• Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    1 year ago

    “We’ve ignored all the meaningful terms you were searching for. Now here’s a bunch of pinterest and quora spam.”

    • S_204@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I installed the extension that removes Pinterest from searches… it’s great.

  • Chaotic Entropy@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    Half the time I look at a website or article it is just AI generated crap anyway. Oh you want a product review? Here are a half dozen articles that have summarised the Amazon reviews of an item, with no first hand experience.

    • DrMango@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Google “Best vacuum cleaner”

      Top 6 hits: “We evaluated the 5 brands that paid us the most and found that they all suck up your dirt. We can’t really speak ill of any of them because this is an ad and we signed a contract. Please use our embedded links so we can have more money.”

      • Cenzorrll@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        What’s worse is most of what comes up isn’t even a hands on review, it’s literally someone doing what I just did, which is type “vacuum cleaner” into Amazon and see what came up. Then they give it reviews based on the bullshit in the description.

        I want a review from someone who sees these everyday and has a deep hatred of every vacuum in existence. He’s the one who knows that such and such used to be good until they replaced this part with plastic because they have a new CEO, and now it’s no better than a dirt devil.

        At least with vacuums however, there’s a few guys out there with carpet swathes, children, and dogs at home that get to take vacuums from work and do youtube tests with them. Unfortunately they usually don’t try to game the algorithm so they’re pretty deep in there.

    • rm_dash_r_star@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Wikipedia probably has the resources to do it, wikisearch. Somebody talk them into it. But yeah, modern search engines, pretty amazing the ones from two decades ago actually worked better.

    • Chocrates@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      This could be interesting. The infrastructure required to scrape the internet though is going to be so daunting. Google got to build it up slowly as the internet got bigger. Bing is backed by a huge corporation that already has data centers. A new non profit player is going to take a huge coordinated effort.

      • SpikesOtherDog@ani.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        I know P2P had become a dead buzzword, but what if people dedicated a portion of their computers to assisting an open search engine.

        I would wait 30s for accurate results. It could also piggyback on a search aggregator.

    • Jocker@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Hmm… Interesting… That would be great… If only something like that exists now!

  • Captain_Shakespeare@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I swear sometimes it feels like a superpower to have grown up in the 90s and learned the ground rules for multiple OSes, search tools, and file systems - the descendants of which are nearly all still in use today.

    I defer of course to any oldheads who can still bang out a long .bat file or compile and configure Linux; I just mean it’s a very useful quirk of the era that skills learned on windows 3.1 or OSX are still broadly applicable, even in fields where ‘using the computer’ is a minor task of one’s workday.

    • Natal@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I agree so much. It feels like I “understand” how a computer talks and interacts as opposed to most people I work with just learn processes by heart and have no clue what to do once their process breaks.

  • Saneless@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Search engine protocol:

    Ignore first few results (ads)

    Ignore next few results (bullshit spam comparison farms)

    Ignore really annoying site you think is ok but is a usability nightmare

    Ignore subsection of reddit links

    Find 0-1 useful links on first page

    Regret

    • bitsplease@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      idk - you can’t really blame website owners for optimizing their SEO, it’s google’s fault for using such a game-able system IMO

    • xophos@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      SEO is an inevitable result of capitalism and the existence of search engines. If food and shelter for your family depends on it, you will become an asshat too.

  • BlueDwaggin@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    It really winds me up how results that match every search term aren’t prioritised any more. I often search for very specific pieces of hardware, and it’s been a nightmare since the late 2010s. You now have to pore over each result to check that it’s 100% what you’re are looking for.

    SEO exacerbates the problem, but I’d say the root cause is the algorithm itself.

    • Natal@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Have you tried putting your search between " " ? It usually helps improve my results.

      • orbitz@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Thought I’d add for people that may not know, the quotes mean exact match for what’s between the quotes and only give results if it includes that term (unless I mixed something up). Whenever you click on Google’s ‘must include’ it puts quotes around the term. Can be handy or make things worse depending what you’re looking for. Worse is while programming and tracking a specific issue, unless they used the exact words you won’t get a result. Better for part numbers if they never get changed.

        Been awhile since I went into the nitty gritty of the searching functions so if this is incorrect please reply with the correct info, been awhile since I really had to think about what quotes does behind the scenes.

      • BlueDwaggin@pawb.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        That used to work, but these days seems to do little other than sightly change the order of the same useless results.

  • Blapoo@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Once AI is handling search for us, many may never learn the concept of “search term”

    • whatsarefoogee@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      “AI” is already handling the search for you. The big search engines are probably the first mass scale adopters of machine learning.

      And they have lost the war with SEO spam to a hilarious extent. What makes you think the same won’t happen with chat bot AIs? Bad actors (including PR agencies) will inevitably figure out where and how to spam comments in order to bias the AI models in favor of their agendas or products.

      If the data they consume is filled with something like “fossil fuels don’t cause global warming because XYZ”, the chat bots will repeat it. They don’t have the capacity to reason.

      There hasn’t been a reason to flood the internet with low effort spam because it’s easily detected by humans who read it. But the ML algorithms will be a lot easier to trick.

      • Blapoo@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Apologies, I used the overly vague term “AI”. Any company creating an LLM that has web search + scraping capabilities will be at the mercy of the search results.

        That said, LLMs are actually quite skilled at ignoring noise (repetitive data), so gaming SEO may lose popularity. Hell, the practice will DEFINITELY lose appeal once LLMs are just browsing for relevant content and summarizing without any citations (links to the sites). And even of they do cite, no one will click them.

        Convenience > Fact

        tldr; This additional layer of obfuscation between search and result will reshape the fabric of the internet with time

    • Misconduct@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      What’s been pissing me off for years now is googling a specific company and getting a wall of advertisements for their competitors first. So. Dirty.

  • Sarcastik@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    For certain questions/information, ChatGPT provides better summary information than standard search engines like Google/Bing

    • Littleborat@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      A slightly dangerous part is that ChatGPT makes up convincing texts that may be wrong due to misunderstanding and or biased.

      • dingus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yeah I had a coworker say she likes to use ChatGPT to find answers and explanations to questions she has that you would normally Google.

        This is a terrible idea. While it may contain legitimate info, ChatGPT was not designed to give factual answers. It comes up with convincing answers based on text it has read. You’re going to end up with some bad information and it’s a bit dangerous to hear that people are starting to use it that way.

  • Raglesnarf@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    my lil trick is I’d just add “Reddit” after most searches to find others in a similar situation or maybe a solution

      • dingus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Does this work any better than DuckDuckGo? People praise DDG, but imo it’s results are pretty shit and I could never end to sticking with it. It can’t even get basic quoted text syntax correct.

    • Littleborat@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Maybe that does work again after the thing with subreddits going nsfw has been somewhat resolved but not sure. It was my thing too. I heard good things about bing of all places. In general search just got worse over the last 5-6 years.

      • Sparky678348@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        People talk about Bing and duck duck go like they’re good replacements, and I’ve given them honest good faith tries.

        I always switch my search engine back to Google after simply not getting the results I’m looking for

        • jmanjones@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          you can use Google or Bing from duckduckgo using !bangs. g! (for google) or b! (for bing) then whatever you are searching for. I use g! all the time for non privacy related things. and since duckduckgo doesn’t use trackers and all that the results can be terrible so sometimes I just resort to using g!

          • dingus@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            Using DuckDuckGo to search through Google seems pretty damn pointless if you ask me. If the search engine is shit and I am just roundabout using Google then why even bother?

            I know you said the thing about trackers, but a lot of us don’t really care about that. If the end result is just using Google anyway then I’d rather just start with Google and not use another site to use Google.

            • jmanjones@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              oh yeah. if you don’t care, there really is not a point to use duckduckgo. I should say IMO because I’m sure a much more technically minded person will have a better answer.