• Baku@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    79
    ·
    5 months ago

    A couple of years ago I found a black and white photo from the late 1800s and wanted to figure out what station it was from. Google was useless and only showed unrelated stations, but surprisingly, Bing found a page with the exact photo on it. It was on one of those shitty scraper pages that just lists thousands and thousands of random photos, but nonetheless I figured out what station it was

    • lars@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      27
      ·
      5 months ago

      Jesus Christ I guess I’m not misremembering.

      Bing’s reverse image search is essentially dead in 2024 unless you’re uploading the Mona Lisa. It’s really, really terrible and even worse than Google.

      My favorites right now are Tineye, Yandex, and Google, in that order.

      • net00@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        22
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        Strange, for me Tineye has not a single time been able to identify ANY of the images I ever tried. Yandex has worked best for me

        • Microw@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          5 months ago

          Same, tineye only ever worked for me if I uploaded a picture that was by Reuters or something and therefore on lots of reputable sites. In any other cases it found nothing.

      • Baku@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        My last experience with bings reverse image search was in 2022 or so, so no vouches for its quality these days. I’ve had mixed results with tineye, but there was another one which I don’t even remember the name of that generated reverse search links for all the search engines, I think it even listed that Chinese one and a few others I’ve never heard of rather than being its own thing. I had decent luck with that, I found Bing still worked the best but I haven’t tried it since

        Google lens definitely wins for object search though. Not the point of the post, I know, but it’s kind of funny how their reverse image search is dogshit but their object recognition is flawless

          • peteypete420@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            5 months ago

            Tineye? Yea it’s used in Branden Sanderson’s Mistbourne books. People have the ability to ingest different metals for different abilities.

            People who ingest tin, gain heightened senses. Vision, hearing, touch, etc. They are known as “tineyes”.

    • mindbleach@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      Neither ever worked for lineart. Photos? Used to be reliable, occasionally bordered psychic, now just dumb. Drawings? Yep, that’s a drawing. Did you need anything else?

  • beeng@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    75
    ·
    5 months ago

    It does seem like the ideology of those inside google went from “tech” , to “I know better than you do”. Not sure it’s fixable really…

    • ArtificialLink@lemy.lol
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      5 months ago

      That’s the problem with most tech these days. They assume they know the best way to do something or know better than you. Its infuriating

      • NoSpiritAnimal@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        Spotify is a prime example of this. There are so many “features” I hate and that no one has asked for, yet shuffle doesn’t even work.

        Everytime I start spotify in ny office after listening on my commute, it tries to start playing on my phone since that was playing in my car.

        Or when I was still there, Reddit search. Absolutely useless and so fucking smarmy with that stupid doge.

      • UckyBon@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        They know how to manipulate you to do/buy stuff you weren’t looking for. That’s what makes a profit.

        It has always been this way (also in tech) because those things are the products of companies (main goal: profit, usually under a sneaky slogan), but it is becoming increasingly invasive. Don’t be evil: think different.

      • lorty
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        Yeah, tech people nowadays have this attitude with most people, they only show some restraint when they think it’s for other people like them.

      • Sanctus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        The problem with tech is managers are wearing engineer coats and calling the shots with no true credentials.

      • joonazan@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        It’s about minimizing the annoyance for the majority of users who will misspell some popular thing.

        Also, I believe that showing actually interesting content is bad for the businesses because it might make the user stop to think and pursue something meaningful instead of continuing to use the product.

    • Tekhne@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      5 months ago

      That was great, thank you for linking! I expected to just skim it and ended up reading the whole article and the follow-up

    • Riley
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      Damn, yeah, Ragavan is definitely killing Modern search

  • Klear@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    42
    ·
    5 months ago

    Unrealistic. I usually have to scroll way down in the results to find a link to wikipedia nowadays.

    • pachrist@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      5 months ago

      So true. If I want to know how old a celebrity is, first result is something about their latest work that doesn’t mention age, and then the next 3-4 are usually some ranking articles, “top 10 ceberities you didn’t know were 50,” and then Wikipedia comes in with the answer.

  • Legend@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    5 months ago

    There is a firefox addon for it called search by image not sure how good it is tho as i have never used it .