Live data from Hacker News

The world needs a non-profit search engine

daoudclarke.net

351–360 of 396 posts

Re: The world needs a non-profit search engine

#351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To your last point, I don’t quite agree. Google’s incentives are misaligned such that keeping you on Google.com just a little longer is better than not because you are more likely to click on an ad. But also yes the users and the UI both fail. When I used to search for something I would type in something like “gutter clog clean” but slowly started noticing that Google likes longer sentences like “how do I clean a clo…

>Search would be infinitely better if they actually fucking respected literal mode and stopped trying to treat me like an idiot with no attention span. Having search results that contain one out of like 8 words in my query and asking me if I want to include others and then when I say I do still showing me results without them is broken UI and not a user problem. Use Verbatim?

Agree verbatim in this specific situation is likely answer, though did not point it out since they clearly think they understand how to search; verbatim has been an option as long as non-verbatim search has been used by Google.

Beyond that, complaining Google does not do XYZ misses the point. Google is a search engine designed for the average user and the average user does not want verbatim search. They also do not want: advanced search operators, true Boolean search, regular expressions, API access to search, open source code, real-time streams of pages Google’s crawling, etc.

What they do want and always have is natural language based searches in there language of preference with clarifying responses from the search engine in natural language; that is, they want to treat a search engine like a person and be treated like a person; which was odd that they referenced Knowsmore, since Knowsmore [1] used keyword based searches, not plain language searches.

Google is not the primary problem, the average user is the issue. Unless people realize that — they’re fighting in a war they do not even understand.

To make it even more clear, Google is easily able to detect and block users blocking ADs, but they do not. More than 60% of users still don’t block ADs; not because they love ADs, but because effort to figure it out simply is not worth it to them, they like ADs, etc.

[1] https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=T3wiGSXbeQE

Re: The world needs a non-profit search engine

#352
post #107
post #90

Perhaps a better approach would be building an open source www index or even a full current cache - as an enabler for people to build their own search engines? Right now it is extremely difficult to build your own web crawler that would compete with Google. And that is not because of the technology, but because multiple sites will prevent your bot from accessing them if you're not Google or Bing - either through robo…

The data is available! Not currently documented but check out the code for the API.

I'm curious if you think a co-op would be feasible between Mwmbl and other like-minded crawlers who are interested in taking a divide-and-conquer approach to crawling the web.

Re: The world needs a non-profit search engine

#353
post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do too. However, I am responsible for a couple of sites that Bing absolutely refuses to even index. Google has no issues with them, not for 10 years running. Those sites are effectively invisible in Bing and therefore DuckDuckGo. I’m not talking about low ranking, the entire domain is ignored. My own personal website for example is not even listed in the search engine I use. Microsoft support see the issue but have…

Interesting, can you give an example page that’s not listed?

Sure. A very simple one would be https://ipbl.herrbischoff.com, a public blocklist page referencing a resource used by a couple dozen users. The HTML doesn't get a lot simpler than that and is entirely valid markup. It's (unsurprisingly) low ranked in Google but it's there.

Not so in Bing, it's simply not there. The page exists since March 2021. Bing Webmaster Tools reads "Discovered but not crawled. URL cannot appear on Bing", giving no further reason. Also: "Last crawl attempted 01 Feb 2022 at 19:35", which means that Bing did not bother to retry for months, despite me submitting it manually on a regular basis. Clicking the "Live URL" tab results in entirely green checkmarks along with "URL can be indexed by Bing".

Another example would be my personal site: https://herrbischoff.com. Same issue. That one is listed on Google for more than 10 years.

Re: The world needs a non-profit search engine

#354

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It is surprisingly hard to extract monetary value from an intrinsically valuable solution. This is like saying that our entire economic system is backward ...

I have no idea what gp means by this. It can be surprisingly hard, but it's not always. Go buy a cooler of water bottles and sell them for 50c in the summer on the side of the street

Those sell for $5 in some places.

Re: The world needs a non-profit search engine

#355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> SEO and all it's results seem to be immanent to the system. I believe you mean 'inherent'.

Google define immanent: immanent: adjective existing or operating within; inherent. "the protection of liberties is immanent in constitutional arrangements" synonyms: inherent, intrinsic, innate, built-in, latent, essential, fundamental, basic, ingrained, natural

I stand corrected, didn't realize this.

Re: The world needs a non-profit search engine

#356

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Search would be infinitely better if they actually fucking respected literal mode and stopped trying to treat me like an idiot with no attention span. Having search results that contain one out of like 8 words in my query and asking me if I want to include others and then when I say I do still showing me results without them is broken UI and not a user problem. Use Verbatim?

Agree verbatim in this specific situation is likely answer, though did not point it out since they clearly think they understand how to search; verbatim has been an option as long as non-verbatim search has been used by Google. Beyond that, complaining Google does not do XYZ misses the point. Google is a search engine designed for the average user and the average user does not want verbatim search. They also do not w…

>What they do want and always have is natural language based searches in there language of preference with clarifying responses from the search engine in natural language; that is, they want to treat a search engine like a person and be treated like a person

I agree with you but Google is not yet at that point where it can act and serve people like an Answer Machine that knows everything; both the people's preferences and the perfect answers.

>Google is not the primary problem, the average user is the issue. Unless people realize that — they’re fighting in a war they do not even understand.

Again I agree that casual users are the problem but how we can help them? This is the The Innovator's Dilemma[0] where if we ask casual users what new stuff they want from Google Search, they will answer "nothing". Because even they themselves don't know how their UX can be or should be improved and on top of that they are satisfied with Google's mediocrity. They would just respond "Google is Google".

>Beyond that, complaining Google does not do XYZ misses the point. Google is a search engine designed for the average user and the average user does not want verbatim search. They also do not want: advanced search operators, true Boolean search, regular expressions, API access to search, open source code, real-time streams of pages Google’s crawling, etc.

Complexity of constructing "complex" search queries needs to be simplified so casual users can use such features and queries.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Innovator's_Dilemma

Re: The world needs a non-profit search engine

#357
post #167

It's perhaps a bit on the side but still part of the topic of search. Have you noticed how newspapers systematically do not supply a clear source for their articles? It's especially prevalent on political cases where there are easy-to-link paper trails. This makes it a lot harder to find the source for their article, so you end up just taking their word for their angle on the story. A great recent example is Biden's…

I've noted that many newspapers don't provide external links as a rule, though that reluctance seems to be slipping somewhat. Unfortunately, that's accompanied by an tendency for those external links to rot with extreme speed and prejudice, which ... might actually justify the reluctance.

Linking an archived copy of the content has merits, though increasing The Usual Suspect (the Internet Archive's Wayback Machine) itself has difficulty in preserving complex content. (The rather less transparent Archive.Today is often superior in quality if not necessarily in trust or reputation, and I say that relying on it heavily myself.)

I know that I've noted news organisations which do seem to link sources relatively freely, and thought I'd commented on it previously. I'm not finding any previous mentions by me here at HN (my usual personal quips trove, amongst other benefits). Though if memory serves, the New York Times tends not to provide links where it really ought to. I believe the Los Angeles Times might have a greater tendency to. Perhaps also NPR and/or The Guardian which I tend to rely on, though I'm not certain that's been my earlier observation.

In the 19th century and through a good part of the early 20th, newspapers would not only reference specific documents or speeches but publish them in whole. In large part, this is because that was the only way to distribute and reference the material. That practice has waned tremendously, and we often see material only through commentary and reference, rather than in original form. I've come to view this quite dimly.

I'm also fairly certain that copyright is a major consideration and factor here, and another way in which it's proving a disservice to the public good.

Re: The world needs a non-profit search engine

#358

>Google makes $40bn...If I can create something that just a tiny fraction of people find useful, then I can create a huge amount of value. You conflate two meanings of value: monetary value, and intrinsic value. Search engines are intrinsically but not monetarily valuable to users. Search engines are monetarily, but not intrinsically, valuable to advertisers. You can get into trouble when you conflate these two meani…

I don't think artificial scarcity makes sense as a mental model here. A better way to make money is probably to just find some way where people need you. When you contribute your work to the commons through open source, it earns you a lot of love and admiration. However people don't need you. It's kind of the whole point. The biggest technological services in our society that are the most crucially needed, were all built on open source. Since the whole point of open source is to give you the power and opportunity to build things you can control yourself.

The people who build stuff with open source are very smart, so they usually don't need foss devs as consultants to explain to them how to do it. I make some of the most popular projects on this website. Been doing it for years. I get plenty of donations because my work makes people so happy. But no one has ever offered to pay me for something in return, since I don't have anything with any economic value, other than me myself. So I get plenty of job offers from people who would love to be able to say I'm their employee. Since controlling people is about as valuable as controlling the services people need.

It'd be nice if our cultural mythology about earning your keep doing an honest day's work through fair trade was how the system worked, rather than me needing to depend on the gift economy that's funded by control. But I think there was just so much abuse of the classic models of human cooperation that they just couldn't transition to the digital era, and as such we need to find a way to adapt.

Re: The world needs a non-profit search engine

#359
post #155

Disclaimer: I work for Google, though far away from Search. Regardless of search engine design, there's HUGE money in SEO. Any successful search engine will be gamed. Do you have the developer power to go red-queen against all the large companies in the world?

> Do you have the developer power to go red-queen against all the large companies in the world?

Let's try? It's also an interesting research topic in itself and might be a topic for academic research. At the moment Google is a black box and their incentives are not really aligned to stop SEO. It's good for them to show more ads, it's good for them to show you copycat pages of github/stackoverflow with ads. Not saying that Google is doing this on purpose - I doubt it - but we don't know. It's surely possible to create an index and ranking that prefers different things than Google.

Let's try something at least. It will be gamed, will be worse probably but it's open and can be a playground for academic research.

Best that can happen is that there are ways to for a better ranking and Google was dishonest to maximize profit. If it's still gamed at least the mechanics can be studied and analysed and maybe someone can figure out a switch like 'be unfair in ways Google can't' - would love a 'no ads on the page' switch that would probably solve quite a few problems.

Trust our black-box and you won't have enough devs for this is just a bad answer for such an important problem. The amount of stupid simple redirection spam in my results in the last few years also looks like that Google just doesn't care alot about this anymore.

Post reply on HN