|
I Google most of the time, and Bing occasionally if I am Microsoft focused. But in both cases I usually get a useful answer within the first few returned links. Maybe I don't go looking for certain questionable sites  .
|
|
|
|
|
No. Topics like "Kriegsspiel" usually led to some news group. Now you actually get content.
As in "The US and Ukraine Krieggspiel ..."
"Before entering on an understanding, I have meditated for a long time, and have foreseen what might happen. It is not genius which reveals to me suddenly, secretly, what I have to say or to do in a circumstance unexpected by other people; it is reflection, it is meditation." - Napoleon I
|
|
|
|
|
Searched DDG for Kriegsspiel, first result was Wikipedia, second was kriegsspiel.org. Hmmm. 
Usually, when I’m searching, I have a general idea of what I’m searching for. Skipping over a few flotsam results isn’t particularly annoying to me.
Cheers,
Time is the differentiation of eternity devised by man to measure the passage of human events.
- Manly P. Hall
Mark
Just another cog in the wheel
|
|
|
|
|
Yep, DDG is my go to search engine. I search for an article (had the title) and the result link was on the first page. Tried the same search on google and it was on page 14!
|
|
|
|
|
I’ve never really compared the two. That’s frikkin amazing.
I only use Google when I haven’t found what I was looking for on DDG. But I’ll usually put a !w or !r into DDG before looking any where else.
I try not to use Bing. Ever.
Time is the differentiation of eternity devised by man to measure the passage of human events.
- Manly P. Hall
Mark
Just another cog in the wheel
|
|
|
|
|
Have never heard of "DDG". Was relating my "current" search experience to my previous experience using Bing in particular. Same queries. i.e. relevance of returned content. From a skeptics point of view.
"Before entering on an understanding, I have meditated for a long time, and have foreseen what might happen. It is not genius which reveals to me suddenly, secretly, what I have to say or to do in a circumstance unexpected by other people; it is reflection, it is meditation." - Napoleon I
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry. Abbreviating ‘Duck Duck Go’.
Time is the differentiation of eternity devised by man to measure the passage of human events.
- Manly P. Hall
Mark
Just another cog in the wheel
|
|
|
|
|
I find overall that Google still (just) tends to return the most comprehensive range of results but that is less so than it was. It can often take scrolling through at least one page full of only marginally related adverts (sorry, 'sponsored results') to find the nuggets.
It does increasingly depend on how you ask the question too.
These days, even if you insist that the results must contain certain words in order to narrow down to a specific result, Google in particular will return many results that do not contain that word, possibly by using similar meanings or spellings?
Search used to be very 'serendipity' driven (can't think of a suitable word here), whereby you might often discover something different about a subject because the hits were somewhat random. Nowadays the engines are so focussed on pushing results based on what it is the engine thinks you are looking for (rather than what you are actually looking for) that you often end up with pages of irrelevant answers that don't contain known results you previously found.
This is the same 'feature' that causes you to see endless adverts for washing machines for weeks after you have bought one on-line - how many does the AI think one person needs! Woe betide you search for something for a friend that you have no interest in - for example I often buy historical ebooks for my wife through my account - guess what fills my feeds for days afterwards!
It's hard to express this clearly, but I think in an attempt to return more closely focussed results, search has gradually become less useful because the engine tries to eliminate things that it thinks are not relevant to the query you have made, and yet - for the more obscure subjects - those results are often the ones that lead you to an answer.
|
|
|
|
|
It frustrates me that when I add quotes to search terms that it treats that merely as a suggestion. I still get variations on the term and lots of sponsored results.
This weekend I found my ASUS router's wi-fi signal was weak. I was searching for additional ways to troubleshoot or if there were others that experienced the problem with the latest ROM update. Coincidentally the automatic firmware upgrader had recently updated to the latest.
Google kept showing me sites that would sell me a new router. Not much in the specifics regarding issues after a firmware xxxx upgrade.
I determined in the end after factor resting and still having the problem with a minimal configuration that it was probably a hardware failure. SO I bought a new router, same model. It worked right out of the box.
So now I'm left to wonder did Google know I needed to buy a new router or is it a coincidence?
|
|
|
|
|
Rich Shealer wrote: Google kept showing me sites that would sell me a new router.
Based on your description I just tried the following in google.
"asus" "wi-fi" weak signal fixes
I didn't see any ads for routers. At least not in the titles of the results. About half of the results were from the asus site. Only some were specific to the weak signal (as per just what was shown in google itself).
|
|
|
|
|
I think these things would be so much more useful if they had a narrow/broad switch. The narrow search would endeavour to return precisely the results that strictly matched what you were deduced to want, the broad search would widen to return the former plus less strictly associated results. Something to engage your interests, if you get my drift.
When I use our local library I find many, many books covering a wide range of subject matter, from which I often select something that just catches my eye. Other times I ask for books of a specific genre, or by a specific author, or even a specific book. Search engines would be so much better if they indulged both types of search (in my opinion).
|
|
|
|
|
Yes. That would be good - I was trying to say that the serendipty often encountered in search in the past has been removed. you can never tell when that will actually lead you to a better result!
|
|
|
|
|
Is AI now part of these search engines, or has it been for a while, or is this something new, and is it automatic or some url to use the "AI" option?
|
|
|
|
|
Bing is now a lot more verbose. Before, you just had (poor) links. Now it shows snippets that even relate to what you queried.
The other tipoff is that instead of "123,000,000 results", it's now "a lot" less.
"Before entering on an understanding, I have meditated for a long time, and have foreseen what might happen. It is not genius which reveals to me suddenly, secretly, what I have to say or to do in a circumstance unexpected by other people; it is reflection, it is meditation." - Napoleon I
modified 15-Mar-23 17:17pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Gerry Schmitz wrote: The other tipoff is that instead of "123,000,000 results", it's now "a lot" less.
Well... theoretically we only need 1... the correct one  
M.D.V. 
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
My google-fu is strong, but it's getting increasingly hard to find certain content that I know exists on the net because the filtering is politicized. Will AI make that better or worse? It all depends on what they are using to train it.
|
|
|
|
|
In the past I used the various operators to force inclusion, exclusions, exact phrases, etc. but they seemed to become overlooked or non-functioning. So I just search and scan, refine terms, ad nauseum.
Time is the differentiation of eternity devised by man to measure the passage of human events.
- Manly P. Hall
Mark
Just another cog in the wheel
|
|
|
|
|
That's the problem I had with google, I switch to duckduckgo to mostly avoid that.
|
|
|
|
|
Yes ... Some "countries" are slow to get their Chat AI going because it's not state-biased enough yet. There's no "AI" at work; just content and a hierarchical rating system.
"Before entering on an understanding, I have meditated for a long time, and have foreseen what might happen. It is not genius which reveals to me suddenly, secretly, what I have to say or to do in a circumstance unexpected by other people; it is reflection, it is meditation." - Napoleon I
|
|
|
|
|
1 with my smarty pants hat on - AI just more complex algorithm, which google has been expanding on for ages.
2 my cynic hat - it will only be a few weeks till the spam and Search Optimisers start figuring out means to rank higher. Plus with the higher complexity of ML (not AI) enhanced algorithms it might be more difficult for the owners to inject breakers or filters for removing individual and group trouble makers.
3 the spam and SEOs been making my search skills worse and worse each year.
|
|
|
|
|
It's a better dictionary ... depending on whose version you use.
"Before entering on an understanding, I have meditated for a long time, and have foreseen what might happen. It is not genius which reveals to me suddenly, secretly, what I have to say or to do in a circumstance unexpected by other people; it is reflection, it is meditation." - Napoleon I
|
|
|
|
|
That stinks with the alphabet's omega! Not once, but twice! The French poser! (6)
|
|
|
|
|
Is this another Goat Rodeo type clue ?
In a closed society where everybody's guilty, the only crime is getting caught. In a world of thieves, the only final sin is stupidity. - Hunter S Thompson - RIP
|
|
|
|
|
I didn't think so. It is a common word.
|
|
|
|
|
Common word but the bit relating to "stinks" I have never heard and had to look up!
Will be tied up tomorrow so can't answer.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
