This reminds me of the user interface for pied piper’s compression algorithm
The next Google
11–20 of 561 posts
Re: The next Google
#12These 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 wonder why?
Re: The next Google
#13Search is the wrong way to look at it. It needs to answer questions, like an oracle.
Anyway, Google is getting less relevant because the technology is getting better than "good enough", and any additional tech that Google adds is not really all that useful. It's like PCs. You don't need a faster one because your old one can do word processing just fine.
Re: The next Google
#14I mostly replaced my use of Google Scholar with Elicit. You ask questions, and Elicit gives answers, with citations. Elicit is powered by GPT-3 and it is amazing. Go try it. https://elicit.org/
We cant even search without account.
Re: The next Google
#15> 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.
I'd prefer answers to links.
Re: The next Google
#16> 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.
Exactly. Give me relevant links to my term, with no SEO spam. Don't correct my term, especially when I'm searching verbatim (which I almost always want). It'd also be nice to be able to downvote certain results.
Re: The next Google
#17> DuckDuckGo and Bing are not true alternatives – they’re just worse versions of Google.
I disagree. I use Bing for about half of my searching because Google simply struggles with things like exact phrase matching in many cases. Where Google falls off, Bing tends to succeed. Though Bing also sometimes lags behind, where Google tends to do better, hence my split usage.
Re: The next Google
#18Let's be honest.. If it's any good, it gets bought by Google :-(
Re: The next Google
#19> Everybody has different preferences of how they want a search engine to look and feel. This sounds like it was written by the infamous Dropbox commenter. No, most people have never given a single thought to this.
No post body was provided.
Re: The next Google
#20These 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…
Also important for anyone actually thinking of taking Google on, very few of the features listed are things Google can't easily do, too. Attacking their strengths is crazy. You better have something both crazy good and hard to replicate by someone with more money than god.
Whatever replaces Google will be doing something that Google can't without causing them other problems. The first thing that comes to mind is make them choose traffic vs. advertisers (I don't know, if I had an idea of how to, I would not be writing this), but they're big enough that other wedges could start chipping away at their margins.