151–160 of 317 posts
I feel Google has turned on its pledge of doing no evil. It is not shamelessly stealing publishers content and displaying it in the featured snippets. So the searcher has really no incentive of clicking on the search result anymore. He is getting all the information on Google itself.
Many of them save me extra clicks which is convenient. Google translate, maps and search has no competitors that even come close in terms of quality. I will get mad when those products have better alternatives but it's not the case. Build better alternatives and I'm on board. In the end, Google is a business - I would promote my own shit on the first vertical as well. One thing that pisses me off is the AMP ordeal bu…
> Google translate, maps and search has no competitors that even come close in terms of quality. This is patently false, and probably a reflection of the Google bubble you live in. DeepL is pretty objectively superior to Google, as evaluated by journalists who natively speak the languages it translates in the articles linked on their website. You can find plenty of in depth reviews online, and every one I've read has…
Personally I love it. It's so much faster than all the competitors. Further it not covered in ads. I just went to SkyScanner and there's an ad for fried chicken. Seriously WTF!
When I worked at Bing almost 20 years ago, the #1 search term was "Google". So maybe this is reasonable :) (#2 was "Gogle")
Given that Chrome is the new IE, I wonder how long (or ever) until they see competitors' brands in their popular search terms.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Larry and Sergey said from the very beginning we needed a search engine in the academic realm because ads present an inherent conflict of interest. It's right here! http://infolab.stanford.edu/~backrub/google.html This was who they were and what they believed! Check out Appendix A, it's entirely about the mixed motivation of funding a search engine with ads. Yet not only did they make an ad company that has a search…
I read Appendix A and it doesn't seem to be against what they are doing currently. Unless you assume their search engine has exceptions or intentional bias. We have no conclusive evidence to believe the same(including the currently discussed article). I am conflicted by their shopping app integration. But I wonder why I am having trouble accepting shopping integration vs maps integration. Having google maps part of t…
So if you look at the Appendix example below,
> A good example was OpenText, which was reported to be selling companies the right to be listed at the top of the search results for particular queries
...That is actually what Google itself is doing today, in a very real and practical sense. They claim it's different because ads aren't search results, but since users can't tell the difference anymore, the result is the same.
Another example in the Appendix is about trademark squatting:
> For example, we noticed a major search engine would not return a large airline's homepage when the airline's name was given as a query. It so happened that the airline had placed an expensive ad, linked to the query that was its name. A better search engine would not have required this ad, and possibly resulted in the loss of the revenue from the airline to the search engine.
Google does a slightly modified version of this too: It places competitors' ads above the real result for the airline's brand. This means that, in order for the airline to be the "top result" for it's own brand name, it has to pay Google for an ad that Larry and Sergey conclude "shouldn't be required".
If you search for "best buy" on Google and aren't blocking ads, you'll notice the ad at the top is a Best Buy ad. There's no good reason they should have to buy that ad, because they're obviously the best result, the user already knew what they were looking for. But if you want to be the "top result" on Google search, you have to pay for it now.
And we've hit that mixed motivation issue with an ad-based search engine: Google makes a lot of money when you click an ad. It doesn't make a lot of money when you click the organic search results. So Google has a huge incentive to make the ads look like search results, which is why Google search ads now look nearly identical to search results.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The way Google: ship it and make it work really, really well. The product was so good that people noticed. They were able to take this and leverage this into being search for a really large property, like Back in the 90s there were lots of search engines. People didn't pick Google because it was hard to switch, they converged on Google because the product was that good - there was Infoseek, HotBot, AskJeeves, Alta Vi…
> People didn't pick Google because it was hard to switch, they converged on Google because the product was that good That's not how I remember things from that time. I started to use Google, because it was faster than dogpile and the other oddly named search engines. It wasn't a quality reason. There was the expectation that a search for information would take longer than a single click, so a little digging wasn't a…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The fact that it "makes sense" for companies to become evil monopolies when they are capable of doing so is a problem I’m no google fan but I don’t think evil is an appropriate word nor would I call them a monopoly when it comes to search. There are plenty of other options out there from all over the world, the fact that they aren’t that great isn’t googles fault (and it would need to be for them to be considered a…
From the article: 9/10 searches in the US come from Google. There are lots of great search engines. But when Google has the largest share of web analytics and can literally track you around the internet, how can other search engines who respect you as a user even have a chance? Give search engines a level playing field. Google is the default search engine on the most popular web browser. Google is the default search…
Again, I stay away from google for privacy reasons but just because they don’t respect privacy doesn’t have anything to with monopoly status. You can argue for privacy protecting legislation against google but again, that has nothing to do with monopoly status. Other search engines could choose to track you as well. That is a business decision not unfair advantage.
Maybe, Google should be forced to create a separate tab for the knowledge graph and other tools. like they are doing it for images, the news, or videos. when I want to search the web, I want to search the web. Because I see the issues with this. I also think those information have a value for users.
Many of them save me extra clicks which is convenient. Google translate, maps and search has no competitors that even come close in terms of quality. I will get mad when those products have better alternatives but it's not the case. Build better alternatives and I'm on board. In the end, Google is a business - I would promote my own shit on the first vertical as well. One thing that pisses me off is the AMP ordeal bu…
> Google translate, maps and search has no competitors that even come close in terms of quality. This is patently false, and probably a reflection of the Google bubble you live in. DeepL is pretty objectively superior to Google, as evaluated by journalists who natively speak the languages it translates in the articles linked on their website. You can find plenty of in depth reviews online, and every one I've read has…
Good times.
Search is essential infrastructure for the internet and should not be monopolized. It should be free, uncluttered, distributed and transparent. The problem is not Google, its the lack of good alternatives, only DDG really.
Duck is a front-end for Bing. Why not use Bing?