cross-posted from !google@lemdro.id
- Google may be altering billions of search queries daily to generate results that increase purchases.
- Testimony in an antitrust case revealed an internal Google slide about changes to its search algorithm, involving “semantic matching” to generate more commercial results.
- Google covertly changes user queries, substituting them with ones that generate more revenue for the company and display shopping-oriented results.
- This manipulation benefits Google’s profits but harms search quality and raises advertiser costs.
- Despite legal challenges, Google’s market dominance allows it to continue these practices, impacting users’ ability to access unbiased information.
This would explain why I feel like Google results have rarely been high quality unless I’m just trying to scratch at the surface of a topic or include “reddit” at the end of my search term.
Even though results have gotten worse, every time I’ve tried another search engine the results have been even worse than Google.
Yes, that’s unfortunately true, too. It probably comes with how sites will try to optimise as much as possible for search engines to find them, even if it means that it’s no longer useful (like those posts on social media that include every conceivable tag instead of the ones that actually fit thematically to the post)
There’s this project for a paid search engine, Kagi, that tries to make results more useful again by not needing to favour advertisements. I haven’t tested their trial offer too much because I keep forgetting it exists, so I cannot say how much better the results really are, yet.
Edit: Big lol, I just read the other replies in this comment chain and yeah I guess by now you are aware of this Kagi project hah.
Google is like a big hairy troll living under the bridge, the internet. Everyone thought the troll was kind of nice, even if it was a big hairy troll, because it usually let people cross the bridge for free. This court case is dragging out all the dead bodies and displaying them for the villagers to see.
What we didn’t see was it pickpocketing us every time we crossed.
I had already read up on this and still read that to the end. Very clearly written and includes lots of receipts.
Thanks for posting.
This is such a good article.
I FINALLY understand why even putting quotation in my search queries still result in lots of irrelevant results!!!
Because Google isn’t even searching for the exact input!! They just changed the input!! Ridiculous!!!
I’ve beem very happy after switching to kagi.
Which plan are you on?
Im using the new 10€ for unlimeted searches plan.
impacting users’ ability to access unbiased information.
I never like the implication that “unbiased” or “objective” info/searches exist. They don’t. Don’t get me wrong, google is 100% in the wrong here and is deliberately putting their thumb on the scale in a very certain way. But yeah, the “unbiased” thing always nags at me lol
I think it’s appropriate in terms of product review searches.
But what is an unbiased result? What does that look like?
Reviews that don’t involve affiliate links or products provided by the company.
How do you weight the different reviews that meet this criteria? Plenty of reviews don’t involve either.
At some point you have to pick and choose. If it’s “truly” random, then the search is meaningless. If it’s curated/weighted, then it’s biased.
The challenge is in elevating outright paid sponsorship and affiliate material above actual reviews.
It would be nice if we could choose our bias. Sometimes, we might want it biased towards scientific sources, sometimes, towards user-generated content, sometimes towards institutional sites, etc.
It will get worse when Google replaces its old engine with an AI powered one. Because nobody knows what the AI does at that point, as it is not a simple search term search the web anymore, but explicitly opinionated results.
Maybe this explains why the result quality is so terrible. I’ve found Brave Search to be surprisingly good, and even the likes of Metager/Mojeek to be better than they used to be relative to the big players. DDG is not too bad, but went noticeably downhill when Bing started introducing AI features - presumably since these are largely not included in DDG, the remaining original search mechanisms aren’t as good.
I really feel like we’ll be back to starting web rings and distributing bookmark files etc soon though. Relying more on community resources than faceless companies that will undoubtedly be looking for the next way to screw us over.
Brave has proved time and again that they’re only trustworthy as long as whatever scheme they’re working on isn’t found out, and I can’t imagine that there is any chance their search engine is any better.
If someone recommends Brave to you, you should ignore them, because they are wrong. Brave Browser is a mess of a software project, and the company building it is even worse.
In this context the name makes a lot of sense
You mean because it describes the users, and not the product? 😅
The users, the business model, the people who think they’ll get away with their evil schemes
Even better 😁
I have been using startpage which is closed source and uses google results. Loved using it for so long but I want to switch any recommendations that aren’t Kagi(too expensive for me) or DDG(I heard that theye were tempering with the results sometime ago)?
I wonder what the reaction will be from the companies hiring Google’s advertising services. On the one hand, Google is clearly ensuring that they get as much money out of the deal as possible, but it also must lead to more people seeing the advertised brand, likely even encouraging it’s sales. The author suggests that this is a bad deal for companies working with Google, as well as Google’s users, but I can’t help but think that the companies purchasing ads from Google are coming out ahead on this one.
Anecdotally, I have a generally negative perception of the brands placed in the way of actual search results. They’re rarely relevant to my actual wants or needs, let alone the search terms, and it colors my expectations that they’d be capable of helping me even if I did want their products or services given the low QC on where their ads are shown.
Advertisers lose because they’re only paying to try to snipe each other’s customers when directly searching for brand names. They could pay to advertise on the more generic search phrases, but it’s more likely to convert a user into a sale if they’re ready to buy something and googling a competitor’s company name to go to their website.
For users just looking for general information, the company paid for an ad that was less likely to convert to a sale. And it fucks their analytics, too, since there’s no indication to them that users didn’t even search for the key term they’re paying to advertise with.
Wired has removed the story because it “does not meet [their] editorial standards”.
Interesting… thanks for flagging!
