They're sending their Executive Chairman to North Korea?

/read a different article.

Great Googly Moogly.

/who are the Chefs?

At the core of the case was the fact that what a search results page looks like on Google has mutated over the last few years, delivering less and less stuff from the web outside of Google, and showing more and more of Google's own content and data.... This search for pizza in 2008 vs. today is a particularly dramatic example, but serves the point

The point being the dolts at Buzzfeed don't know how to use the freaking scrollbar.

Geesh, not this shiat again.

/Swear to God, I'm gonna switch to Bing if Google doesn't stop screwing around.
//Like Google would even notice I was gone.

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: [7.media.bustedtees.cvcdn.com image 450x482]

What something googlier may look like

Even googlier:

ok l'll try a serious answer just to break the trend

why can't Google provide both a raw search answer - a generic, 'what the masses see' result

and a 'knowledge answer' - "this is what we think you want to know based on the data we have on you"

Summer Glau's Love Slave: Geesh, not this shiat again.

/Swear to God, I'm gonna switch to Bing if Google doesn't stop screwing around.

Try duckduckgo.com. The search results are top-notch.

Great Googlier Mooglier

Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: duckduckgo.com

Thanks, I will.

mjjt: ok l'll try a serious answer just to break the trend

why can't Google provide both a raw search answer - a generic, 'what the masses see' result

and a 'knowledge answer' - "this is what we think you want to know based on the data we have on you"

How about Google does whatever it wants, and if you don't like it, use lycos or alta vista?

He who controls the catalog, controls the library.

Does "Don't Be Evil" trump "Power Corrupts"?

mjjt: ok l'll try a serious answer just to break the trend

why can't Google provide both a raw search answer - a generic, 'what the masses see' result

and a 'knowledge answer' - "this is what we think you want to know based on the data we have on you"

Google isn't a search company. They're a webservices company that sells advertising and a host of other services. You, the user, are one of their primary products.

mjjt: ok l'll try a serious answer just to break the trend

why can't Google provide both a raw search answer - a generic, 'what the masses see' result

and a 'knowledge answer' - "this is what we think you want to know based on the data we have on you"

Because it can't afford to. That sort of search result would make it no money. You can turn off personalization, but the ads and IP/geolocation changes remain intact.

I'll admit that I click on the ads if it is what I'm looking for; Google has to pay for its results somehow. Otherwise, I ignore them. Yes, I know that most map results are ads. (maps results when you put in an actual location do not seem to be. I know for a fact that I don't pay anyone for a map of my house to come up and it does when I enter the location.)

But hey, a note to these guys:



You use Bing for your image search. I'm pretty sure they track their users more hardcore than GIS. Get a GIS alternative, and I'm there.

This is why I switched to dogpile

andrewagill: mjjt: ok l'll try a serious answer just to break the trend

why can't Google provide both a raw search answer - a generic, 'what the masses see' result

and a 'knowledge answer' - "this is what we think you want to know based on the data we have on you"

Because it can't afford to. That sort of search result would make it no money. You can turn off personalization, but the ads and IP/geolocation changes remain intact.

I'll admit that I click on the ads if it is what I'm looking for; Google has to pay for its results somehow. Otherwise, I ignore them. Yes, I know that most map results are ads. (maps results when you put in an actual location do not seem to be. I know for a fact that I don't pay anyone for a map of my house to come up and it does when I enter the location.)

But hey, a note to these guys:



You use Bing for your image search. I'm pretty sure they track their users more hardcore than GIS. Get a GIS alternative, and I'm there.

No, most maps results are not ads. Most mayors results are actual valid results based on what Google thinks you're looking for and where Google thinks you are. The maps results that ARE ads are clearly marked as such. Out is not possible to buy non ad results or bribe Google into giving you preferential rankings. There is not a company in the world that Haas enough money to make it worth it to them. Trust me, I've seen some very wealthy organized try.

Lusiphur:
No, most maps results are not ads. Most mayors results are actual valid results based on what Google thinks you're looking for and where Google thinks you are. The maps results that ARE ads are clearly marked as such. Out is not possible to buy non ad results or bribe Google into giving you preferential rankings. There is not a company in the world that Haas enough money to make it worth it to them. Trust me, I've seen some very wealthy organized try.

Caught sayof.

Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: Summer Glau's Love Slave: Geesh, not this shiat again.

/Swear to God, I'm gonna switch to Bing if Google doesn't stop screwing around.

Try duckduckgo.com. The search results are top-notch.

Yep, but both it and Google have this problem: when they think what you searched for is similar to what they wanted you to search for and they present you this question "Did you mean (what they think you should have searched for)?" - They don't give you any way to say NO and make their list of matches to (wttyshsf) go away!

startpage.com

Uses Google's engine, but strips away all the personalization and tracking "features" via ixquick. Don't really know how it works on weighing Google products, but I assume that would be done within the engine itself, so it would not be affected by anything startpage does.

/uses ddg

DECMATH: Yep, but both it and Google have this problem: when they think what you searched for is similar to what they wanted you to search for and they present you this question "Did you mean (what they think you should have searched for)?" - They don't give you any way to say NO and make their list of matches to (wttyshsf) go away!

Yeah they do. Well Google does anyway. Right underneath that is the link for "Search for (what I originally typed) instead"

I have to use it all of the time when I am googling a technical term of some sort.

I never realized how much data mining they do until I recently signed up for a new gmail account. I only gave them some seemingly innocuous information - name, telephone number, second email address and that farking Google+ went and suggested connecting with five people. I knew all of them. I disabled the Google + features soon after that. It is all very disconcerting to me.

Never mind that, how soon will I be able to Fark from my Fark while I farkin' Fark?

/you farkers!

andrewagill: mjjt: ok l'll try a serious answer just to break the trend

why can't Google provide both a raw search answer - a generic, 'what the masses see' result

and a 'knowledge answer' - "this is what we think you want to know based on the data we have on you"

Because it can't afford to. That sort of search result would make it no money. You can turn off personalization, but the ads and IP/geolocation changes remain intact.

I'll admit that I click on the ads if it is what I'm looking for; Google has to pay for its results somehow. Otherwise, I ignore them. Yes, I know that most map results are ads. (maps results when you put in an actual location do not seem to be. I know for a fact that I don't pay anyone for a map of my house to come up and it does when I enter the location.)

But hey, a note to these guys:

[home.earthlink.net image 556x276]

You use Bing for your image search. I'm pretty sure they track their users more hardcore than GIS. Get a GIS alternative, and I'm there.

use startpage.com (for some reason, fark won't let me link there)

entropic_existence: DECMATH: Yep, but both it and Google have this problem: when they think what you searched for is similar to what they wanted you to search for and they present you this question "Did you mean (what they think you should have searched for)?" - They don't give you any way to say NO and make their list of matches to (wttyshsf) go away!

Yeah they do. Well Google does anyway. Right underneath that is the link for "Search for (what I originally typed) instead"

I have to use it all of the time when I am googling a technical term of some sort.

Not always. I wanted to look for a thread on Fark the other day where I talked about how to find farked up youtube results by switching to sort by time and searching for things like pv or avi to find things that people meant to mark private or didn't even care to rename.

google "+pv andrewagill site:fark.com"

It will tell you there are no results and show you every thread that I'm in with PC LOAD LETTER.

Pumpernickel bread: I never realized how much data mining they do until I recently signed up for a new gmail account. I only gave them some seemingly innocuous information - name, telephone number, second email address and that farking Google+ went and suggested connecting with five people. I knew all of them. I disabled the Google + features soon after that. It is all very disconcerting to me.

You gave Google your phone number????

You think that's "innocuous" information?

Who gives a shiat? I can't remember the last time I couldn't find something I was looking for using Google. Sometimes I use Bing for shiats and giggles, but whatever. I can find what I'm looking for.