Yes, power users (HN users) are early adopters, but I disagree that it would result in any meaningful change that requires social pressure. Fundamentally, power users and average users view search differently. Power users want "results," average users wants "answers." Power users accept a fact-of-life burden to skim through results and find the right resource that will help them with their query. Average users view skimming results as a waste of time and want immediate information. Results require more effort, answers are immediate and consumable.

You're essentially proposing that less tech savvy users switch to something that requires more effort from them. Even if the results are 10x better--hell! they could be hand picked--it won't convince the average user to take a path of more resistance.

That said, I would love to see a competent competitor enter the marketplace--there already are a few. But I have a feeling we'll be heading back to a system of more niche/focused search engines in the future.

> You're essentially proposing that less tech savvy users switch to something that requires more effort from them.

Not really. When I say meaningful alternative to Google, I mean something that is same or less effort for an average user, not more.

Ideally a perfect search engine is simple and easy to use in the default mode, but can uncover an advanced mode with a few clicks (for example ability to ban sites in results, just to give an example. This is currently lacking in Google and a solid source of advanced users' frustration).

Ah, yeah. That makes sense. Yes, the inability to block certain sites is such a terrible flaw in Google's approach.