zlacker

[return to "Become Ungoogleable"]
1. Aurorn+Nm[view] [source] 2023-07-20 15:44:18
>>pabs3+(OP)
> Nobody really expects to be able to find anything of value in a Google search now

This is a categorically false premise. The kind of statement that only makes sense when you're in a deep bubble and entirely removed from the average person's use of the internet.

Deliberately removing yourself from Google is fine for the author who is more concerned about taking an ideological stance than they are about being discoverable, but removing yourself from Google is terribly bad advice for anyone who wants to help people find their content.

Many people do use Google to find content and people, even if you don't.

◧◩
2. deltar+Ey[view] [source] 2023-07-20 16:29:39
>>Aurorn+Nm
>This is a categorically false premise

This is accurate, somewhat. A lot of people do expect to find things of value when the use Google to search.

But people who are more technical know it's a bit of a faff and bother to get Google to spit out what you're actually looking for, outside of "who is Chloe Grace Moretz" or something equally banal.

And Google-the-Company does treat the Internet like it is their corporate property. Alphabet won't change unless it's made to do so.

◧◩◪
3. distor+NJ[view] [source] 2023-07-20 17:18:06
>>deltar+Ey
I'm not sure that I agree.

My brother tried to set me up with a girl last week. She has a pretty uncommon name. Googled her. Found... a lot of stuff.

I have a VERY common name. Think multiple (relatively) famous people (photographers, US Medal of Honor winner, enough lawyers to choke a court system for DECADES), but if you google my name and the city I live in (1,000,000+ people), my LinkedIn is like the second result.

For everyone saying that Google has gotten worse over the time they've been using it, these two use cases (which are pretty challenging) do really still work.

◧◩◪◨
4. deltar+IT[view] [source] 2023-07-20 17:59:43
>>distor+NJ
Okay, but now try "what's the best gaming laptop?" or something similar. This is the sort of query that, at one time, would unearth some nerd's web site alongside PCWorld or whatever.

Now it's seven pages of nearly identical listicles, some of which are on bizarre domains like "DougsAutoBodyAndFlowerShop.com", and all of which are festooned with ads, also provided by Google.

◧◩◪◨⬒
5. distor+DV[view] [source] 2023-07-20 18:10:05
>>deltar+IT
Ok, I'll try that.

Top results (excluding sponsors b/c UBlock Origin):

PC Gamer

The Verge

Games Radar

Youtube (channel: Jarrod's Tech)

A giant ad showing some laptops to buy

Youtube (channel: PC Builder)

RTINGS.com

PC Magazine

Youtube (channel: Top Tech Now)

CNET

Tom's Hardware

Another giant ad showing some laptops to buy

Engadget

PC Magazine

Laptop Mag

TechRadar

These are mainstream tech press sites. And maybe the reason that it's a bunch of similar listicles is because the thing you're looking for (a laptop) is a product with relatively few entries in the market.

What are you expecting here that Google isn't giving you? I'm trying to be as charitable as possible, but, for me, the expected results are about as good as I could hope for.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
6. deltar+411[view] [source] 2023-07-20 18:34:45
>>distor+DV
>mainstream tech press sites

That's kind of the point. Old Google unearthed things. New Google is where you go to find out what the media (and Google) wants you to know.

If that's what you want, then sure, Google is great.

I used "best gaming laptop" as an example, but you can try "what is the best mayonnaise" if you'd like. My results included Uproxx. Which I guess counts as "unearthing," since I would never go to a clickbait farm like Uproxx for culinary tips.

I'm not suggesting I have an alternative, before you ask. This may be nothing more than the inevitable result of the commercialization and commodification of the Internet. Since all of the search companies are going all-in on AI stuff, you may find yourself in my position in a year or two.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔
7. distor+061[view] [source] 2023-07-20 18:52:47
>>deltar+411
Yeah - I think that "commercialization and commodification" is kind of what I've attributed this to. I think the webring concept is probably the best way to get away from this, but it's not trivial to find those hidden gems. The good ones become/became less hidden. The bad ones get/got buried.

But if these are the complaints about Google - "I only see sites that are so good that they constitute the mainstream" - I'm... ok with that? That seems like a good outcome to me. I don't mind using that tool.

From what I understand of your complaint, sometime in the last 20 years, the Google stopped finding outsider art. I would guess that's due to SEO. And with anything that's known to drive revenue to a business, that sort of thing becomes a target. So people target the Google algorithm to place better. I don't know that there's a solution to that. But I don't think it's because of a change inside Google - more like a change in society.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯
8. JohnFe+Hb1[view] [source] 2023-07-20 19:16:15
>>distor+061
> "I only see sites that are so good that they constitute the mainstream"

The problem as I see it is that the mainstream websites are not good. Search results that gave a broader range of hits than just that sort of thing would be much, much more useful.

If I want, for example, to find what laptops people consider the best, none of those sites help me.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯▣
9. ghaff+og1[view] [source] 2023-07-20 19:38:17
>>JohnFe+Hb1
Because the "mainstream" sites pay people pennies a word to crank out content like "best gaming laptops."

There are sites that do some good gear reviews for relatively specialized equipment--especially not gadget/electronics. But this isn't the 1990s when PC Magazine would have a 600-page issue with a big chunk devoted to the best printers as evaluated by their on-payroll staff.

I'll occasionally put a review of something up on my site but I have neither the money or interest in doing multi-product comparisons. That's pretty much impractical outside of something like Wirecutter (which I generally think does a pretty good job).

[go to top]