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

google.com/goto: Google's anti-scraping update

autom.dev

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

481–490 of 545 posts

Re: google.com/goto: Google's anti-scraping update

#481

Post by Dylan16807 »

joeblubaugh wrote: post #462
Dylan16807 wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But the extension doesn't need to use that exact mechanism, and the person that linked it didn't mention specific mechanisms. The purpose of the extension is putting the real URLs back, and it can still do that. And it can still prevent google from knowing which search results you click on, even though OP didn't mention that feature.

You can read the extension source, and description. It is obvious that what it does is strip url parameters and decode well known google encodings.

I said it can use a different mechanism. Why would I want to read the code for more details on the current mechanism?

Re: google.com/goto: Google's anti-scraping update

#482

Post by mplewis »

noisy_boy wrote: post #145
nine_k wrote: post #110

Earlier 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…

> 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.

The $10 plan is worth it.

Re: google.com/goto: Google's anti-scraping update

#483

Post by dabbz »

II2II wrote: post #478
mitxela wrote: post #457

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As they said, you wouldn't pay $10/month for search. This is why free pay-with-your-data services won. Nobody wants to pay for what they use, so companies extract value in other ways and you can't complain about that if you're not willing to pay what it costs.

> Nobody wants to pay for what they use, so companies extract value in other ways and you can't complain about that if you're not willing to pay what it costs. I'm likely old school here, but I never liked "paying for what I use" in the online world because it required revealing some personally identifying information (i.e. to make payment). My attitude is almost certainly irrelevant these days, with the scope of onl…

I mean, there’s more privacy protection on payment data than there is for email address and browsing habits. Plus most companies just push out payment handling to stripe. So most websites have little idea who actually transacted with them to begin with (email dependent).

Re: google.com/goto: Google's anti-scraping update

#484

Post by jasongill »

venusenvy47 wrote: post #425
1e1a wrote: post #2

Direct URLs in Google search results have been replaced with redirect URLs in the form of www.google.com/goto?url= . The base64 data appears to consist of a very basic protobuf structure, containing a long string of bytes in field 2 which presumably identify the URL. Sometimes, these redirect URLs take a perceivable amount of time to load, which is very irritating.

When does that happen? I still get a normal address: https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-m&q=direct%...

Try it in a private browsing window - if you are logged in, Google will link directly to the result, but if you aren't logged in, it appears to be redirecting through their /goto endpoint

Re: google.com/goto: Google's anti-scraping update

#485

Post by celsoazevedo »

nine_k wrote: post #472
celsoazevedo wrote: post #461

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Kagi seems to heavily rely on Yandex for results. I don't use it, so can't compare, but are results much better than using Yandex directly?

I'd say that the ranking, and thus the relevance, is noticeably higher. If I know what I want to find, Kagi is good at surfacing exactly that, not something vaguely related.

I see, thanks.

Re: google.com/goto: Google's anti-scraping update

#486

Post by 9865322689965 »

mitxela wrote: post #192
nicbou wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's rather frustrating that after they crawled my website to use for their AI without my consent, and using that AI to slowly strangle my traffic, they're not happy that _other people_ are doing the same to them.

This is what capitalism's all about. Take as much as possible and give as little as possible if you want to win. Ideally, give negative amounts.

As opposed to you communists who freely deal out death.

Re: google.com/goto: Google's anti-scraping update

#487

Post by tyre »

Avicebron wrote: post #434
brookst wrote: post #421

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[dead]

Re: google.com/goto: Google's anti-scraping update

#488

Post by VonGallifrey »

mitxela wrote: post #367
altmanaltman wrote: post #358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand your logic. Why would someone that never sees my ads be valuable to me? Why would I care? Everyone spends money on something, the fact you spend it on adblockers doesn't make you automatically more valuable to advertisers. I have never heard of this "advert paradox" concept you mention and I have worked in industry for a while now. All this is just conjecture on your part and doesn't really corresp…

If you have $20 to spend avoiding ads, you have $30 to spend on cool products so the advertiser is willing to spend up to $24 to make you not block ads about a $30 product you'll buy (that costs $5 to make)

> If you have $20 to spend avoiding ads, you have $30 to spend on cool products

Yes, but if you are so against ads that you spend $20 to not see ads (I am definitely in this group) and then see an ad for a "cool product" anyway, then that product is no longer cool. Any time something like this happens, I legitimately develop a grudge against that company and their products.

I might have bought that product before seeing the ad, but there is no chance of that after seeing the ad.

Re: google.com/goto: Google's anti-scraping update

#489

Post by tyre »

docmars wrote: post #438
brookst wrote: post #421

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Newspapers are not $1/month.

And Google's ad revenue is likely more than that. Or, if it's not for every user, the ones who would opt out of ads are the ones who can pay. You're cannibalizing your highest value users.

Post reply on HN