I also mourn the Google cache. I bet site owners were lobbying to get rid of it, but it's really lame that Google caved after all these years...
Google cache still works. Too early to mourn.
For example,
https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:https:...
I do all searches from command line. This allows me to control the SERP, e.g., make own basic HTML metasearch SERP with no JS or CSS. I can put cache links in if I want. I can mix results from different search engines. I can do temporally separated continuation searches to avoid rate limits. And so on.
I can also rewrite URLs with the local forward proxy to use any cache I want. I can also rewrite response bodies.
If Google disables public access to their cache, there are many other options. I have never relied on it.
However, the quality of Google's search results has declined, which is widely acknowledged by tech-savvy users and even the general public. As an SEO expert, I've observed that while Google has always battled spam, they've recently shifted their focus away from website content and towards other factors like brand recognition and user engagement metrics. This change likely stems from their anticipation of AI-generated content.
Consequently, a poorly written article on a well-known site like Forbes can outrank a well-researched piece on a lesser-known blog. Google has also started using AI for ranking, despite previously stating they wouldn't.
As a result, alternative search engines like Bing and DuckDuckGo have become viable options. However, Bing hasn't significantly improved; Google has simply gotten worse. People are likely to leave Google as soon as a clearly superior alternative emerges.
An ideal Google alternative would be like ChatGPT but with less abstraction and more factual accuracy. While ChatGPT provides direct answers, it's a 50/50 chance whether the information is true or made up. A real competitor would offer ChatGPT-like functionality with a stronger emphasis on facts and sources, providing up-to-date knowledge on any topic.
Do you remember when iPhone was introduced and Nokia/Symbian was still the king?
This is exactly the reasoning line that Symbian/Nokia devs kept repeating when iPhone was released. I remember arguing with them endlessly. It took around 4 years for the company to collapse completely.
Pretty surprising from a big phone company.
Then a microsoft exec took over, forced a migration to windows mobile, sold a bunch of phone, orphaned those phones, and brought a new generation of incompatible windows phones. Not to mention the famous burning barn memo. Pretty much the entire market dropped windows mobile.
Similarly Balmer's microsoft lacked vision and was doubling down on windows laptops+desktops running microsoft office at the cost of mobile, at the cost of cloud, and a late start on web based apps. They did of course turn things around and started playing nice with others, offering cloud services, supporting linux and android, etc.
ca 20 billions per year, just to keep their search engine as a default. https://untested.sonnet.io/Defaults+Matter%2C+Don't+Assume+C...
I still reach for google for any minor query, and it's super responsive and it's super helpful.
Yes of course I am aware that for certain queries you get a lot of results that have manipulated their way to the top. I just think I have a very good natural bullshit-filter.
I have to remind myself Google is a massive part of many people’s experience of the internet.
When it comes to that level of data and maturity I think there is no valid competition.
I've consciously made the decision that I don't care what Google does with my data. They're going to attempt to track me regardless of if I use their services or not. I have friends who live off grid to get away from internet tracking but I don't envy their lifestyle.
So I think like most conscious people we just make the decision to willingly hand over whatever data we might be leaking to these companies, just for the convenience. Life is short, and filled with enough suffering, I don't need to inflict it upon myself in my daily routines.
2) There was a German research that it degraded [1]. I do not remember by how many percents it got worse, but how would you be able to tell that search engine is worse by 8% year by year?
3) Internet just got worse. There are walled gardens everywhere. Access to data has been more restricted for people who do not want to create accounts. Internet is not so tough for people who do not care about their privacy. It is not necessarily that Google search became worse
4) There always been spam, but it just got worse
5) Corporations are becoming more greedy. I have read about SEOs complaining that what has been previously not allowed, now is. Malvertising is more common
6) If Google focuses on big media companies, then small sites do not have revenue. Small sites are closed, and we have Internet without traffic for personal sites. Internet is getting boring if search focuses on big media companies.
7) Google is focusing on 'content', not on 'quality' content. Therefore what is 'new' is more important. Therefore you will be less likely to find a good article from 2011
8) Personal sites are hard to quantify. How would you be able that small domain with one good article is reliable? You don't. That is why Google prefers vice, or bbc news. It is just easier. There are more investor money there, etc. etc.
9) DYI projects, or game formus are tricky. They may contain Nintendo stuff, they may contain ROM files, or other untrustworthy comments. It is easier for search engines to ditch such sites altogether.
10) I am running a web crawler that indexes domains [2]. Let me assign you a task. Find interesting domains about "Amiga" using google search. How many domains you will find? I have more than 200 domains. Sure "Amiga" is a niche keyword, however that makes me wonder if I am just as inexperienced with Google search, or if Google in fact is a Potemkin Village for folks living in Matrix.
Links:
[1] https://mashable.com/article/google-search-low-quality-resea...
That's not really sufficient, though—there have been things I've searched for, and every result on the first few pages was bullshit. The problem was not that they weren't clearly bullshit, the problem was that there was no non-bullshit to find instead. At least, not buried deep in the bowels. When I'm just looking up a quick fact, I have a limit to how many worthless links I'm going to follow.
But also: how "super responsive and [...] super helpful" is it being, if to get your information, you need to figure out when what it's giving you is a lie? "It gives me great information because I know when it's lying" doesn't seem very helpful, versus something that... y'know, doesn't send you to lies.
It lends some credence to the idea that no matter how bad a service decays, it doesn’t matter if there is no better alternative. It can get worse and worse forever if competition doesn’t exist.
You can't declare something dead just because you notice a decline in it.
The internet is turning into just a dozen websites at an alarming speed.
On the other hand, their AlphaFold effirts seem to have no real competition, so it would be funny if the whole company pivoted into biotech one day :D
lol
-site:amazon.com
-site:ebay.com
-site:etsy.com
-site:facebook.com
-site:*google.com
It’s especially good when you need to find out the recommended amount of rocks to eat per day
> Betteridge's law of headlines: "Any headline that ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no."
Google will remain dominant because of the ease of returning to something familiar.
It is the same reason that MS is pushing OpenAI - once they become the familiar brand, people will stay there even if Anthropic blows them out of the water in terms of quality.
All the more so here where Bing results (aka DDG etc) are comparable or worse for a large number of queries.
