rd> amused when people say kids are searching on TikTok instead of Google.
rd> Sure, Google results have been garbage for decades, but if I'm ever
rd> searching for something specific on TikTok, I find videos about videos
rd> about the topic, rather than videos about the topic.

Wait, people are using TikTok as a search engine??

---------------
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

.... Walking destinations are further then they appear.
___ MultiMail/Linux v0.52

On Wed, 06 Sep 2023 19:53:56 +1300, candycane wrote:
> Wait, people are using TikTok as a search engine??

People have been using Facebook and Twitter and Youtube as search
engines for decades and you are surprised? If it has a "search"
field, people will do what it says on the tin.

--
"The avalanche has started, it is too late for the pebbles to vote."
--Kosh

On 9/7/23 5:45 AM, Matthew Ernisse wrote:
> On Wed, 06 Sep 2023 19:53:56 +1300, candycane wrote:
>> Wait, people are using TikTok as a search engine??
>
> People have been using Facebook and Twitter and Youtube as search
> engines for decades and you are surprised? If it has a "search"
> field, people will do what it says on the tin.

We're all doomed.

Google may have a lot to answer for, but it was originally the absolute
best search engine and deserved its popularity. Now it throws up a lot
of trash before you find anything even close to what you're looking for,
but is there anything actually better?

--
Cheers, Bev
I'd rather not have neighbors. If I can see them, they're too close.
In fact, if I can see them through a rifle scope, they're too close.
-- Anonymous Coward

The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:
> Google may have a lot to answer for, but it was originally the absolute
> best search engine and deserved its popularity. Now it throws up a lot
> of trash before you find anything even close to what you're looking for,
> but is there anything actually better?

I've been using Qwant lately...AFAICT, it usually gets me the results I
want.

--
_/_
/ v \ Scott Alfter (remove the obvious to send mail)
(IIGS( https://alfter.us/ Top-posting!
\_^_/ >What's the most annoying thing on Usenet?

On 2023-09-07, The Real Bev wrote:
> On 9/7/23 5:45 AM, Matthew Ernisse wrote:
>> On Wed, 06 Sep 2023 19:53:56 +1300, candycane wrote:
>>> Wait, people are using TikTok as a search engine??
>>
>> People have been using Facebook and Twitter and Youtube as search
>> engines for decades and you are surprised? If it has a "search"
>> field, people will do what it says on the tin.
>
> We're all doomed.

Yep.

>
> Google may have a lot to answer for, but it was originally the absolute
> best search engine and deserved its popularity. Now it throws up a lot
> of trash before you find anything even close to what you're looking for,
> but is there anything actually better?

Altavista. ;)

--
|_|O|_|
|_|_|O| Github: https://github.com/dpurgert
|O|O|O| PGP: DDAB 23FB 19FA 7D85 1CC1 E067 6D65 70E5 4CE7 2860

On 9/7/23 11:24, The Real Bev wrote:
> Google may have a lot to answer for, but it was originally the absolute
> best search engine and deserved its popularity.  Now it throws up a lot
> of trash before you find anything even close to what you're looking for,
> but is there anything actually better?

Depending on what you're looking for, DuckDuckGo might offer better
results, but barely. Search is kind of dead, thanks to all of the
blogspam out there gaming the system.

--
~rdh

rdh <rdh@tilde.institute> wrote:
> On 9/7/23 11:24, The Real Bev wrote:
>> Google may have a lot to answer for, but it was originally the absolute
>> best search engine and deserved its popularity. Now it throws up a lot
>> of trash before you find anything even close to what you're looking for,
>> but is there anything actually better?
>
> Depending on what you're looking for, DuckDuckGo might offer better
> results, but barely.

Of course DDG really get their results from Bing (they even admit
it now), so it's still built on one of the evil tech empires
(Microsoft).

DDG offer a great "Lite" mode though, and URL parameters allow
customisations like disabling advertising, so functionality-wise
they still win out for me. I toyed with switching to SearX, but it
doesn't have a similar lightweight interface, and the instances pop
up and down like yo-yos.

> Search is kind of dead, thanks to all of the
> blogspam out there gaming the system.

I often use "site:" to search within specific big websites that are
likely to have the content that I want, in combination with direct
searches on those websites if they have the ability (and it doesn't
rely on Javascript).

But I can't remember exactly how well search engines worked in the
past to know whether they've got better or worse. The range of
content that's available on the live (as opposed to archived) web
might have got weaker in some areas though.

--
__ __
#_ < |\| |< _#

On 9/7/23 2:51 PM, rdh wrote:
> On 9/7/23 11:24, The Real Bev wrote:
>> Google may have a lot to answer for, but it was originally the absolute
>> best search engine and deserved its popularity.  Now it throws up a lot
>> of trash before you find anything even close to what you're looking for,
>> but is there anything actually better?
>
> Depending on what you're looking for, DuckDuckGo might offer better
> results, but barely. Search is kind of dead, thanks to all of the
> blogspam out there gaming the system.

That's why we still have brains. Some of us, anyway.

--
Cheers, Bev
"When your enemies are making mistakes, don't interrupt them."
-- from the film 'Moneyball'