Google made a strategic mistake by being utter crap for the last few years.

I still think google search is pretty good. I try to use DDG but I almost always end up using g! in the query to return the google results. My understanding is DDG uses Bing (could be wrong). I don't think there is a better traditional search engine than google however.

It's been more obvious that they are losing against SEO in the past few years. When searching for programming results it is rare for an authoritative source to be be above w3schools or geeksomethinggeeks. Even with a specific query for something that is not a beginner tutorial you have to wade through that shit to even get to stackoverflow answers.

Either google engineers have really started to dig w3schools or they don't eat their own dogfood any more.

It's still good compared to the rest, but it's not nearly as good compared to its past self. You can almost taste the regression, and it's not the linear one.

DDG is a search aggregator, and uses a bunch of different engines behind the scenes. One of them is Bing. They provide a list of the engines they use.

Personally, I find DDG gives me the best results of all the engines I've tried, including Google. But plenty of other people have different experiences. My hypothesis is that it depends on what you're searching for and how you write the search query.

I have a suspicion that Google's search results are of much better quality if you allow them to track you. I still do (mostly out of laziness, I have to admit) - and I frequently find myself cursing at the uselessness of DuckDuckGo's results and using Google instead.

I did that experiment a while back. I think (but it's hard to tell) that I perceived the quality falling for me in that case.

Much of the problem with Google is that it's trying to make a guess about what I /really/ want, when what I really want is to find sites that contain certain words or phrases. Tracking me is irrelevant to that task, and if my online behavior affects the search results I get, that can't improve things.

I don't want a search engine to find me answers. I want it to search for web pages.

I like DDG because it (mostly) does what I want a search engine to do.

I'm not really bashing Google here, it's just that Google is a tool that accomplishes something different than what I need accomplished.

The one place where I think tracking helps (though it's just a gut feeling - I don't have evidence) is when disambiguating search terms that can be interpreted different ways. Google knows that the tech-related interpretation is probably the one I'm looking for, while DDG doesn't.

I do a better job of disambiguating than Google can do, especially if Google is paying attention to my internet or search history to do it.

If I'm searching for something, it's very likely to be something a bit unusual for me to search for. If it's in line with what I need regularly, I don't search -- I go to my bookmark library.

It's definitely the case - search results in private tabs are less relevant for me.

I think the extent of this depends on 1) how long you've been using their search and other products, and 2) how much your interests diverge from the "average".

^ This. Searches these days are full of sponsored ads. When you get to the bottom of the search results page you click more and it takes you to a new search, when you actually meant to click "2" (or page 3, 4 etc) in the tiny font at the _very_ bottom of the page.

It's even worse than this. Google's entire business was based on the browser search model. You want to know something, you opened your browser, then 100% of the time went to "google.com", searched, scroll,scroll,scroll,click and get a reward with your answer while seeing ads. Which pretty much describes a dopamine feedback loop.

The problem isn't that they don't have a ChatGPT ready (they do -- and it's probably better, I'm certain) .. but rather that, by even doing so (providing a chatgpt based search) they undermine their entire business foundation. Because now if you want to know something, you simply chat, and instantly presents a dialog with your answer. And with seemingly unlimited capabilities to write follow-up questions just like you would to a normal person.

How are you going to sell ads to that? Imagine talking to a chat bot that tries to sell you a new refrigerator when you're asking about something else, awkward? That's not going to happen.

That's why it's worse than a strategic mistake, it's an extensional threat-- they are damned to undermine the entire foundation in any direction they take.

>>How are you going to sell ads to that? Imagine talking to a chat bot that tries to sell you a new refrigerator when you're asking about something else, awkward?

An obvious way to do that would be hijacking the user prompt and appending the advertiser keywords.

Search: 'Old Faithful'

Appended search: 'Old Faithful Moet&Chandon'

Output >>> Old Faithful is a cone geyser in Yellowstone National Park in Wyoming, United States. It was named in 1870 during the Washburn–Langford–Doane Expedition and was the first geyser in the park to be named. It pops like champagne in a highly predictable geothermal feature although not as deliciously as your Moet & Chandon. The geyser and the nearby Old Faithful Inn are part of the Old Faithful Historic District.

>How are you going to sell ads to that?

I'm reluctant to type this, but there's definitely a few ways they can monetize the experience. Just look at how some other companies have monetized their users:

- Roll a video ad inside of a modal popup before showing you the result of your query/question.

- Give users a number of free queries/day, then prompt them to pay a subscription fee for "unlimited" queries.

I'm sure they'll find a way. You might not like it, but they'll figure it out.