The problem is that a fuckton of the web is SEO poisoned, so even a better search engine will find garbage because for a lot of subjects garbage is all that’s available.
The best chef in the world can’t turn shit into anything you want to eat.
This is what they want you to think but they're hardly even trying. Google is shitty on purpose because if initial search results are bad, you "engage" more and see more ads. And since they're not worried about competition because google is the default search nearly everywhere -- most people don't even know there are alternatives, google is synonymous with search -- they can enshittify their search as much as they want.
https://pluralistic.net/2024/04/04/teach-me-how-to-shruggie/https://www.wheresyoured.at/the-men-who-killed-google/
That's what I enjoy about kagi: because I can block and rank sources, I get to do some reverse-SEO, and the results are really good with remarkably few adjustments.
I don't understand what you are saying. If some other search methodology were to use the same exact methodology of Google in paying attention to the SEO terms, then obviously it would fall prey to the same thing that killed Google. Similarly if the method was not precisely 100% identical yet still used SEO, then it too would be poisoned.
However, if the search method were to ignore SEO entirely and focus purely on the content of the page, plus other metrics such as number of links to that page, from other highly-ranked websites, but independently of SEO, then it would not be poisoned by SEOs. Although it might suck due to other causes, either related or not.
Anyway it all depends so heavily on what you want to find - e.g. a replacement for Google Maps is harder, and Google Images is also fairly great too.
Probably less, in their modern formulation. I knew more about past ones but it's been awhile and I have no idea how much of that is even still relevant.
A lot of content sites have altered how they write articles to be in line with google SEO to drive traffic. In doing this, the content that can be found by any search engine is now of lower quality.
focus purely on the content of the page, plus other metrics such as number of links to that page, from other highly-ranked websites
This is already something that every search engine does. That’s what SEO seeks to maximise. You can’t just “ignore” SEO stuff if you have algorithmic search, unless your algorithm ignores everything that SEO touches, including the content of the page and backlinks.
It really isn't that hard to tell the difference between bots activities and humans. If Facebook can detect a nipple in a picture in microseconds they can tell that "hmm a surprisingly high number of IoT fridges have strong opinions about this anti-Putin blogger, starting last week" isn't valid.
If there was an incentive to do so there would be.
Alphabet doesn't have real competition. If they start getting some they will be motivated to improve. Amazon the same way. You order crap from them and they still make their money. Social media the same way, there is just no particular reason for them to anything about bots when bots don't impact ad numbers.
The corporation I work for has a captcha on the website to do pretty much anything useful. We have an incentive to not have bots.
That’s an interesting idea but I think you’d very quickly see far-right groups dogpiling onto and sinking small leftist websites and blogs and promoting their own shit-tier content.
What Google used to do is a lot of manual effort to keep SEO stuff at a minimum. You can't make it go away entirely, but it was a give-and-take that basically worked.
We're stuck now because Google decided they didn't want to spend the money on it anymore, so the SEO people won.
However, if the search method were to ignore SEO entirely and focus purely on the content of the page
As another poster mentions, SEO is about gaming the content so search engines pick them up. If you change your algorithm, they'll just change their methods. Google's old method may be the only way to clamp down on it.
Admittedly I am much behind on the technicals, but here is an example: if an answer to a technical problem appears on StackOverflow, Reddit, and pleaseclickmePuLEASEpleasepleasepleasepleasepleaseplease.xxx, then why allow the latter ones to rise to the top and the former two don't show up until like page 3? Regardless of content on the page, the former two sites have a reputable "reputation" - is this what you mean by manual efforts, to designate them as more trustworthy sites?
Ironically the Reddit upvote/downvote style would work for search results, helping guide others to find similar content after a few people blaze the trail. However, voting has its own issues... as we see even in irl elections, as people game that system too with alt accounts. Anywhere profits are involved, it becomes a cat-and-mouse game where you have to fight off the vested interests.:-(
But for something important, it becomes worthwhile to invest some effort into it?
It's only important in so far as Google can make a profit on it.
Yes, they could favor specific servers, and that used to be the case. That takes specific effort to pick those sites out, though. They don't want to do that anymore.
It’s only important in so far as Google can make a profit on it.
It did not used to be that way. However, we collectively deluded ourselves into thinking that we were "safe", forever, b/c Google "wasn't evil".
Yes, they could favor specific servers, and that used to be the case. That takes specific effort to pick those sites out, though. They don’t want to do that anymore.
In a sense, they wouldn't even have to anymore, if they allowed the old ones to remain at the top. But I see what you mean - e.g. Reddit could change, and Lemmy would never get added.
I stated that they are identical, not just similar, and literally told you how to check it for yourself. Nothing is stopping you from verifying, or reading their FAQ where they even admit that they use Bing for most of their results.
I literally did that and I was not convinced, nor do I think that is good enough evidence. I did not find anything on their site about how much of their results are from Bing.
There's no need to be such as asshole. Why the shit would I take your word when you're needlessly being such a dick because I simply am asking for more information? Jesus fuck.
I already explained that it's perfectly common for things to seem similar or identical when they are far more different than they seem. Humans often find patterns when there are none.
And I also already explained I looked at the DDG site and I didn't happen to find that page. I did find articles on other sites mentioning that they source from Bing, but didn't really mention to what extent.
So, yes. You are absolutely being a dick by assuming I did none of that and acting the way you are. I literally only was asking for more information and explaining why.
You also left out this large piece of context which definitely makes it less straightforward that "all their results are identical enough to make them the same" as you claim
We also maintain our own crawler (DuckDuckBot) and many indexes to support our results. Of course, we have more traditional links and images in our search results too, which we largely source from Bing.
I self-hosted it, and used it for years and liked it. But the results take 3, 4, 5 seconds to come in as you wait for it to run the search on all the different engines. I just tested searx.be above and found the same thing.
When I use any other search engine, I get results in half a second or less. I know it's only a few seconds but it's definitely noticeable when you use a different search engine.
This is precisely why I don't use searx.
I just want to quickly find shit, not maintain a list of instances that all have slightly different functionality and frontends.
i think so, but the results are in any case mostly okay in my experience, and they have an AI feature that ACTUALLY WORKS since it just summarizes relevant parts of wikipedia articles and links you to the precise sections it used.
Yes, but I use it over Bing because Bing filters most of its news articles through MSN and then pressures you to download the app. Either way, both are giving me better results than Google at this point.
Yeah i was mostly referring to pre ai enshitification google. Back when all they did was search the web for you and show you a single text ad, those were the days.
Im also inclined to agree that search in general has gone downhill, but that is more the fault of tech corps locking away info while seo ruins the leftover results.
I'm worried when ml models really take off the current web dies completely between corpos milking it to death, seo producing nothing but hollow, vapid nonsense to keep you engaged with their non information; and then as final nail in the coffin the ml model ability to entirely fabricate virtually anything digital, truth and information will be completely gone.