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

Everything that's wrong with Google Search in one image

bitbytebit.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

661–670 of 740 posts

Re: Everything that's wrong with Google Search in one image

#661

Post by dakial1 »

stetrain wrote: post #629
remus wrote: post #445

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where is the trademark infringement? It's like honda buying an advert outside a VW dealership.

The trademark infringement is when their ad includes someone else's trademark. Look at the screenshot in this post. All four of the ads at the top of the search results include the trademarked name "Midjourney" in the title of the ad. This is more like putting up a giant sign outside of your Honda dealership saying "Best deals on new VWs!" but when you pull in they don't sell VWs, they sell their own competing produc…

Some players circumvent this by creating "blog posts" where they compare/about multiple tools. Like it is a fair use but in reality is an ad in disguise.

Re: Everything that's wrong with Google Search in one image

#662

Post by dakial1 »

ares623 wrote: post #32
freediver wrote: post #7

They still get away with it as ‘only’ 1% complain and Google thinks they don’t matter. We built our entire company for that 1%.

How is Kagi for non-US folks? I've tried switching to DDG a while back but the experience for me, living outside the US, was not great. Sure, programming related searches were pretty good, but everything else was not. Does Kagi have a better localized experience?

...and pricing.

Re: Everything that's wrong with Google Search in one image

#663

Post by SoftTalker »

mock-possum wrote: post #657
SoftTalker wrote: post #406

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So in fact Amazon is incentivized to sell you a shitty toaster on your first purchase, hoping you’ll then come back and buy a better one.

they still have to pay to stock, ship, then return and restock the shitty one - then stock and ship the better one. Hard to imagine there’s profit in that.

IDK about most people but I rarely bother to return a cheap broken item. It's just not worth my time. I'd just grumble and replace it (but probably not from the same seller).

Re: Everything that's wrong with Google Search in one image

#664

Post by DougBTX »

hwc wrote: post #40
amatecha wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Had to dig up this link, 1999 review[0]: "Google (www.google.com) is a pure search engine - no weather, no news feed, no links to sponsors, no ads, no distractions, no portal litter. Nothing but a fast-loading search site. Reward them with a visit." [0] https://i.redd.it/uea6u7c4oje31.jpg

How did they make any money at all without ads?

1999, $25 million investment: https://googlepress.blogspot.com/1999/06/google-receives-25-...

2000, launched ads: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Ads

2001, profitable: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2001/aug/08/internetn...

Re: Everything that's wrong with Google Search in one image

#665

Post by fuzzfactor »

vkazanov wrote: post #453
porridgeraisin wrote: post #451

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Amazon Speaking of amazon... By god amazon search is horrid for this. If you search for HP laptop you get a whole bunch of sponsored Lenovo's at the top of the page.

Searching for anything really on amazon is... an experience. 15 sponsored vs nothing of substance. And there is no way to know that a given, say, boardgame is not even available on Amazon. In fact, the results are so bad that most of the time I go through Google.

Every Amazon product page has a unique identifying number within the URL that can be used to relocate that exact product again if it is still online later.

If you copy & save the whole URL it works as expected when you paste it into a browser next time, unless that page is gone for good.

But if you just read the ID number to somebody and they type it into the search box, the product will appear as a tile surrounded by a few related product tiles and the rest unrelated. Completely outnumbered, and intentionally crafted to make it easier to buy some other product besides the exact one desired.

And that's when you already know exactly what you want.

Only if you then click on the correct one will it take you back to the exact same product page.

Re: Everything that's wrong with Google Search in one image

#666

Post by array_key_first »

symlinkk wrote: post #371
beckthompson wrote: post #20

Its sad but I think at this point its kind of a safety issue not to use an ad blocker. Those results are not clearly ads and I've clicked on fake links in the past when they were.

Adblockers are a safety risk of their own - you’re giving @gorhill admin-level access to your browser.

This is the entire argument for manifest V3. So, if we believe this argument, then modern chromium derivatives should be safe with the ad blockers that run on them.

Re: Everything that's wrong with Google Search in one image

#667

Post by array_key_first »

freediver wrote: post #7

They still get away with it as ‘only’ 1% complain and Google thinks they don’t matter. We built our entire company for that 1%.

And, relatedly, only 1% complain because they make complaining hard. This is why analytics driven decision making can backfire!

Re: Everything that's wrong with Google Search in one image

#668

Post by Toorkit »

miladyincontrol wrote: post #106
beckthompson wrote: post #20

Its sad but I think at this point its kind of a safety issue not to use an ad blocker. Those results are not clearly ads and I've clicked on fake links in the past when they were.

It absolutely is. I fear for the older generations and less tech minded people who google their bank, and get some random phishing site. Or similarly google what should be libre software and get some random malware on a site that looks 'close enough'. Lets call it what it is, a cancer, one that literally enables countless bad actors and purely for a search engine's own profit. In theory theres a time and place for ad…

My bank replaced it's banktown.com url with b-twn.com, I thought I was on a phishing site, but it's legitimate.

Re: Everything that's wrong with Google Search in one image

#669

Post by array_key_first »

MrMember wrote: post #590
infecto wrote: post #572

There also has been a drastic change in YouTube search in the past year. It used to be that search would be logical, you search for a specific string and you can go through pages of videos that matchup to that. Now it at least feels like they have completely mixed that original search with a some sort of ranked preference of what they think I want to see. It’s a shame and an actual huge downgrade.

YouTube search will also only show you maybe 10 videos relevant to your search terms and then just give you random videos it wants you to watch that have little or nothing to do with your original search.

Its like tiktok search but way less awful.

Whatever you search, doesn't matter, it's just people dancing.

You want a recipe for chickpea soup? How about people dancing instead is that good?

Re: Everything that's wrong with Google Search in one image

#670

Post by fragmede »

boringg wrote: post #111
justapassenger wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a very common story in industry. You start nimble, and disrupt bloated platforms. Then, as you grow, pressure grows and you also bloat. Then new company comes that brings nimble product and disrupt you. Search, TV->internet video, newspapers->internet - all of them go through those cycles.

Wouldn't it be nice if some companies instead of ramping up ads for revenue passed along the value to consumers? Once they made their money back on the original investments convert to a lifestyle and provide a valuable product without squeezing every penny our of it and in the end killing it. One day maybe.

The problem is who wants to be CEO of that? How many people do you know are simultaneously voracious enough to want to be the CEO of something and also totally chill and down to just have a lifestyle business? How many people do you know would take a salary of $5 million/year and just keep working the same job? Pretty sure almost everyone I know would do that for maybe two years and then quit and retire. Companies doesn't want that. So that leaves us with the kind of people that would take that salary and keep at it. The reason CEOs are different kinds of people from the rest of us is that it stopped being about the money for them a long time ago. It's not not about the money, but after getting enough money for your own lifetime and several other people's, why keep working? Not everyone is cut out for it. Be the change you want to see in the world. Claw your way up to the c-suite and then run the company how you see fit. Just don't let that climb change you so that you no longer want to run it as a lifestyle business.
Post reply on HN