Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The next Google

dkb.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

341–350 of 561 posts

Re: The next Google

#341

Post by 542458 »

educaysean wrote: post #105
davidkunz wrote: post #9

> The next Google can’t just be an input box that spits out links. An input box that spits out links is _exactly_ what I want.

Your answer reminded me of the Ford quote: "If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses." I don't mean that in a derogatory sense, I just strongly believe that in 20 years we'll look back at our Googling years and wonder how we managed to find anything at all. Who know what the next pattern of information retrieval will be, but I personally think it'll be an even bigger jump than the ju…

I don’t think Ford ever said that, and I don’t think that quote is a good argument for not listening to users. Cars existed pre-Henry-Ford. They were just expensive. Many people could have correctly identified the need for a more affordable car. Ford’s innovation was actually doing it.

Also the Ford company’s dogged resistance to listening to customer wants (“Any colour you want so long as it is black”) hurt Ford as soon as they had to compete on anything but price, with GM finding success with “a car for every purse and purpose”. From 1921 to 1927 Ford went from controlling 65% of the American car market to just 15%.

All that to say: “innovator vision that flies contrary to common sentiment about what people want” is often overrated and can be a trap. That’s not to say that the customer is always right… but they’re not always wrong either.

Re: The next Google

#342

Post by dannywarner »

richardsocher wrote: post #313
hans1729 wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>it only gets away with it because it owns the web browser through Chrome, Android and its Apple deal for Safari. From someone who tried the switch to duckduckgo and uses ddg as the default engine: I can't remember the last query I typed without adding "!g". Google doesn't get my queries because the service is shoved down my throat, it gets them because the alternatives I tried are worse wrt the total scope of my que…

Would love your feedback on https://you.com - actually has most capabilities that G has and also has the same bangs as DDG.

Dude why do you have to fill these threads about all the spam on search with yet more spam promoting your crappy Bing-based search engine. Just let the conversation happen without all the self promotion ok? Jeez Louise this is annoying!

Re: The next Google

#343

Post by m_ke »

I always thought Facebook getting into search could be big since they have really good engagement data based on what people post and like but I was just listening to TWIST (https://youtu.be/KfibbbLeT3c?t=4014) and they made a great point about the potential of Apple Spotlight Search being a way for Apple to expand into search and advertising. If Apple ends up turning spotlight into a proper search engine across web and apps it could really take a decent portion of the market from Google and FB, especially since all of the premium users are already in the Apple ecosystem.

The dream search engine would always be a click/swipe away and have access to all of your personal data/documents and the web, if Apple wants it CMD+SPACE could really be that.

Re: The next Google

#344

Post by chaostheory »

boomer918 wrote: post #12

These solutions don't answer any of the fundamental problems with Google: - who pays for the service (ads? users pay? Average user will never use a paid service if a free one is available) - how to resist attacks against the algorithm (Google has been fighting spam for decades) - how to personalize without invading privacy, e.g. Google had an option to search through your email in Google search...it's gone now, I won…

Adding on to this, customization is nice but customization is not why DuckDuckGo isn't as good as Google. The reason nothing is as good as Google is because Google indexes way more content than every other service that I'm aware of

Re: The next Google

#345

Post by redmen »

user3939382 wrote: post #332
baxtr wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This. People don't realize that the early web was elitist. Now, the entire population is online. And, as you said, most people simply don't care about the stuff we care about. That's also why "Google's search results are soo bad." They're not. For the bulk of Google's visitors, they're good enough.

> For the bulk of Google's visitors, they're good enough I'm not sure that's true. Just to pick an example, basically any type of product search now leads to auto-generated spam/borderline-spam websites that scrape reviews from Amazon, which are themselves often fraudulent. I guess you could say that's "good enough" but only in the sense that someone being scammed at some point consents to something that makes them a…

To add to that, most people are satisfied with snake oil and false cures.

I guess you could call that good enough.. I call it morally irresponsible.

Re: The next Google

#346

Post by redmen »

drusepth wrote: post #242
nicce wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That's why TikTok is so successful. More likely, it exploits human's cognitive weaknesses successfully with a simple way. It learns how how people get their dopamine dose. And there is no going back. You need more and more, more extreme content. More polarization. All you need to do is to open app and get that dose. Is it the same for search engine? And people make more crazy stuff to get views. How this ends? Not…

>You need more and more, more extreme content. More polarization. This seems a little sensational. Many people (myself and most of my friends included) don't see _any_ "extreme" content or polarization. A quick scroll through my feed is largely nothing but magnet fishing, frog tracking, cats, DIY projects, and geologists talking about rocks. It's enjoyable and arguably a dopamine dose on-demand, but not necessarily a…

Just being honest but maybe your friends aren't the type that are into politics and controversial topics?

Re: The next Google

#347

Post by pedalpete »

Barrin92 wrote: post #45

I think 'more customization' which is a theme with a lot of these alternatives is a fundamental dead end. I don't know where this persistent myth comes from that people love choice and tinkering, because they clearly don't. There's a huge cost associated with having to make choices, and one feature of successful modern apps is that they're frictionless. That's why TikTok is so successful. There's no login, no user ch…

Spot on. Back in the days of web portals, millions was spent on making them customizable. I can't find a link, but I believe back in the early 2000s reading that less than 5% of people actually customized their portal.

Re: The next Google

#348

Post by thesunkid »

wormer wrote: post #211
airstrike wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Reddit's own search has become less reliable Not sure what you mean... It's always been an absolute pile of shit

Yea I always just put in the question I want into DDG and then just add reddit in the end. It's so much better than any blog or anything because at least it gives the semblance of real users giving their opinion.

I like you.com search better, as their reddit app yields less fussy results than the reddit search itself and i normally don't have to append reddit at the end of my query.

Re: The next Google

#349

Post by tomc1985 »

baxtr wrote: post #225
idiotsecant wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The death of the web is because most people don't want what you want. They don't mind walled gardens, so long as they are easy to use and have the content and connections that they want to see. The audience of HN is extremely skewed towards preferring systems that allow tinkering but that's not what the market wants.

This. People don't realize that the early web was elitist. Now, the entire population is online. And, as you said, most people simply don't care about the stuff we care about. That's also why "Google's search results are soo bad." They're not. For the bulk of Google's visitors, they're good enough.

Which is why good is the enemy of great.

Re: The next Google

#350

Post by gorjusborg »

tobyjsullivan wrote: post #339
mattcwilson wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wondering if, by “elitist”, GP meant more like “out of reach to many laypeople because of learning curve.” Is there a good single word for that? “Difficult” and “complex” aren’t quite right. Anyway - you’re right, nothing at all wrong with wanting choice. I think the point being made here though is that “layperson gravity” / mass market appeals / lowest common denominator is going to mean that tuneable web search wil…

"High barrier to entry" ie, only accessible to an elite class (1337, if you will) "Elitist" feels pejorative. Also a not-inaccurate way to describe a system which presents high barriers to entry.

Yes. The early internet wasn't elitist but a higher percentage were elite than today.
Post reply on HN