• parpol@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    105
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    4 months ago
    1. Say no
    2. You don’t show up in Google search results
    3. You still show up in other search results
    4. Google is no longer bringing the best results
    5. People stop using Google
    6. Everybody wins
      • APassenger@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        4 months ago

        I stopped using them months ago. I only notice when I’m looking for places (e.g., restaurants, barbers).

        I’m not unhappy but may still shop around.

        • Pixel@pawb.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          4 months ago

          yeah, I appreciate the push towards more privacy-centric search engines but as a result searches that are relevant to me geographically on places like startpage are next to useless. I understand why but I wish that local results were a bit better on the alternatives.

      • doctortran@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        4 months ago

        We all keep saying this but can anybody point me to which one is better?

        I invariably end up having to go back to them because the other search engines all have their own problems.

        The issue is the internet is polluted with SEO and all the useful things that used to be spread out are now condensed onto places like Reddit, or places that aren’t even being indexed.

        • MagicShel@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          4 months ago

          Supposedly there’s a paid one that is good. I haven’t tried. The thing is Google is completely enshittified. They don’t have to care about you or the sites you search. So my theory is Bing is better because they are hungrier and anything that takes away market share from Google is good—but I’m fully aware that Microsoft was just as shitty as Google and will be again if they get back on top.

          Everything else I know of is either just an alternate front end for one of them or an aggregator of both. So you’re right, there’s precious little alternative to Google. But it’s almost bad enough I’m ready for the return of web rings of good sites vouching for each other.

            • MagicShel@programming.dev
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              4 months ago

              If that was what you took from my post, give it another read. I’m not pro MS. I’m pro not feeding Google. And Bing is fine.

            • AeroLemming@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              4 months ago

              This is funny, but it was also 13 years ago. A lot can change in that time. I don’t personally use Bing though, so I don’t have firsthand experience either way.

              • bitwaba@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                4 months ago

                A lot can change in 13 years, but a company that starts off morally evil does not magically get better as time goes on. If anything, they’re worse - we just don’t have the luxury of knowing exactly how yet.

                • Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  4 months ago

                  He didn’t say they weren’t evil. Only that because they are behind they are trying harder than Google (which is also evil).

    • Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      23
      ·
      4 months ago

      Part 5 is where I don’t see this actually going.

      Look at twitter. Now look at mastodon. Tell me which one is more shitty. Now tell me which one has something like 85% of the market, and which one most people haven’t heard of.

      Just because something it better, doesn’t mean people use it. You can fit all of Lemmy in the world in one of the larger NBA size arenas. You can’t even fit twitters total user base into some smaller CITIES.

      • DominusOfMegadeus@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        I think the amount of people who are familiar with search engine options besides Google is quite a bit larger than the population of Lemmy. (It fuckin better be, anyway)

        • hobovision@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          4 months ago

          He’s already owned it for nearly two years. I’d definitely take the over on that bet. I just don’t see what Twitter could possibly do that they haven’t done already to kill it?

          • Womble@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            4 months ago

            At least in the UK there is now lots of mainstream discussion of “Is it time for people to leave twitter as it’s too much of a cesspool”. Granted they usually then mention threads or bluesky as an alternative not mastodon, but it is definitely possible for social media companies to die out. Once people start to leave in large numbers it can become a mass exodus (see digg and myspace).

            • Balder@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              4 months ago

              I think the issue now is that the market got fragmented and now you can’t find as much content as before without using multiple services, which is an annoyance.

    • Zurgo@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      4 months ago

      I’m pretty pessimistic about this:

      1. Say no
      2. Google still scrapes your site to train their AI
      3. People don’t care that its wrong, still use Google instead of other search engines
    • InFerNo@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      4 months ago
      1. Say no
      2. You don’t show up in Google search results
      3. You still show up in other search results
      4. Google is no longer bringing the best results
      5. People stop using your site
      6. You lose
    • UprisingVoltage@feddit.it
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      4 months ago

      Unfortunately, the vast majority of people do not give a single fuck and they will use whatever is preinstalled on their device

    • Lvxferre@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      26
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      For now.

      DDG gets search results from Bing, owned by Microsoft. And I wouldn’t be surprised if the later did the same as Google did.

    • melroy@kbin.melroy.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      4 months ago

      DuckDuckGo is just Bing. Which is uh… going from Google to Microsoft. Maybe not much better either

  • Subverb@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    29
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    4 months ago

    We’re at a point where not only should the Internet be classified as a utility, so should Search.

    • Gsus4@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      Yeah, it’s not just e.g. water that is the utility, pipes and pumping stations are part of it. Otherwise you have water…uh…somewhere, go get it yourself.

  • SkyNTP@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    ·
    4 months ago

    Oh look, more anticompetitive shenanigans.

    Break Google up. Bring the full force of antitrust down on them.

    Anything else is an unmitigated disaster waiting to happen.

    • WhatsHerBucket@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      4 months ago

      Same! I swore I wouldn’t pay for a search engine, but I feel like it’s absolutely worth it, considering the current state of things.

    • ZephyrXero@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      It’s definitely better…but. Thanks to Google SEO the internet it’s bringing you results from is still filled with shit

    • douglasg14b@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      I hope it happens one day, but that’s an almost insurmountable task given the scale.

      Take the entirety of the fediverse, and it’s entire history, and you’re probably talking a days worth of search engine indexing compute & storage.

      The scale is large and the fediverse is incredibly small. Keeping my fingers crossed, but definitely not holding my breath.

      In the meantime, I’ll use Kagi.

    • exanime@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      4 months ago

      I found ecosia faster and better results. Just letting you know in case you want to try

            • TheRealKuni@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              4 months ago

              Just looked it up to confirm. From DuckDuckGo’s page on the topic:

              Most of our search result pages feature one or more Instant Answers. To deliver Instant Answers on specific topics, DuckDuckGo leverages many sources, including specialized sources like Sportradar and crowd-sourced sites like Wikipedia. We also maintain our own crawler (DuckDuckBot) and many indexes to support our results. Of course, we have more traditional links and images in our search results too, which we largely source from Bing. Our focus is synthesizing all these sources to create a superior search experience.

    • Squizzy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      Ddg are shit too, search a name and they will relate it you locally even if you turn off regional results.

      Click a link and go back to results and they have changed.

      Ddg is enshittifying.

  • Snowcano@startrek.website
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    4 months ago

    So how do I actually opt out? My website is just some personal hobby stuff on wordpress that only friends and family look at, I don’t need seo.

    • ColinHayhurst@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      Put should put these entries into your robots.txt file.

      To block the Google search crawler use for all of your site:

      User-agent: Googlebot

      Disallow: /

      To block the Google AI crawler use:

      User-agent: Google-Advanced

      Disallow: /

  • Kethal@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    Google is genuinely bad now. I switched to Ecosia which is just Bing with a simpler front end and they use their profits to plant trees. I don’t think Ecosia is particularly special though. Duck Duck Go, Bing whatever, they’re all better than Google.

    Whenever I set up a new computer then search for something, I’m always surprised at first seeing the awful layout and quality of the search results before I realize that I haven’t changed the default search from Google. It’s awful now. Seriously, how are people using it?

    My new favorite way to search is perplexity.ai. It’s an AI search tool that summarizes the loads of crap out there so you don’t need to read through the junk that people write. It provides sources, unlike using ChatGPT, which is incredibly valuable. All AIs make shit up, so having links to double check it is a must. Unlike Bing Chat, or whatever Microsoft calls it this week, you can ask follow up questions to home in on what you want.

  • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    Can someone explain why the fuck Google is pushing this so hard? Generative AI is not a general intelligence, and useless for concrete facts. Google has already demonstrated how shitty it is for information, and the people with the knowledge to work on the project have to know this.

    So why the fuck are they all full steam ahead on something that will always be useless for them?

    • towerful@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      AI is hype.
      They’ve recently signed a deal with Reddit for AI parsable data. Reddit reciprocated by allowing Google to be the only indexable search engine.
      Google now thinks it can do the same to literally everyone else.
      Googling is pretty damn mainstream.
      Don’t give Google your data, then don’t be included in googles search results. It’s like a flip of their previous trade with reddit, except it’s not a trade. It’s extortion.

      Reddit never gave Google traffic. They gave them content and data.
      And Google thinks it can withdraw traffic from other sites unless they get data in return.
      Literally extortion

  • bluewing@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    4 months ago

    I’ve switched from DuckDuckGo to Ghostery Private search. I’ve been happier with the results than DDG.

  • woelkchen@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    4 months ago

    As I understand it, this is only about using search results for summaries. If it’s just that and links to the source, I think it’s OK. What would be absolutely unacceptable is to use the web in general as training data for text and image generation (=write me a story about topic XY).

    • elrik@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      4 months ago

      If it’s just that and links to the source, I think it’s OK.

      No one will click on the source, which means the only visitor to your site is Googlebot.

      What would be absolutely unacceptable is to use the web in general as training data for text and image generation.

      This has already happened and continues to happen.

      • woelkchen@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        4 months ago

        No one will click on the source, which means the only visitor to your site is Googlebot.

        That was the argument with the text snippets from news sources. Publishers successfully lobbied for laws to be passed in many countries that required search engine operators to pay fees. It backfired when Google removed the snippets from news sources that demanded fees from Google. Their visitors dropped by a massive amount, 90% or so, because those results were less attractive to Google users to click on than the nicer results with a snippet and a thumbnail. So “No one will click on the source” has already been disproven 10 or so years ago when the snippet issue was current. All those publishers have entered a free of charge licensing agreement with Google and the laws are still in place. So Google is fine, upstart search engines are not because those cannot pressure the publishers into free deals.

        This has already happened and continues to happen.

        With Gemini?

        • rand_alpha19@moist.catsweat.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          4 months ago

          Look at you, changing my mind with your logicking ways. I think information should be free anyway, but I thought media companies were being at least remotely genuine about the impact here. Forgot that lobbyists be lobbying and that Google wouldn’t have let them win if it didn’t benefit them.

        • elrik@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          The context is not the same. A snippet is incomplete and often lacking important details. It’s minimally tailored to your query unlike a response generated by an LLM. The obvious extension to this is conversational search, where clarification and additional detail still doesn’t require you to click on any sources; you simply ask follow up questions.

          With Gemini?

          Yes. How do you think the Gemini model understands language in the first place?

    • melroy@kbin.melroy.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      that latter will be the case rather sooner than later I’m afraid. It’s just a matter of time with Google.

      • woelkchen@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 months ago

        that latter will be the case rather sooner than later I’m afraid. It’s just a matter of time with Google.

        If that will actually be the case and passes legal challenges, basically all copyright can be abolished which would definitively have some upsides but also downsides. All those video game ROM decompilation projects would be suddenly in the clear, as those are new source code computer-generated from copyrighted binary code, so not really different from a AI generated image based on a copyrighted image used as training data. We could also ask Gemini write a full-length retelling of Harry Potter and just search, replace all trademarked names, and sell that shit. Evil companies could train an AI on GNU/Linux source codes and tell it to write an operating system. Clearly derived work from GPL code but without any copyright to speak of, all that generated code could be legally closed. I don’t like that.