. Even content that doesn't have ads, but encourages visitors to buy products, is valuable to Google because they can use that information to show users more ads or funnel them into buying products via Google Shopping.
Honestly, I suspect that if you deprioritize pages with ads, referral links and sponsored content in search results, this problem will mostly solve itself.
The glut of garbage on the web comes from people trying to make a quick buck online, and I suspect Google is happy to show that content because the garbage is laden with Google or their partners' ads. Even content that doesn't have ads, but encourages visitors to buy products, is valuable to Google because they can use that information to show users more ads or funnel them into buying products via Google Shopping.
Millionshort is an attempt at fixing this.
https://millionshort.com/
https://millionshort.com/
The problem is that even the small sites are playing the same SEO game. If you remove the top X, you might just end up cutting out what you're looking for and still end up with a bunch of SEO'd results.
I work in medical education related tech and I make content. I spend a lot of time searching for information related to medicine online - knowledge aimed more at the actual medical practitioners. One of the big irritants in this research is how much the ad model has warped everything to be centered on the patient. I'm not totally blocked but I do feel hindered. For example if I'm looking for a procedure it's far more likely for the results to be from sources which dilute and simplify because they're intended on selling patients on something.
If I were presented with an information search product capable of being aware of my specific needs and adapting itself for these needs, I could probably convince my higher-ups to actually pay for something like this. I really wish I could get the same experience doing medical research as the one I get when searching programming related questions, which often return detailed explanations on stackoverflow, actual documentation and other valuable content.
On another and somewhat different note I'm from a specific European country and I've noticed searching in my language in topics related to my country is even worse. If I'm searching for important information regarding something specific for my country, like taxes/institutional affairs, the google search is basically unusable because the results are infested with obnoxious endless clickbait/GDPRconsent/cookies/garbage/websites. I vividly remember how search results in my country used to return forums and conversations, but from what I understand everyone is on FB groups which aren't displayed. There is so much out there being talked about that doesn't seem to 'exist' in the eyes of a search algo.
Weird times.
If I were presented with an information search product capable of being aware of my specific needs and adapting itself for these needs, I could probably convince my higher-ups to actually pay for something like this. I really wish I could get the same experience doing medical research as the one I get when searching programming related questions, which often return detailed explanations on stackoverflow, actual documentation and other valuable content.
On another and somewhat different note I'm from a specific European country and I've noticed searching in my language in topics related to my country is even worse. If I'm searching for important information regarding something specific for my country, like taxes/institutional affairs, the google search is basically unusable because the results are infested with obnoxious endless clickbait/GDPRconsent/cookies/garbage/websites. I vividly remember how search results in my country used to return forums and conversations, but from what I understand everyone is on FB groups which aren't displayed. There is so much out there being talked about that doesn't seem to 'exist' in the eyes of a search algo.
Weird times.
Maybe Google should start a portrait mode monitor business; consumers could get even more ad results on their screen.
I think they've already done that–only since they are a software company they decided that it would be better to write an OS for portrait mode monitors, and make it free, off-loading those pesky manufacturing steps. Ideally the OS would be attached to a device that the consumer would bring with them everywhere and have fancy geo-locating tools that tell Google where they go, you know for better ad attr-err search relevance!
(perhaps that's what you were going for?)
(perhaps that's what you were going for?)
If I recall correctly, some of the Chromebook models had 3:2 screens so you could get "more web on the screen".
I can't speak for Google but I think the theory they work under is that for some queries the ads are the best results. In other words, the user is more likely to find what they are looking for if those ads are there. There are many signals used for ranking results and the ad auction price is one signal.
That used to be the case, I remember searching for desktop software and the adverts would be the most relevant results. For whatever reason that stopped working a long time ago.
Interesting, I’ve been burned so many times, I always skip any result tagged as an ad. I can’t be the only one.
I've been looking into alternative search workflows.
Google (and near equivalents) feel a bit like Windows GUI when I want Linux cli for a) quickly going to a site I already know, b) answering a question when I have a bias about where good answers will be found, c) picking one thing from a long list
I feel there's already an equivalent with a few rough edges but a power tool I can be productive with.
Any product that aims at Google's entire market is only going to turn into Google, I need an ecosystem of tools so there will always be one that is aimed at my use case.
It feels like there's a common sentiment around this so there may be room for a new business model or open source approach.
One thing is bang searches, like duckduckgo has. So if you already know the site you want to search, and they have decent search then you can use their search directly.
There's an open standard for advertising your local search but it feels a bit forgotten like RSS Vs twitter. You can find lists of sites that advertise this search in the Mycroft project on mozdev.
I think Firefox has a non standard extension for search suggestions too.
If the sites don't have decent search, you can get a site specific search via Google or whatever, but it feels like site specific search for code related things would be a good niche. Like Google, you don't need to own the content, just index it better by adding intelligence from context.
You can even aggregate across a few different sites, like official docs plus official discussion, email archives, a Reddit sub and so on as appropriate. Yes you'll miss the long tail, but you'll have limited the scope so much that there would be a lot for value in exact searches for errors and other similar things.
Possibly language communities could build their own index?
The same for discussion sites seems possible and other general groups of search tasks. Wikipedia is a good target too.
If you built a good one you could then offer it to the sites to use as their internal search too, in a virtuous cycle.
On that note I'm going to go look up what Algolia does in this space.
Google (and near equivalents) feel a bit like Windows GUI when I want Linux cli for a) quickly going to a site I already know, b) answering a question when I have a bias about where good answers will be found, c) picking one thing from a long list
I feel there's already an equivalent with a few rough edges but a power tool I can be productive with.
Any product that aims at Google's entire market is only going to turn into Google, I need an ecosystem of tools so there will always be one that is aimed at my use case.
It feels like there's a common sentiment around this so there may be room for a new business model or open source approach.
One thing is bang searches, like duckduckgo has. So if you already know the site you want to search, and they have decent search then you can use their search directly.
There's an open standard for advertising your local search but it feels a bit forgotten like RSS Vs twitter. You can find lists of sites that advertise this search in the Mycroft project on mozdev.
I think Firefox has a non standard extension for search suggestions too.
If the sites don't have decent search, you can get a site specific search via Google or whatever, but it feels like site specific search for code related things would be a good niche. Like Google, you don't need to own the content, just index it better by adding intelligence from context.
You can even aggregate across a few different sites, like official docs plus official discussion, email archives, a Reddit sub and so on as appropriate. Yes you'll miss the long tail, but you'll have limited the scope so much that there would be a lot for value in exact searches for errors and other similar things.
Possibly language communities could build their own index?
The same for discussion sites seems possible and other general groups of search tasks. Wikipedia is a good target too.
If you built a good one you could then offer it to the sites to use as their internal search too, in a virtuous cycle.
On that note I'm going to go look up what Algolia does in this space.
I had a very similar experience. Only two days ago, I tried looking for something related to a friend's phone not recognizing the correct lock pattern on Android (Asus Zenfone 7), the term was "zenfone 7 does not recognize lock pattern even when correct and it's locked",
and the first two pages were, with the exception of an official Asus support page, ALL the results were crap ones going to generic tutorials...
Searching for the same phrase in DuckDuckGo, the 2nd result pointed to a Samsung forum thread [1] which, while pointing to doing things with a Samsung account, said it started working by itself in 1-2 days, which it did.
Setting aside the fact why Android would behave like that, the search results in Google were so low quality and awful... While this is just an anecdote, it seems for quite a few types of search results, their quality has dropped hugely. Is it due to people hijacking the results by using clever tricks? Or has Google's algorithm starting to hit some sort of limit in terms of the amount of content that needs to be indexed and ranked? I don't know. But something definitely seems off to me.
[1]: https://eu.community.samsung.com/t5/other-smartphones/my-pat...
Searching for the same phrase in DuckDuckGo, the 2nd result pointed to a Samsung forum thread [1] which, while pointing to doing things with a Samsung account, said it started working by itself in 1-2 days, which it did.
Setting aside the fact why Android would behave like that, the search results in Google were so low quality and awful... While this is just an anecdote, it seems for quite a few types of search results, their quality has dropped hugely. Is it due to people hijacking the results by using clever tricks? Or has Google's algorithm starting to hit some sort of limit in terms of the amount of content that needs to be indexed and ranked? I don't know. But something definitely seems off to me.
[1]: https://eu.community.samsung.com/t5/other-smartphones/my-pat...
Could it be that google is relying too much on the input from the address bar?
Unlike new search engines, google doesn't have to scrape and analyze the web because Chrome shows them what people want when they are searching for a set of words.
Since Bing/DuckDuckGo doesn't have the same level of manipulation, I would assume that SEO spammers have managed to influence Google by faking browser feedback.
I would assume that there are thousands of artificial Chrome instances that fake active users and flood Google with wrong user feedback.
Unlike new search engines, google doesn't have to scrape and analyze the web because Chrome shows them what people want when they are searching for a set of words.
Since Bing/DuckDuckGo doesn't have the same level of manipulation, I would assume that SEO spammers have managed to influence Google by faking browser feedback.
I would assume that there are thousands of artificial Chrome instances that fake active users and flood Google with wrong user feedback.
Oh, that could very well be the "secret new SEO sauce". I could well imagine Google having an entire division focused on the quest of dealing with backlink spam SEO that is targeting OG pagerank, perpetually kept occupied by SEOs that don't know better, while a new generation of SEOs simply avoids that battlefield and aims directly at ranking inputs beyond pagerank.
Thousands of artificial Chrome instances, or maybe just hundreds of Chrome extensions running on millions of instances engaging in a DSEO attack each individually well below the background noise floor. If that browser feedback is easy enough to fake then the visit pretender SEO wouldn't even need to poison an extension, they could just run it from any site they can get to run some JS on.
Thousands of artificial Chrome instances, or maybe just hundreds of Chrome extensions running on millions of instances engaging in a DSEO attack each individually well below the background noise floor. If that browser feedback is easy enough to fake then the visit pretender SEO wouldn't even need to poison an extension, they could just run it from any site they can get to run some JS on.
today i bought another batch of Yandex stocks after they tanked 30% since a few weeks ago. I believe Yandex is able to fill a niche left empty by Google - good ole useful search results without censoring and ad infestation. I'm bullish on Yandex. they also have amazing image search (much more useful than googles) and they are planning to expand focus beyond Russia and neighboring countries.
It's possible that they tanked because of this news: https://www.aroged.com/2021/12/13/sites-with-pirated-content...
thus removing one of the major reasons to use Yandex.
thus removing one of the major reasons to use Yandex.
Sometimes lately I can't tell the difference between google or an alternative like DDG. It's all crap.
Now that Google has killed their G suite accounts I am looking to move everything somewhere else and planning to completely stop using any of their services.
What would you recommend to jump to (paid service)? What tools I could use to move my emails?
(I have my own domains etc.)
This sounds like a grand top level question. I am in the same boat.
How about a search engine for pages that are non-commercial only in nature?
[deleted]
I am not so much concerned about a search engine, which is superficially free to the end user, displaying adds.
I am totally concerned though that the non-adds results are those where the interests of the company behind the search results and my interest are deeply leaning towards the interest of the company instead of mines.
In clear text: Content of sites disguised as original content yet serving no other purpose but linking to Amazon or sites which display a ton of adds served by Google.
I am totally concerned though that the non-adds results are those where the interests of the company behind the search results and my interest are deeply leaning towards the interest of the company instead of mines.
In clear text: Content of sites disguised as original content yet serving no other purpose but linking to Amazon or sites which display a ton of adds served by Google.
Ads. It's short for advertisement, not addition.
Facebook's tanking, Google's on it's way down, Amazon's getting broken up. Seems like the long-predicted next economic recession is around the corner
It's just another argument for (1) using ublock origin or equivalent (2) refusing to use browsers that do not allow ublock origin or equivalent to function.
What’s up with wikipedia results being deprioritized?
Another search term where you usually got four ads as the top results is "web hosting"
https://www.google.com/search?q=web+hosting
And, surprisingly, the [ADS] search results when I'm logged-in versus when searching anonymously are different!
https://www.google.com/search?q=web+hosting
And, surprisingly, the [ADS] search results when I'm logged-in versus when searching anonymously are different!
I was searching for skateboard decks on amazon and sorted by price.. The first 5 pages were all sponsored products.
Google's only way to seriously grow revenue is to throw more ads in front of their users. This always, eventually, hits a breaking point where the ads become too much and erode the user experience.
Any company that relies primarily on ad revenue is built on a house of cards. It can be highly profitable, but it is fragile.
Any company that relies primarily on ad revenue is built on a house of cards. It can be highly profitable, but it is fragile.
When are we going to get the PBS of search engines? Publicly funded, boring, informational, non-profit and works.
I would pay $10 a month for an ad free search engine that serves objective (not "personalised") query results related to what I'm looking for that doesn't sell my data, with similar features to Google Scholar and ideally even greater granularity, but for the whole web.
Try to get into the kagi.com beta, which could be exactly what you need. The results are fast and accurate, the hardest problem for me was finding the right browser extensions that would make it the default in Safari.
I often prepend my searches with strings such as "wikipedia " - typically there's a big improvement on the SRP end...but the borG will fix that if it catches on.
Coming soon - "Ad Infinitum(tm)" Google search results pages, which start to slowly scroll 5 seconds after being displayed...
Coming soon - "Ad Infinitum(tm)" Google search results pages, which start to slowly scroll 5 seconds after being displayed...
Google is a product search engine, if you want to buy something local, or search anything local use google.
For any other query use duck/bing.
I find duck better for general stuff and bing better for programming stuff.
For streaming websites or controversial content use yandex as they bring up random blogs and small unknown websites.
For any other query use duck/bing.
I find duck better for general stuff and bing better for programming stuff.
For streaming websites or controversial content use yandex as they bring up random blogs and small unknown websites.
Here was Dave Rosenthal's take two years ago: https://blog.dshr.org/2020/02/more-on-ad-bubble.html
Disclosure he and I agree on what is going on here :-)
Disclosure he and I agree on what is going on here :-)
This has been the case for a long time on mobile. 1.5 vertical screens of ads is not uncommon.
It'd be nice if there was a search modifier that specified "only text and jpgs and some html markup". In C++ there's a notion of POD (Plain Old Data) for simple structs. Maybe the web should have POT (Plain Old Text).
I don't think the person that posted the picture understands what literally means.
How much is pagerank involved in google searches these days? I wonder, if they were to revert to an early version of it, would searches improve? Or did they move away / update / augment it to prevent seo abuse?
Not much for head terms and even at the longtail, today. I've long thought rolling out googs algo from 2010 and getting away from all the prediction/neural network rewriting would be a good move for a new search engine.
As I was reading this thread, scrolling down a bit, my whole browser screen turned into a loginwall ad for a Twitter account.
It's amazing to me that people are still donating content to these platforms.
It's amazing to me that people are still donating content to these platforms.
Try neeva . com it's really similar to google but with none of the garbage experience from ads and SEO Spam. I switched from duckduckgo to neeva recently and have enjoyed it wayyy more.
What do you like about Neeva vs DDG
Unlike DDG, Neeva is ad free. It also has a bunch of additional features.
Using DDG for years and reading this thread I wanted to try Google but apparently I sent it to zero in the hosts file years ago when it was still good.
Google will eat itself: https://googlewilleatitself.com/.
That screenshot was shocking.
It truly has been a slippery slope to get here. So subtle I barely noticed the group shifting beneath my feet.
Busy testing searx - selfhosted front end for search engines. Results seem decent enough.
And set up protonmail today.
I've just about had it with google's bullshit.
And set up protonmail today.
I've just about had it with google's bullshit.
I increasingly find my answers searching through reddit or using the site: operator on google for reddit. Google has gone to trash.
google.com/maps is also a pain nowadays, with almost half the space of my (smallish laptop) screen being ads and controls. I'm glad I don't own stock in this company, because they are on the wrong side of the advertising Laffer curve, and moving back will be difficult because customers have choices and are unlikely to come back.
"We sell advertisement, not search results"
https://twitter.com/krebs_adrian/status/1488173888068542466
https://www.google.com/about/honestresults/ (Note: the url of this page is /honestresults/)
https://twitter.com/krebs_adrian/status/1488173888068542466
https://www.google.com/about/honestresults/ (Note: the url of this page is /honestresults/)
I love that line. It's like coke saying we sell sugar water, not soda.
I've noticed that this happens a lot more when SafeSearch is turned on, not sure why this happens though.
It has been that way for a while, Printer cartridge, Memory, and drivers. No useful content what so ever.
A little bit ironic that you can see an actual result at the bottom of the already cropped screenshot.
This is also the case for me on Instacart. Search for 1 item first screen is just ads.
I've abandoned SEOogle for DuckDuckGo 3 years ago... Couldn't be happier.
Youtube has gotten terrible with up to five minute long ads.
Why the hell am I getting targeted?
Why the hell am I getting targeted?
I can't stand youtube ads, especially the ones one with conversational tones!
The worst thing about youtube is, when I do a search, it intentionally throws in videos that have absolutely nothing to do with my search.
The worst thing about youtube is, when I do a search, it intentionally throws in videos that have absolutely nothing to do with my search.
Google has become the very thing people ran from.
Try Bing, as it's been well regarded.
Try Bing, as it's been well regarded.
Did anyone replicate this? I couldn’t on desktop and mobile.
Seems like flame bait
Seems like flame bait
Yes, I see this constantly when my adblocker is off. Search for anything related to "job search" et voila: https://i.imgur.com/dBXghPh.png
Here's "mattress," which has ads that extend beyond the fold: https://i.imgur.com/Z9dGSKR.png
Those two I just took. I mercifully cannot replicate this one anymore, but here's one for "indeed" I took in December, where LinkedIn had an ad that took up my entire laptop screen: https://i.imgur.com/x7g5Uo3.png
I can't replicate OP's specific one, but remember that ad buy is very dynamic. I do get the top two positions as competitors, one of which is seen in OP's link as well: https://i.imgur.com/hYjaWm4.png. I certainly do not think this post is fake.
Here's "mattress," which has ads that extend beyond the fold: https://i.imgur.com/Z9dGSKR.png
Those two I just took. I mercifully cannot replicate this one anymore, but here's one for "indeed" I took in December, where LinkedIn had an ad that took up my entire laptop screen: https://i.imgur.com/x7g5Uo3.png
I can't replicate OP's specific one, but remember that ad buy is very dynamic. I do get the top two positions as competitors, one of which is seen in OP's link as well: https://i.imgur.com/hYjaWm4.png. I certainly do not think this post is fake.
I wonder if they ever throw a bit of randomness in there like rand() % 100 * 0.01 * num_ads and he just got the peak value?
I'm talking about the exact query in the OP. No one is shocked that Google has ads.
The title of this post is "For some searches the whole screen on Google is now ads" - I hope it's shocking that that's true, irrespective of if we can replicate the exact ad placements in this post?
There is zero way to exactly replicate OPs query as Google heavily tailors results to each person, logged in or not.
And yes, people are shocked at the amount of ads google is pushing.
And yes, people are shocked at the amount of ads google is pushing.
[deleted]
This is not true. Ads are preslotted - so you might not get the same ads, but you will get the same number of ads.
lelandfe(1)
This is how search results for "car rentals new york" look like on my display, there are no organic results above the fold.
https://i.imgur.com/CFeWDY1.png
As for your question, there is no point in trying to replicate results for the same query, search results and the displayed ads can wildly differ for the same query based on a large number of factors.
https://i.imgur.com/CFeWDY1.png
As for your question, there is no point in trying to replicate results for the same query, search results and the displayed ads can wildly differ for the same query based on a large number of factors.
endisneigh(5)
I can't replicate at all, in fact I get zero results labeled as ads for the same search (on desktop, logged in, using FF). I have my search history paused, perhaps that could be affecting it?
Edit: I now see 3 ad results after disabling uBlock origin, but still far from the entire thing being ads. I didn't think it removed ads from the search results themselves (since I see 'sponsored ads' occasionally in my search and things). My bad.
Edit: I now see 3 ad results after disabling uBlock origin, but still far from the entire thing being ads. I didn't think it removed ads from the search results themselves (since I see 'sponsored ads' occasionally in my search and things). My bad.
I test it occassionally and regularly see 3 or 4 ads, but not as much as the OP. That is pretty crazy as a result. Normally though I have 2 or 3 layers of ad protection.
I saw this myself months ago with my father. He calls me up, and tells me that Google is only showing him ads, and he can't find any actual content. I figured it was some kind of malware he installed, but nope, I get over there and it's exactly like this screenshot. The entire first screen of results was ads. Then when I scrolled down, there weren't Google ads, but just a bunch of SEO spam. Wasn't gonna waste my time figuring it out, so I put him on DDG, and his problems were solved.
lol, OK what was the query? let's see the DDG and Google results side by side.
I swear people always say nonsense like this and when I ask for specific queries they stop replying. Check my history if you doubt it.
I don't doubt you saw ads, but Google very strictly limits the percentage of the screen that can be ads or percentage of results. If you can find a single query in which every result on the first page is a sponsored ad I'll send you $5 via Venmo right now, no questions asked.
people just like saying 'omg all my screen is ads' and then they crop their screen showing like 20% of the screen on a 1080p monitor. >_>
I swear people always say nonsense like this and when I ask for specific queries they stop replying. Check my history if you doubt it.
I don't doubt you saw ads, but Google very strictly limits the percentage of the screen that can be ads or percentage of results. If you can find a single query in which every result on the first page is a sponsored ad I'll send you $5 via Venmo right now, no questions asked.
people just like saying 'omg all my screen is ads' and then they crop their screen showing like 20% of the screen on a 1080p monitor. >_>
I'm on a 13" Macbook Pro, here's what a Chrome search for "Salesforce Integration" with my adblocker turned off looks like:
https://i.imgur.com/AkQWJeF.png
100% ads.
DDG for the same search is better, but not by much:
https://i.imgur.com/pcpxr4l.png
https://i.imgur.com/AkQWJeF.png
100% ads.
DDG for the same search is better, but not by much:
https://i.imgur.com/pcpxr4l.png
what's after the fold? Why do you crop it so it only shows ads? so ridiculous. Google will almost never show more than 5 sponsored ads or some combination of 2-3 ads and sponsored modal. same is true with Bing, DDG, Startpage, etc.
this scenario of all of the results being ads is nonexistent. again if anyone can show me a reproducible query in which all results are ads, $5 - easy.
omg DDG 100% ads !111
https://imgur.com/a/A1bxnVQ
this scenario of all of the results being ads is nonexistent. again if anyone can show me a reproducible query in which all results are ads, $5 - easy.
omg DDG 100% ads !111
https://imgur.com/a/A1bxnVQ
I think when people are saying "the whole screen is ads", they mean the _visible_ screen. The person took a screenshot of the first visible screen and it's all ads. You can even see in the tweet that the tippy top of the next result is a non-ad, but all visible results were ads. Even one of the parent comments says "...Then when I scrolled down, there weren't Google ads, but just a bunch of SEO spam", implying that there were non-ads if you scrolled.
So I think there's just a communication breakdown here.
So I think there's just a communication breakdown here.
I didn't crop it.. that's the point.. on the native resolution of my computer, doing a search for that specific term shows 100% ads after clicking "search".. Obviously you can scroll past them, maybe that's why you're confused?
Nobody's saying the search results are only ads, they're saying that the only results that are shown to consumers without some action on their part are ads...
Nobody's saying the search results are only ads, they're saying that the only results that are shown to consumers without some action on their part are ads...
> Nobody's saying the search results are only ads, they're saying that the only results that are shown to consumers without some action on their part are ads...
The title of this post and point of the twitter thread is:
"For some searches literally the whole screen!! on google is now ads."
The title of this post and point of the twitter thread is:
"For some searches literally the whole screen!! on google is now ads."
>The title of this post and point of the twitter thread is:
>"For some searches literally the whole screen!! on google is now ads."
And that's what you see in the screenshots. What's the problem?
>"For some searches literally the whole screen!! on google is now ads."
And that's what you see in the screenshots. What's the problem?
You don't know what a screen is? It's the glass thingy above or beside your desktop computer, or on the inside of the lid of your laptop computer.
Sheesh.
Sheesh.
Again.. "the whole screen" which implies everything you can see... Not everything that exists.
I agree. Should I make another post stating how DDG only shows ads on the entire screen as well?
It seems that all of the search engines just suck huh.
It seems that all of the search engines just suck huh.
olyjohn(2)
I suspect you misunderstood what folks are up in arms about. No one is claiming that Google is serving an entire page worth of ads. They're angered that the entire above the fold section, typically on a laptop, is entirely ads.
It is nice how passionate you are, though.
Also, appropriately, your screenshot of DDG does not showcase all ads.
It is nice how passionate you are, though.
Also, appropriately, your screenshot of DDG does not showcase all ads.
I'm on a 15" macbook pro and also only see ads below the fold. Is it difficult to imagine that most users around the planet aren't working with 27" monitors or whatever size it is you have?
Yes, I just posted an image on a 13" laptop on DDG showing the entire page being ads.
You didn't even read my comment you replied to. Did you not see where I said that I scrolled down past the ads to look at all the totally legit SEO spam?
> Did you not see where I said that I scrolled down past the ads to look at all the totally legit SEO spam?
meaningless because that's an subjective thing.
meaningless because that's an subjective thing.
Maybe people don't reply because they don't care about proving it to you, or they don't care about replying to some snarky-ass comment. I saw what I saw, and don't care if you don't believe it.
Yes. I have seen it a lot. More and more as the days go on. Google search results are no better than any of the other search engines and even worse for people not in tech they do not even know they are ads.
Just dark patterns. Sad it used to be a good search engine.
Just dark patterns. Sad it used to be a good search engine.
Yes, with the same query : https://i.imgur.com/ydofyHn.png
There are many factors that could change your results. Since I disabled web & app activity I have seen a lot more ads.
Do you think he created that web-page by modifying HTML?
It’s literally a cropped image that no one has said they can reproduce
Search "retool slack integration" on google.com with no quotes
I only see just one ad.
So what if it is cropped, is the amount of ads shown in the screenshot with no actual search results acceptable to you?
Does the fact OP has a smaller or larger resolution than you change your mind?
Literally the fifth result is what they were looking for. they crop that out and complain on twitter.
so yes, it's acceptable. use ad-block if it's not to you.
so yes, it's acceptable. use ad-block if it's not to you.
So we disagree. Showing me 4 ads before seeing something that is also a thinly veiled ad is not acceptable.
Running other software to make search usable is also not acceptable.
Combined with your misinformation spread in other threads of this topic, your actions appear to be shilling.
Running other software to make search usable is also not acceptable.
Combined with your misinformation spread in other threads of this topic, your actions appear to be shilling.
by what definition is it not acceptable exactly?
Don’t use Google, or any search engine for that matter, I’d you don’t like ads. Try out Kagi or Neeva.
Don’t use Google, or any search engine for that matter, I’d you don’t like ads. Try out Kagi or Neeva.
What “Definition” do you expect?
My completely subjective one, duh.
Lol on youtube the first few seconds of your every day is ads.
There has got to be white space for a new player in search.
Imagine how fast the Web would be if it were user-oriented.
Like say... Altavista?
For all searches, Kagi search is everything but the ads!
Does anyone remember what happened to AltaVista?
That’s above the fold, not the whole screen.
We've been suffering from this literally for decades by the dominant Korean search engine, Naver. Now it is time for you to suffer too, westerners!
This is been the case for a long time.
Y'all still see ads??? -Gorhill
... been that way for a long time.
Hah, you don't even need to do a search now. In my iPhone, as soon as go to google, two thirds of the screen are covered by obnoxious google ads about their crapware "google app".
Guess nobody wants it on iOS and they are going with the "spam the user until they comply", like they do with YouTube Pro. They are the digital equivalent of an abusive partner that doesn't accept "no" as an answer.
Guess nobody wants it on iOS and they are going with the "spam the user until they comply", like they do with YouTube Pro. They are the digital equivalent of an abusive partner that doesn't accept "no" as an answer.
been using ublock origin for years I have no idea what you're talking about. good luck though
Many people here suggests other services, including services you can pay for to bash Google. The reality is that Google offered Google Contributor and now offers YouTube premium but most people prefer free content with ads. And that is fine. I find very surprising the HN folks complaining about the tech companies making ads-based money for their services when they are not willing to pay for the ad-free version. It is disappointing that they feel using ad blockers is the reasonable thing to do. $9/month yearly subscription) for ad-free YouTube is an absolutely fair price IMHO. Ad blockers are piracy and kill jobs, same as downloading movies or books.
> Ad blockers are piracy and kill jobs, same as downloading movies or books.
Well, maybe I don't want to watch ads so that binary-tree-inverting MIT/Stanford graduates could get their 6-figure compensation packages for participating in a natural monopoly?
Well, maybe I don't want to watch ads so that binary-tree-inverting MIT/Stanford graduates could get their 6-figure compensation packages for participating in a natural monopoly?
Well, the creators of the content you watch do have to eat too. They are the ones that make most of the money from those ads, and the ones that hurt most if you do not support them.
I haven't used Youtube Premium myself, but I've heard many reports of both ads and promotional crap that gets through to premium users.
I'm also pretty sure that data collection is still on, meaning that you'll get tracked and ads elsewhere (such as on Google.com) based on tracking your youtube premium behavior.
I'm also pretty sure that data collection is still on, meaning that you'll get tracked and ads elsewhere (such as on Google.com) based on tracking your youtube premium behavior.
I've had Youtube Premium for as long as I can remember. I subscribed to Google Play Music, and they had a promotion for free Youtube Red with a subscription to GPM. I've kept it continuously since then, for free, and I've never seen an ad. I forget that Youtube even has ads until someone else puts a video on. I've also watched a lot of Youtube. I've seen every RedLetter Media video at least twice. This is all anecdotal of course. Maybe I've just gotten lucky.
I have the same experience. I watch lots of educational YouTube content and share my premium subscription with my wife and kids. I could never go back to ad-based YouTube.
Try it, is free to try. The experience is quite great without ads but do not trust me or others, try for yourself if you watch YouTube and want to support creators but hate the ads.
What are you basing tour thoughts on? Also, what do you find fair about ad free youtube (which BTW I pay)?
I am paying the same for youtube, which is a platform that takes content created from others, adds ads to it and the make me pay to remove them than for Netflix, which partially produces its own content.
I sometimes think that youtube premium is the best idea to make money without doing anything else than make you think that they are helping you to clean the crap they have created.
I am paying the same for youtube, which is a platform that takes content created from others, adds ads to it and the make me pay to remove them than for Netflix, which partially produces its own content.
I sometimes think that youtube premium is the best idea to make money without doing anything else than make you think that they are helping you to clean the crap they have created.
Well, I assume creators think that Google brings value or they would simply host their videos in a CDN themselves, at least when they already have an audience. I think YouTube provides creators a reach that others can't. Probably because of the hundreds of video clients they support or the quality of the stream even in the most hostile network conditions.
> Ad blockers are piracy and kill jobs
{{citation needed}}
{{citation needed}}
Just ask Google, how much money do ad blockers steal from content creators, lots of people reporting how their sites now produce way less money than they used to.
>Just ask Google
I don't think that the company that made a quarter of a trillion dollars from ads in 2021 is an objective source on ad blockers.
>less money than they used to So many things changed on the internet in the last few years; I don't see how you can reasonably attribute lower total incomes by creators specifically to ad blockers, as opposed to stronger competition or different consumer behavior.
>less money than they used to So many things changed on the internet in the last few years; I don't see how you can reasonably attribute lower total incomes by creators specifically to ad blockers, as opposed to stronger competition or different consumer behavior.
Also, I hear home taping is killing music.
[deleted]
This is also basically true for Amazon’s search results.
no ublock origin = pebcak
how do you get adblock on mobile?
Firefox on Android has uBlock Origin. I think Kiwi and other browsers allow it too. No idea about Chrome or anything.
Just install ublock origin? It works fine on Firefox on my phone.
I use adguard with safari. On android you can use brave.
On Android you can use Firefox with uBlock Origin.
This has been the case for me for a long time.
I was immediately turned off, so I pulled up DuckDuckGo and Bing, entered the same exact query, and both engines returned the song I was looking for in the first result. I laughed out loud.
I then thought to myself, "I wonder how many pages I would have had to flip through in Google to find this result." Eventually, I found it. It was the 68th result on page 7.