• Boz (he/him)@lemmy.one
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    “Many of us may wonder,” yep. Some of us are pretty sure it’s because Google is now optimizing searches for profitability rather than relevance. They’re very careful to avoid fully explaining how the algorithm arranges search results, but I think the algorithm now has more financial subroutines than software behind it.

    • cavemeat@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      You know, that makes me wonder if someone could figure out the old google search algorithm, and use it to make a new, more useful search engine.

      • jarfil
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        IIRC PageRank was patented, so it’s public, and at this point the patent is surely expired.

        • Raeyin@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          A lot of the cost is data storage. Unfortunately, I doubt any party will replace old Google.

          • jarfil
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Storage isn’t as expensive as it used to be, especially if you were to only store text. I feel like nowadays the main costs would be bandwidth and processing, since there are many more websites out there, and they’re much bigger, full of many more scripts to make sense of.

    • neamhsplach@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I recently googled “grass” to find out more about different species and the results were all trying to sell me grass.

      Grass.

      Where I live it’s as common as dirt. I wonder how many people Google the word “grass” with zero qualifiers when trying to BUY grass.

      Ffs

      • Raeyin@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        This made me curious. A while back, I decided that I’d had enough with lousy results. I started trying different search engines, and I landed on DuckDuckGo.

        After reading your comment, I went and searched the same term, grass. At the top, it showed a short section of ‘products’ and one ad. The next result was a store, then Britannica’s article on grass. Fourth result was Wikipedia.

        I figure that a ‘products’ link and one ad, clearly labeled, is reasonable. After all, the search engine is free.

      • Boz (he/him)@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        “But have you considered special-edition artisanal grass? Guaranteed to impress your neighbors! Practically mows itself! Thrives on zero water! [in small print: made of 100% high grade polypropylene filaments, not suitable for hot climates].” [/s]

        For that kind of research, I usually go to Wikipedia, pick a random technical term for the topic I’m looking for, and add that. It doesn’t always work, but it does eliminate some of the sales sites. But it shouldn’t be necessary, sigh.