- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
I guess we all kinda knew that, but it’s always nice to have a study backing your opinions.
You must log in or register to comment.
What fight? Google is making money, and nearly everyone is playing Google’s game following their tune. Google is definitely not losing.
A lot of people dont remember pre-google these days.
Normal search engines worked, but Google was better results.
Now that every website is gaming SEO and the top half of search results is ads that pay to be first…
Google isn’t that much better. I went to DuckDuckGo recently. The only thing Google does better is local results. But that’s because Google always knows where I am and where I’ve been.
There’s no longer a reason to use Google as a search engine, except habit.
Pretty much same with chrome
The main thing that got me switching to Google back then wasn’t the better results, but their promise not to collect or use our data.
That all changed after 9/11, but by then Google had grown so huge it was hard to avoid them.
Even so, I still went back to Webcrawler and the others quite a lot and never really consistently used one search engine faithfully.
DDG uses Bing as the search API, and I don’t see any evidence that it doesn’t use SEO as well.
Just to be clear; “SEO” or “Search Engine Optimization” is a technique marketers use to craft web pages in a way that tricks search engine crawlers into considering them more relevant. It is not something search engines themselves do, and in many cases they actively fight against it.
So, it’s not whether or not DuckDuckGo uses SEO, it’s whether or not they’re susceptible to it.
Coincidentally, I happen to have been reading into SEO more in depth this week. Specifically official SEO docs by google:
https://developers.google.com/search/docs/fundamentals/seo-starter-guide
To be clear, SEO isn’t about tricking search engines per se. First and foremost it’s about optimizing a given website so that the crawling and indexing of the website’s content is working well.
It’s just that various websites have tried various “tricks” over time to mislead the crawling, indexing and ultimately the search engine ranking, just so their website comes up higher and more often than it should based on its content’s quality and relevancy.
Tricks like:
- keyword stuffing
- hidden content just visible to crawlers
- …
Those docs linked above (that link is just part of much more docs) even mention many of those “tricks” and explicitely advise against them, as it will cause websites to be penalized in their ranking.
Well, at least that’s what the docs say. In the end it’s an “arms race” between search engines and trickery using websites.
I remember pre-Google. There were a few human curated sites back then (like DMoz and Yahoo). I’m thinking that might be a way to combat spam and AI sites. As a side bonus, maybe it will help de-Google the planet.
I’m looking for a Wikipedia-but-for-the-web, where human curators find real web content for me. I found Curlie.org, and tried to sign up for it, but never got a response back on my sign-ups. Still I’m hopeful for something like that.
Yahoo was DMOZ.
DMOZ had 100k volunteers curating the content at some point, and had a whole complex process to prevent abuse and so on. It will be hard to get going again.
But yeah, who would’ve thought that a mere decade after being discontinued it would become relevant again.
There’s no longer a reason to use Google as a search engine, except habit.
I need to rollback to Google from DDG because the latter seems to refuse to understand that I want to find specific words with “”
And DDG isn’t perfect either, I need to add Reddit as well more than I’d like to.
The Google ads team is functionally all of the company’s revenue.
Google search still remains their most used product offering with most of their ad revenue (58.1% in 2022).
Google leadership is terrified that anyone could eat their lunch, because they know the search offering is getting worse and worse.
The origin of Google was taking out complacent search companies that had gotten comfy.
I’m pretty sure when I was laid off (1 year ago yesterday ❤️❤️ thanks Google) it was because they saw LLMs as a threat they hadn’t taken seriously enough… Combined with that asshole billionaire being pissy that Google was only making 1.2 million per employee instead of 1.3 million.
I switched to DDG merely to get rid of Google’s irrelevant paid results up top.
If I’m searching for brand model manual I don’t need every competitor’s marketing detritus.
Likewise contact details etc… it’s maddening.
So Bing. Got it
Nah, AltaVista is where it’s really at.
I’m talking about how DDG is just Bing-ish.
Yes, but DDG seems to have worse organic results in my experience. I mean the bar is low, but DDG falls under it.
Oh yeah, the results are worse, but at least I can filter with search grammar and not also have to mentally filter out the ads too.
I’m not sure if we’ve ended up back at the ol’ altavista/askjeeves keyword-stuffed hell yet, but it’s close.
There are literal careers dedicated to gaming search results. That’s bound to happen.
IMHO, the problem with Google isn’t SEO. It’s Google. When Google was great, it would find exactly what you were searching for. The whole point was to get you off of Google and on to whatever site you were looking for as quickly as possible. Over the last several years, their search has increasingly been drinking the ‘engagement algorithm’ Kool-Aid. Now Google doesn’t search for what you ask, it searches for what it thinks you are trying to find. Which is fucking useless because I know exactly what I’m trying to find and that’s exactly what I typed in. Selecting verbatim search and putting things in quotes helps. But it’s still displays tons of irrelevant stuff that doesn’t include what I searched for.
It’s actually easy to point to exactly when the downfall started. Years ago Google was trying to make a social network called Google+ that would compete with Facebook. Before this, a + operator in the search field meant only show results that contain that particular term. But they wanted people to search for Google+, so they changed it so the plus sign became a searchable term and quotes were necessary to include a term or phrase. That was the moment Google decided that search wasn’t their most important product. And it’s been slow downhill ever since.
Okay, sure that was bad. But consider all the value that we’ve gained by having a lively and competitive alternative to Facebook! I mean, who do you know that doesn’t treat Google+ as their first point of contact with the internet?
Lol Don’t know anybody that does that, not since they closed in 2019 :P Amusingly, double quotes are still the standard ‘must include’ operator on Google search.
Google has also completely blown a very good opportunity to make a ubiquitous chat system. Several iterations of Google talk and Google meet and the like, only one of which federated outside of Google, none of which are compatible with each other, all of which seem to get remade or rebranded every few years.
Competitor to Facebook would have been a great idea. I had actually planned to join Google+. But shortly after it launched they started pushing it so fucking hard, like almost sneakly signing up people for it and making it damn near required to do anything, that made me say hell no. I’m pretty sure I wasn’t alone in that regard.
I don’t know what the hell is going on at Big G HQ, but it doesn’t seem like they have much of any real mission these days. Haven’t really since ‘don’t be evil’ stopped being part of their mission statement.
I don’t know what the hell is going on at Big G HQ, but it doesn’t seem like they have much of any real mission these days.
The company is increasingly compelled by Wall Street pressures
The latest round of layoffs was practically dictated by activist investors like Christopher Hohn.
Stupid short sighted crap too. Complaining about excessive compensation and too much stock given away… That’s the people who build the best generation of money making products there. If they have no skin in the game and aren’t being compensated well, they aren’t going to attract and keep the best talent. The best talent is going to go to companies like Tesla and OpenAI and various startups where those people have a chance to become millionaires on stock options.
It’s one thing to pull the Netflix strategy, keep only the very best of the best people, pay them a lot, and get rid of everybody else. But treating labor overall like a cost and not an investment is not a good long-term strategy.
Yeah it’s pretty wild how bad search results have been lately. The unfettered proliferation of AI bullshit on the internet is gonna have some really goddamn irritating impacts on just about everything I think.
I’m really enjoying perplexity.ai most of the time you just get the answer you’re looking for.
Arent they trying to make their search worse so you have to search multiple times, showing you more ads?
The study found that ddg was worse than google though. But they only searched for products, so nk complete “test”.
I remember back in the day when the same shit was happening because websites would just put, like, an entire dictionary in tiny, hidden text somewhere at the bottom of the main page so it would have a greater chance of showing up no matter what you typed into the search engine.
It’s pretty wild that they didn’t think about people doing exactly the same thing with all the new methods they came up with to make searches “relevant” since that was one thing that made Google so much better than the competition back then.
Any system you make to push certain things over other things are going to be figured out and gamed.
First I tried duckduckgo, now I’m checking out kagi.
Yea
I’ve been trying DuckDuckGo recently and already started seeing some better results. I’m not ready to change my default search engine yet, but if it keeps up I could see that happening sooner than later.
Same on the default search changing, I’m very much used to Google Search and it’s gonna take me a while before I switch. Though I’ve already managed to switch from Gmail and it’s kinda refreshing, so this will be just another step.
deleted by creator
Google search has,become so bad I couldn’t even get the number of my insurance company yesterday. There was nothing but spam on the first page. I am in the market for something new.
Same. Though according to the article, Google is still better than competition, so yeah, not that many alternatives.
and the study itself points out that Google has improved over the past year and is performing better than other search engines. More broadly, numerous third parties have measured search engine results for other types of queries and found Google to be of significantly higher quality than the rest.
I’m curious what query you used.
I’ve been noticing this the past 6 months or so. It’s not much different than duckduckgo now. And now I’m thinking I need to find more search engines since google is no longer the end all be all when I’m looking for something.
