• Katana314@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    51
    ·
    8 months ago

    I hate that search engine degradation is what’s lead me to use AI more. Instead of searching past pages full of 8 ads for a waffle recipe, I ask Copilot or something: “Give me a basic waffle recipe”.

    So much computation to go back to what the web used to be great at.

    • droans@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      29
      ·
      8 months ago

      I knew Google started ignoring double quotes for required text years ago, but I found out yesterday that it doesn’t even think “site:xyz.com” needs to be followed.

      I was researching something and saw some Reddit posts. Clicked below it to view results from Reddit and a third of them were other websites.

      • brbposting@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        Google has always respected my double quote and site: searches. Please share a screenshot of it borken, I looked online and don’t see examples. If you have the time for a silly little thing :)

        • AwkwardLookMonkeyPuppet@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          8 months ago

          There are literally tens of thousands of examples of them ignoring any and all of their operators on Reddit and Google help. You can find them easily if you look.

          • brbposting@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            8 months ago

            The examples I’ve found fall into “caveat” territory.

            From the adware company blog:

            Fortunately, Google Search has a special operator for that: quotation marks. Put quotes around any word or phrase, such as [“wireless phone chargers”], and we’ll only show pages that contain those exact words or phrases.

            Caveats:

            Quoted searches may match content not readily visible on a page.

            Quoted terms may only appear in title links and URLs.

            Snippets might not show multiple quoted terms.

            Quoted searches don’t work for local results.

            I would be ticked if quotes didn’t work. My screenshots do show them working.

            An example of them appearing to ignore quotes came up. When they pull this, I can ignore the results below the error/red line:

            Further discussion:

            I can’t reproduce but I wanna! (Prolly not kids though)

      • brbposting@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        Astroturfing bad

        Good search good

        The former is unconfirmed to be sure

        I’m liking $0 SearXNG: lots of instances if you don’t host your own (for max privacy I think)

        Germany/Spain hosted instance with all the checkmarks (Vanilla, IPv6, 100% uptime): https://searxng.site

        If you fancy paying for a decent cause, don’t see a problem with the paid option sometimes suspiciously mentioned on Lemmy. Free trialing it saw a pleasant experience.

          • brbposting@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            8 months ago

            Responding to the human who typed:

            I know Lemmy doesn’t like it

            Explaining many Lemmings seem to like it, and attempting to explain why some may bristle at its mention

            That’s all :)

              • brbposting@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                8 months ago

                Sorry, meant it as a reply to each segment of your sentence, to clarify what I think we like and don’t like:

                Lemmy doesn’t like [astroturfing], but [Lemmy likes] great [search]

                I haven’t seen anybody say Kagi’s search itself is bad! Oh, I should have mentioned some don’t like the idea of paid search period. That’s another complaint.

                Overall positive impressions from many users here, is what I see. “Lemmy doesn’t like Kagi” is somewhat of a mischaracterization I think.

    • AwkwardLookMonkeyPuppet@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      8 months ago

      Kagi has a really neat feature that if you phrase your search in the form of a question and add a question mark to the end of it, it’ll summarize all of the top results and give footnotes to the pages that it evaluated. It saves me tons of time!

  • dingus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    I have to know if the bottom is a real cake or if it’s photoshopped. I hope it’s real.

  • leave_it_blank@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    8 months ago

    If I search for something specific I now usually ask chatgpt and describe what I’m looking for. The results are often (not always) far better.

    I don’t want to click through 50 pages of unrelated shit anymore.