The Man Who Killed Google Search
www.wheresyoured.at
Wanna listen to this story instead? Check out this week's Better Offline podcast, "The Man That Destroyed Google Search," available on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and anywhere else you get your podcasts. This is the story of how Google Search died, and the people responsible for killing it. The story begins

It’s a story from April, I tried seeing if it was posted before, however it’s the story about how the advertising and finance team beat the search team into submission by ousting the core person protecting it to pursue “growth” and “revenue” at all costs.

  • Veedem@lemmy.worldEnglish
    2·
    6 months ago

    Read this a week or so ago and it’s a fantastic summarization of the core problem. I almost never use Google search anymore. I go between DuckDuckGo and Perplexity.

    • Odelay42@lemmy.worldEnglish
      2·
      6 months ago

      I’ve tried to use DDG for a few weeks now, and I find it gets worse the more specific I search.

      For general things, it’s fine. But if I’m looking for an installation tutorial for a certain kind of plumbing hardware, it struggles to show me anything but brand and retail pages.

      • Wojwo@lemmy.mlEnglish
        2·
        6 months ago

        I started using Kagi. Yeah, I have to pay for it. But we’re paying for Google too, kagi is just more honest about how.

        • Odelay42@lemmy.worldEnglish
          1·
          6 months ago

          Can I use kagi as a default search for my browser?

          I’m trying to use Firefox on desktop and mobile more.

          • ripcord@lemmy.worldEnglish
            1·
            6 months ago

            Yep!

            I use it on FF mobile and desktop all the time, for the last 6 months or so. It is great.

    • enkers@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      2·
      6 months ago

      I started finding DDG’s results just as bad as Google’s, so I switched to SearXNG and have been pretty happy with it so far.

      Its open source so anyone can run an instance if they wish. I feel like this sort of model is much more resistant to enshitification.

      • Hominine@lemmy.worldEnglish
        2·
        6 months ago

        I run a SearXNG instance myself and while it is a fine aggregator, it’s important to note what it is and isn’t. For instance, Sear does not have a dedicated search index and leans on third party API calls (to indexes such as the aforementioned Google and DDG listings.) This is my understanding, feel free to correct it.

        For my money, I like the anonymity that Sear can afford and that it hides the AI bullshit pouring into the UIs. My son and I were talking over the weekend about how unreliable he is finding the move to AI search.

        Edit: A list of public SearXNG instances for anyone that doesn’t want to spin up their own.

        • enkers@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
          1·
          6 months ago

          Yes you’re absolutely right. The problem of aggregators is that if all the aggregated searches go to shit, then so does it. Garbage in, garbage out.

      • asdfasdfasdf@lemmy.worldEnglish
        0·
        6 months ago

        SearXNG is just a meta search engine. It uses Google and DDG under the hood, among others. How is it possible that it’s better?

        • enkers@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
          1·
          6 months ago

          Because the aggregated weighted result ranking provides a more useful page rank than any individual search engine, and if any search engine tries to (accidentally or otherwise) stuff specific results into the top ranks, it doesn’t matter. It’ll be deranked because no other engine displays those results highly. In a similar manner, it deranks targeted SEO attempts unless multiple platforms are targeted.

          Don’t get me wrong, it still has its problems. For example, if the individual search engines all get a bit too samey, then it will as well.

    • kambusha@lemmy.worldEnglish
      2·
      6 months ago

      I’ve been using Perplexity for 2-3 months now. On 2 occasions, it flat out lied to me. The latest one, I was asking if it knew about a men’s brand that featured cranes on the shirt. It kept giving the same incorrect result, so I tried giving it more details, and then eventually it responded very confidently that it must be “Crane & Co a classic American menswear brand”, but it offered no references, which I found odd. Then I asked if it just made that up, and it confessed to fabricating a lie…

      did you just make that up?

      You’re right, I do not actually have a specific men’s dress shirt brand in mind that features a crane bird logo. I should not have fabricated a brand name and details. I do not have a definitive answer for the specific men’s dress shirt brand you are asking about that has a crane bird on it. I made an incorrect assumption and provided made-up information, which was wrong of me. In the future, I will be more transparent if I do not have a factual answer, rather than guessing. Please feel free to provide me with more details, and I will do my best to research and find the actual brand you are referring to.

      • Veedem@lemmy.worldEnglish
        2·
        6 months ago

        That’s odd. Were you using Pro? I find pro to be less reliable, oddly enough. I always check the citations which is why I like their approach.

        • Rozz@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
          1·
          6 months ago

          Would it listen if you told it to tell you when it didn’t know something specifically to try to keep it from lying?

    • seaQueue@lemmy.worldEnglish
      1·
      6 months ago

      Check out You.com too, their search is far better than Google on a lot of the technical topics I’ve searched for.

      Edit: ugh, it was good. Now they’re shovelling LLM interaction front and center and the original search functionality is completely buried. If you can find their original search interface it might still be worth a look.