0: for context, us doj does not take antitrust action against companies simply for market dominance; it requires market dominance plus an anticompetitive action. However, they don’t like monopolies, so effectively any pretext can be used — see the apple lawsuit or the 90s ms lawsuits for how little it takes.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antitrust_cases_against_Goog...
To summarize it: Google reverted an algorithm that detected SEO spams in 2019.
(Note that I never work for Google and I don't know whether it's true or not. It's just what this article says.)
This isn't about what is possible.
It is about Google not wanting to say goodbye to the sweet dollars from spammy sites.
Otherwise making the probably number one requested feature, a personal block list, wouldn't have been impossible for a company with so many bright minds.
I mean: little bootstrapped Kagi had it either from the beginning or at least since shortly after they launched.
People always think they lost against SEO spam. But my main reason for quitting as soon as an alternative showed up was because they started to overrule my searches and search for what they thought I wanted to search for.
For a while I kept it at bay by using doublequotes and verbatim but none of those have worked reliably for a decade now.
That isn't SEO spam. That is poor engineering or "we know better than you" attitude.
The results suggest that Quebec does not have an NHL team, because it confuses the province of Quebec with Quebec City. Montreal, in Quebec, has the Montreal Canadiens and this isn't mentioned in the search results at all.
And who forgot the recent Reddit story.
Search for a while hasn’t been about searching the web as much as it has been about commerce. It taps commercial intent and serves ads. It is now an ad engine; no longer a search engine.
If you want to purchase consumer products at your own expense and offer an impartial opinion on each of them then you will have no problem getting ranked highly on google. You will lose a lot of money doing so, however, and will also be plagiarized to death in a month. The sites you want to be rid of will outrank you for your own content, I have been there and have the t-shirt.
Google doesn’t have to return the SEO-optimized page. Google has other options:
- Return 10 results of the 10 top products,
- Derank any site that seems SEO-optimized,
- Derank any commercial site,
- Derank any site with a cookie banner (implying the user is tracked and the writer is trying to write what the user wants to read) or the infamous mailing list popup,
- Prioritize comparisons from brick-and-mortar journals, or give credentials to other vectors of trust,
- Act as a paid directory, where only paid answers appear,
- Return individual positive and negative comments about products, extracted from review pages, maybe even in a graph (“Good for USB-C according to 95% of the reviews, provides an electric shock according to 7% of non-affiliated comments”).
There WERE many options. Google CHOSE to rank awful sites that provide decreased value, and worse than that, it chose that all other sites won’t be viable, killing them. Google chose the face of the internet today.
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breakup_of_the_Bell_System
And I know they could because someone did make that list and posted it here last year.
Not low quality pages that spammed high ranking words but pages that simply wasn't related to the query at all as evidenced by the fact that they didn't contain the keywords I searched for at all!
I wish there was some way to tell "please ignore all videos that contain these strings, and I don't mean only for next 2 weeks".
Youtube gets their ads revenue from before/during video, so they can be nicer to users.
I think it's more likely that Google stopped really caring.
There are various kinds of SEO - internal: technical, on-page and external. A long time ago Google had an epiphany that instead of trying to make sense out of sites themselves they could offload that effort to website administrators and started ranking pages how well they implement technical elements helping Google index the web. For a very long time that was synonymous with white-hat SEO. Since Google search was in part based on web-of-links, various shady tactics to inflate number of indexed backlinks and boost rankings. That was black-hat SEO.
These days Google search puts tremendous focus on on-page SEO. So much that as long as the internal structure of a site is indexable (no dead links, internal backlinks, meta info) it is typically better to hire copywriters spitting out LLM-like robotic mumblings than to try and optimize further.
When the 'trusted websites' caught on and embraced the game, Google was apparently helpless to stop it.
Its really easy to spot the crap websites that are scaping content-creating websites ... because they monetize by adding ads.
If Google was _only_ selling ads on the search results page, then it could promote websites that are sans ads.
Instead, it is incentivised to push users to websites that contain ads, because it also makes money there.
And that means scraping other sites to slap your ads onto them can be very profitable for the scammers.
This is like in that Steve Jobs video about product people being kicked out and exchanged by ones who dont care about product:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=P4VBqTViEx4
They will not make good search. That is not their priority.
Personally, I use DDG on the daily basis, and it's mostly ok, but very-very far from perfect. More so, at least once in several days I have to switch to Google, because it is seriously better at updating the index, and DDG often fails to find something on some obscure forum, even if I know it's there (because I was a part of discussion myself!) and try to assist it with finding it as much as I can. Also, Google is immensely better at knowing local shops and finding products.
Also, Google search, being bad as it is, it still the only thing I find usable on mobile. First off, it's faster, it is integrated nicely into Pixel UI, and it's somewhat good at all these "more than just a search" type of things, like converting a timezone for me, showing wikipedia summary, flight schedule, etc. Also, integration with Google Maps, working hours and venue locations, it is actually far more reliable than, say, Tripadvisor.
Still, I feel reluctant to vendor-locking myself into payed service unless it's actually far better than everything else and can replace DDG and Google completely.
?
Tangential, but this is precisely the "problem" with Google search. Whatever the internal decision-making process was, Google search at some point embraced race to the bottom incentivizing outspending others, either by paying for ads or showing ads. This race is ultimately won by content scrapers/generators slapping ads on top and businesses selling stuff.
Anecdotally, there is a pet supply store near me. It's nearly impossible to find on Google maps. If I zoom over the shopping mall this particular store does not appear, if I search for "pet store" it does not appear. Only if I do search for "petstore inc." it appears in results and map. So Google knows about the store, but actively tries to hide it, presumably because Google does not make money off it.
> I have to switch to Google, because it is seriously better at updating the index
On one hand yes, Google is in some cases really quick at updating the index with new entries. However, at the same time it is equally good at updating the index with removals making old content very hard to find.
It's not "that much" better for some definitions of "that much".
But they're working on making the best search engine for their customers, and it does have a lot of features for helping make your search better and less ad-driven.
I was trying to find the age of an obscure local lava flow. Google was useless for it. Kagi had it on the third hit. So sometimes it's brilliantly better.
But what I like the most is that their incentives are aligned with mine (because I'm paying them to be).
Google is going to maximize revenue which means making it as shitty as possible without you leaving. How many ads can I cram down their throats before they split? Kagi is also maximizing revenue, but they want to make it as great as possible so you don't leave.
Are the results worth it? It's up to you, really. Try it for free--if you don't miss it after you run out of free searches, then it's not for you.
A bit farther down the page is a 'best headphones for 2020' article.
And this is the example result set they push on the home page to a potential buyer.
You guys pay for this thing?
The fact that you tried to pick on 2 results of the page for such a generic keyword, show that it's miles ahead of mainstream search engines.
I tried that same search on Google, bing, brave, yandex, even yahoo and needless to say the results were pretty much all SEO spam from websites such as NYTimes (how tf is NYTimes an authoritive source on purchasing headphones?). Where in Kagi you got a wide range of helpful results from: reddit, Quora, amazon, walmart, etc. To be honest brave and yandex were the closest behind. As far as I know the only weak point in Kagi at the moment is doing more local-oriented search.
Regardless of the quality of results (which mind you, are already superior overall), it'd be still worth paying $10, if only to support/invest in its non-ads search model and help nurture it. It's a great effort for that alone. Combine both the model and high-quality results and it's the best in class.
I didn't 'try to pick on' - I pointed out two garbage results in a query that they literally push you to from the home page as examples for potential customers. If those results aren't doing what people claim (not highlighting seo spam) then I'm not really left with any faith that the queries they don't elevate to their home page will be better.
Acqui-hire. So what happened was in around 2010 or so a voice-over artist named Lauren Dragan who I think was already dabbling in professional tech journalism, wanted to write about headphones and microphones since she was getting really opinionated about them in her VO work.
So she contributed an article to “The Wirecutter,” which was trying to be like Tom’s and Engadget (I think they then dropped “the” from their name? Which makes one want to abbreviate as WC which is just tragic). I think it was just a freelance article on “audiophile headphones”...?
Well, the audiophile community online was growing etc. and this proved to be remarkably successful because it gave the audiophiles some professional validation, right? “I work in audio booths, I have to listen super closely, I know what I am talking about.” So it made money for The Wirecutter and they pitched her on “if we just bought you dozens of headphones online would you take notes and make a rec” and she's been doing stuff like that for them ever since.
Wirecutter broadened its focus to a lot of other topics, usually not with the same reliability—it really depends on the reviewer’s biases and such, and Lauren’s VO/audiophile bias of “I want my headphones to have a very flat EQ to match what's on the track, it's more important that they don't croak at higher volumes...” was something she could communicate well about in terms of sibilant highs or feeling too much or too little bass. Vs “we looked at air purifiers and, uh, they purify air!” ...
Meanwhile NYT was trying to grow their online presence as newspaper sales die... So they bought up Wirecutter, as a sort of “new journalism,” a “we wanted to get into this anyway, and it's easier if we don't try to build up the network effects ourselves but just take a site’s traffic who is already successful.” So yeah, they aqui-hired Wirecutter and put all their stuff on their domain and it kinda sucks now, but some of that were trends that were already beginning before they were acquired and there's still usually some decent data hiding in the “the competition” section of every “WC” article.
After that I only use search for technical problems, and mouth to mouth or specific authors for everything else.
Problem is that the rules of search engines created the dubious field of SEO in the first place. They are not entirely the innocent victim here.
Arcane and intransparent measures get you ahead. So arcane that you instantly see that it does not correspond with quality content at all, which evidently leads to a poor result.
I wish there was an option to hide every commercial news or entertainment outlet completely. Those are of course in on SEO for financial reaesons.
There's alway plugins or you can subscribe to Kagi, although I don't think there's any blocklist preconfigured for "all commercial news websites"
As for SEO spam a huge chunk of it would have disappeared I think if Google had created the much requested personal blacklist that we used to ask them for.
It was always "actually much harder than anyone of you who don't work here can imagine for reasons we cannot tell or you cannot understand" or something like that problem, but bootstraped Kagi managed to do it - and their results are so much better that I don't usually need it.
In a bid for attention, only the fraudsters are winning, well, the platforms are winning lots of money from selling advertising, I guess that's why they're perfectly fine with not fixing results and ranking for many years now. I'm not sure there is a way back to real relevance now, there's no incentive for these large companies to fix things, and the public has already become used to the gamified system to go back to behaving themselves.
Same is happening to YouTube as well. Feels like it’s nothing but promoters pushing content to gain followers to sell ads or other stuff because nobody else’s videos ever surface. Just a million people gaming the algorithm and the only winners are the people who devote the most time to it. And by the way, would I like to sign up for their patreon and maybe one of their online courses?