At this point, we can all just drop SEO [0]. We are writing content for a robot that hides the source of information. [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49665572
Wait, so what about the keywords in my meta tags?
google.com/goto: Google's anti-scraping update
431–440 of 545 posts
Re: google.com/goto: Google's anti-scraping update
#432Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have, and it has never been good for my purposes. In English, I just can't find things I need, in Russian, I find things I wish to never see again, tbh. What is your experience with it? Edit: The best search for my purposes historically has been on Pinterest. Unfortunately, not anymore. I normally search for visual artifacts (photos, art, schematics, etc), out of all search engines Google is still the only one that…
Have you tried its image search? It's pretty good compared to its competitors. Google's image search fell off as they severely nerfed it.
Google is terrible these days, I agree.
Re: google.com/goto: Google's anti-scraping update
#433Earlier quoted context omitted.
Whenever I've tried this, it seems okay if you need an answer to a question, but plain bad if I'm looking for a specific page. e.g. I'm just now looking for the menu for a local restaurant. "restaurantname menu" in Kagi (Google would presumably be similar) returns a link to the menu as the first result in about a second. Or "restaurantname menu !" goes directly to the menu in about a second. Meanwhile, searching "res…
You might have better luck using google maps (even the web version) to find menus.
Yeah, I would... but also a search engine works even better than a map if it's a restaurant I'm already familiar with and just want a link to restaurantwebsite.com/dinner-menu
Re: google.com/goto: Google's anti-scraping update
#434Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Worth the $5 for me Steep at 300 searches per month or about 10 per day. If you search often, it is too expensive. If you rarely search, not worth 5 bucks. They are plainly trying to push people to their $10 unlimited plan. I would have appreciated if they allowed, say, 600 searches per month for $5 or so.
Pretty much sums up why Google’s business model changed. Everyone wants good search, few are willing to be even $10/mo.
You know how many things are asking for "~$10/mo". People don't have the purchasing power they used to, and everything has a subscription model. Firefox with DDG is good enough.
Re: google.com/goto: Google's anti-scraping update
#435Earlier quoted context omitted.
what is that not true of? HN and your post on it is paying with our planet
Everything uses energy. AI is uniquely bad due to its scale. Comparing AI inference and training with posting a one-line comment on a website is like comparing wildfires with candles because they both produce heat. It's true but useless as an argument.
Complaining about AI is just a meme. There are tons of things that use way more energy for arguably way less utility to humans.
Re: google.com/goto: Google's anti-scraping update
#436Earlier quoted context omitted.
The real "old-school Google, but modern" is Kagi, with the caveat of being paid. (Worth the $5 for me.) But LLMs can be commanded. This is may bookmark alias for invoking the spirit of old Gog=ogle from within the new, AI-based Google: https://google.com/search?q=You%20are%20Google%20Search%20fr... (Cleaned / decoded: 'You are Google Search from 2004. Given a search request, provide 10 links to relevant pages, each w…
I like Kagi, but is it me or have their results been less than great for the past 1-3mo? Maybe the places they're pulling their results from have had some changes?
I haven't noticed.
Re: google.com/goto: Google's anti-scraping update
#437Earlier quoted context omitted.
People have this fixation on privacy, when there's so much more going on, potentially way mor important. Google's strong position in AI gives them bragging right to attract more companies and get them to actually pay, subsidizing your use. It also lowers competitors position as you're not touching them while we're on Gemini. It also fortifies their position in the future ad market. Being second or third in AI usage i…
It's two totally different matters. I won't be first, second or third in the AI race. I'm not even participating in that race. I don't care who wins. However my private data are mine and I do care about them. It's Google and those other companies that may not care about my privacy, because the AI race is more important to them. If AI is going to cost too much, I will use a cheaper one (Ferrari or FIAT?) or if every A…
> You're paying with your data.
Parent was pointing at the value exchange, and I argued that users' privacy is not the currency Google deals with.
Your privacy can be valuable to you, it just has no weight on the exchange.
Re: google.com/goto: Google's anti-scraping update
#438Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Worth the $5 for me Steep at 300 searches per month or about 10 per day. If you search often, it is too expensive. If you rarely search, not worth 5 bucks. They are plainly trying to push people to their $10 unlimited plan. I would have appreciated if they allowed, say, 600 searches per month for $5 or so.
Pretty much sums up why Google’s business model changed. Everyone wants good search, few are willing to be even $10/mo.
If they charged a newspaper price for it per se (like $1 a month), Google would be rolling in cash with as many users they have.
Re: google.com/goto: Google's anti-scraping update
#439Earlier quoted context omitted.
The advert paradox, anyone willing to spend money to avoid ads is inherently worth more to advertisers, since they're willing to spend money. The more money you're willing to pay to avoid ads the more you're worth to advertisers. That's why tools like uBlock and YouTube morphe are the only answer, negotiating with terrorists never works.
> That's why tools like uBlock and YouTube morphe are the only answer, negotiating with terrorists never works. This is silly. The economy doesn't work if no one is willing to pay for goods. The content you're consuming won't be made if theres no market value to create it in the first place. Pirating is not a solution to our data privacy problem.
The capitalist economy is based on the explicit idea that everyone will do everything they can to extract value from everyone else, and it'll come to some kind of equilibrium. If you do not do this but you allow everyone else to do this, you receive worse quality products for ridiculous prices and do nothing about it.
In other words, you owe me $1000 as a condition of reading this comment. Your options are to unread the comment, pay me $1000, or pay me nothing to incentivize me to charge a price you'll actually pay (likely $0.00 for comments but not for everything)
Re: google.com/goto: Google's anti-scraping update
#440Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Worth the $5 for me Steep at 300 searches per month or about 10 per day. If you search often, it is too expensive. If you rarely search, not worth 5 bucks. They are plainly trying to push people to their $10 unlimited plan. I would have appreciated if they allowed, say, 600 searches per month for $5 or so.
FWIW Kagi has worked hard on their pricing over the last few years and has been trying different models. They're not "big search" the price is what it is so it can exist as a business. 100% fine to not be a customer obviously, but then you forfeit your license to complain about Google spying on you and ruining the web. Like they're trying to solve the problem. IMHO speaking just for myself I feel a moral duty to supp…
I agree on all your points. I'm just saying, that the $5 tier is not a honest to good option. The $10 one is but they can make the $5 one genuine too by increasing the quota. I'm sure they have done their research and maybe increasing it will cannibalize the $10 tier.