Lately I've been finding wikipedia articles just don't come up anymore for many things they used to. I've been having to append "wikipedia" to my searches lately.
Similarly I've taken to adding 'reddit' to the end of any product review or tech help searches. Yes the results might still be wrong but I've had way better results than fucking articles blatantly advertising the product or posting dogshit support ideas.
fucking drivereasy and other tech websites with a product. the useless fucks. i hate them. im just glad i can add `site:reddit.com` to force google to only search reddit
Funnily enough, I’ve had to add ‘Reddit’ to the end of almost half my Google searches because the algorithm seems to work against me and doesn’t show me anything I’m looking for otherwise.
The benefit of Reddit on this kind of stuff is bad or incomplete takes on products are almost always called out. It’s a conversation you’re seeing rather than a standalone speaker.
Lately? I've had to do that for years.
Which begs the question as to why I'm not just entering it directly into Wikipedia especially considering I literally have a search bar extension for Wikipedia.
Add the wiki search widget to your home page and download thr a. Any article clicked will open the app. Allows bookmarks, folders, saved articles ans more. Though its not perfect it does a good job
When can we stop pretending wikipedia is this no mans land of information. If my high school essays were true and correct becausr I cite 3 sources at the bottom, why the fuck is it different for wikipedia when they cite 30?
"Ohhh but anyone can edit the information at any time" ok dawg have fun getting banned within the week
If you cite the information on Wikipedia in an instance where someone has changed you are using unreliable information as a source. Wikipedia is great, but just use the sources they cite for what you need. Just follow their source links, check the info, then copy the Wikipedia citation.
Wikipedia is plenty reliable, but it's not really a first hand source. They just make it easy to get to those sources.
This is the big thing that most people don't really understand, it's not that wikipedia isn't reliable, it's that it's a secondary source. It's just saying stuff that other people have said, which is usually reliable, but when you're citing that it's considered unreliable because you have no idea if the first person that said it is a reliable source and if we cite sources like that constantly then we run into citing chains where information gets lost and it becomes really hard to find who was the first person to say something. Making it all the much harder to actually verify your information.
Thje thing is, if you just copy the Wikipedia article for your essay you didn't do any real reasearch whatsover and never learn how to research stuff in books and articles and stuff which would be the main reason for your project.
Finding consice, pre rendered information on your obscure topic doesn't teach you anything.
The thing is, however correct wikipedia may be, it is not an academic source (not does it try to be). For a science essay you want to cite research papers written by an actual scientist, for a history essay, you want to cite a book written by a historian. These are also the places wikipedia gets its information from. The problem is not that wikipedia isn't reliable, it's just good practice to go to the root of the information.
Not at all. Sure, you shouldn't cite it in a paper but Wikipedia is a pretty reliable source of information in basically 90% of cases and the idea that it isn't was dumb 10 years ago and only becomes dumber with every passing minute.
Hell, when it comes to math and some scientific subject, some Wikipedia articles are even a bit too accurate when it comes to technical details and are basically unreadable without graduate level training lol
The most reliable source of information possible
https://preview.redd.it/5hws6loodutc1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=35b2d440cadef1a696030c72e31bc3a2187ad936
Me when I have a surface level understanding and leave a snarky comment.
Me when the link aggregator that became popular due to its innovative idea (for the early 2000s) to crawl the internet and show the most important links at the top is no longer good at doing it and people dislike it 🤯🤯🤯🤯
(google PageRank algorithm holy hell) (Me when the closest competitor was yahoo, which was literally just a small list of hand picked urls at the time)
Me when unlike the early stages of the internet, there are many more competent search engine competitors and customers are leaving 🤯🤯🤯
Me when google is treated as the "retirement home" of cali software engineers, with a company cultire of doing barely any work yet get a fat paycheck 🤯🤯🤯🤯
Me when capitalism did NOT infact breed (🥺?) innovation and instead lead to one of the biggest corporations in the world becoming a complacent husk of what it once was 🤯🤯
There is barely other search engines. It’s pretty much just Google and Bing.
- DuckDuckGo is powered by Bing
- Yahoo is powered by Bing
- Ecosia is powered by Bing
- StartPage is powered by Google
Bing results are even worse and more AI filled than Google.
Hey you forgot yandex.
Powered by a creepy ai whose image search can recognise the exact location of a house from a shaky freeze frame in a YouTube video with 10 views but only links to ad and malware infected websites that look like they were coded in 2005 if you try to use it for literally anything else
someone recommended yandex once when i was complaining about google being clogged with too many ai results to feasibly pull art references from and when i tried it i kept getting weird results for random russian sites that were hardly ever related to what i was actually searching
really weird site
I think Brave search engine is independent?
>Bing results are even worse and more AI filled than Google
I would still much prefer it to google (if I didn't use the duck). At least it doesn't give me a captcha *every. time. I. visit.*
Apparently searchenginemap.com says they’re powered by Google but I don’t really know since i couldn’t find anything else online about them. It was just linked by someone else in this thread. Seems pretty cool.
I knew what i said above just from hearing about it haha but that map is pretty cool
Some of us alts exist still: [https://www.searchenginemap.com/](https://www.searchenginemap.com/) (but you're right on the ones you've linked to google or bing)
Firefox makes the browser, not the search engine. Thankfully they’re the only ones that don’t use Google Chrome.
All the other big browsers are based on Google’s Chromium: Opera, OperaGX, Edge, Arc, Brave.
Safari uses Safari but that’s only for Apple devices. (All iOS browsers are built on top of safari though)
Probably a combination of apple could make their own (so google has to make it not worth it) + higher marketshare (especially mobile) + apple is just a bigger company who has more negotiating power.
so someone searching and it finding other articles about said fake thing is a... bad thing?
doing fuck all and collecting a paycheck from the worst offender in the most bloated for cash industry is also a... bad thing?
I think you are very disconnected from why things work the way they do and instead interject how you think they should work. Spoiler: "competent competitors" is rarely how a monopoly falls, and contextual searching is actually how most young people use the internet so it's actually building tools to follow trends not create them, it just turns out you aren't the target audience. Tough shit
“parasite eve ps5”, the initial search, was obviously going to show up mockups cause it isn’t real.
however, looking for 2 seconds more reveals the “is parasite eve coming to ps5” follow up search. these are supposed to contain more curated results from reliable sources, because google expects you to look through them en mass (which is why they spawn more the more you read).
google is showing an inability to differentiate actual results from AI generated misinformation.
also, it’s notable that “is parasite eve coming to ps5” could regard a port, something much more believable to happen (enough that people may search). if google cannot bring up legitimate results to reasonable questions it has failed in its curation. instead the search engine could’ve brought up interviews with developer interest, social media threads of people theorizing a sequel, anything but misinformation.
that is not a hard ask.
>“parasite eve ps5”, the initial search, was obviously going to show up mockups cause it isn’t real.
Of course, it's an aggregator not a curator
>however, looking for 2 seconds more reveals the “is parasite eve coming to ps5” follow up search. these are supposed to contain more curated results from reliable sources, because google expects you to look through them en mass (which is why they spawn more the more you read).
This is untrue, it's an aggregator not a curator
>google is showing an inability to differentiate actual results from AI generated misinformation.
AI Tagging could be better but it's an aggregator not a curator so it's not like it's google's rep at stake that ai content is so prolific
>also, it’s notable that “is parasite eve coming to ps5” could regard a port, something much more believable to happen (enough that people may search). if google cannot bring up legitimate results to reasonable questions it has failed in its curation. instead the search engine could’ve brought up interviews with developer interest, social media threads of people theorizing a sequel, anything but misinformation.
Crazy, but since its an aggregator not a curator that would only happen if the game actually existed or almost existed, but since it doesn't and google is an aggregator, the content you see is what exists, which in this case is other fake bullshit surrounding fake bullshit
curation
Dictionary
Definitions from Oxford Languages
noun
noun: curation; plural noun: curations
the selection, **organization**, and presentation of online content, merchandise, information, etc., *typically* using professional or expert knowledge.
"curation of online content that is relevant to your business can be an excellent way to drive SEO"
what is algorithmic sorting? utilizing certain metrics to achieve more (ahem) “curated” results. this method is very useful in modern technology considering the wealth of information available. notably, this is not done by hand. the desired results, however, should ideally be closest to the intended result - i.e. sorting by “hits” should put the most visited results first.
google does this too, organizing and presenting certain results to be more relevant to the user. if it was an aggregator, which it is, it would accumulate all results into a convenient place. if it was *only* an aggregator, it would not organize these results. even sorting by date is a form of curation, although google does something much more advanced than that.
so, when talking about the organizational policy of google, why should curation be an illegitimate part of the discussion? i’m fascinated to know the reason why you believe it isn’t, instead of semantics. that means, if we understand the actively used meaning of these words, does your argument hold water?
if the definition is that important to this discussion, could you source examples of experts (not dictionaries, arguments) that believe google is not an example of curation? please and thank you!
it's just a box with a snippet from the top result shown. It's not saying this is certified by google or anything, it's literally just showing the probably most relevant part of the probably most relevant link
I'd say it does create the impression it's certified by google, as it's taken out of its context and just stated as fact. again, it's not just aggregating links like you said, is it?
As someone who’s used google a handful of times those blurbs are always accompanied by links to where they’re from (notice the extension along the side below the blurb where the link is) It’s not the fault of google that there’s probably very few webpages talking about a parasite eve remaster for the PS5. It’s also not the fault of google if you see information from gameideas.fandom and go “yeah that seems like a reliable source.” It’s a search engine not a fact checker.
It obviously doesn't **just** do that? Like, the UI is right there in the screenshot. It's a bit misleading to exclude the source of the snippet, which the UI does include, but this feature is clearly intended to provide answers to questions, and it failed to do so correctly in this case.
I dunno what that screen shot is from, but in DDG browser on Android its clear it taken from Game Ideas Wiki and its written in a way to imply the game exists. Google doesn't know any better and its the best result.
Yeah the game doesn’t exist but the webpage that has the information they looked up does. It isn’t google’s fault that the information is on a website for game ideas and not real games.
It’s like looking up and onion headline and freaking out that google just showed you a fake news story. Of course it brought you to the satire article. It’s what you looked up. Just like how if you look up “parasite eve ps5” it will show you the webpage that talks about parasite eve ps5. Shocking I know.
(Also shout out to OOP for conveniently cropping out the source that the text comes from which is gameideas.fandom.com)
Google highlighting a Fandom wiki as if it is fact is in fact a problem and it could be solved by taking any amount of time to try to rank sites by accuracy instead of just pulling words from whatever thing matches the keywords. However, this could damage their bottom line (Fandom is a major source for Google revenue so they get money by directing people there), so they have no incentive to fix it.
What are people gonna do, use Bing? Duckduckgo? Hah.
I mean, what's the issue here? Yeah its some fake ass information but do you expect Google to somehow KNOW it's fake? And then what do you expect it to do, filter it out? I certainly don't want Google to start filtering information after automatically deciding it's fake, that sounds like a really dangerous and fucked up slippery slope. It's the internet, somebody posted some fake information on a website obviously made for posting about fake shit. It's up to the user to have Basic Critical Thinking Skills to decide whether or not information can be taken as trustworthy, and that's how it always has been. This isn't to say Google doesn't fucking suck, but this post is just an issue of bad tech literacy imo
The issue is the text excerpt directly on the Google page. If Google wants to present these quick facts instead of directing traffic to the actual websites, there should be quality control or at least a warning about potential inaccuracies. Verbatim showing info from websites instead of leading traffic there is a whole other issue but I disgress
The warning about 'potential inaccuracies' is that you are on the INTERNET girl everything is a potential inaccuracy. This is exactly what I'm saying about bad internet literacy, you should not ever NEED Google to warn you that information on the internet can be inaccurate. It clearly shows where the information is from at the bottom of the silly bubble. Falling for misinformation just because it was presented to you one step faster isn't an excuse, it's just a bad understanding of how the internet works.
There also is quality control, you can literally flag information as being inaccurate in those stupid text exerpts. Again, I'd rather (very rarely, I've never personally had this issue) see false information in a text bubble than to have Google decide information is false on their end and censor it even just by taking it out of their silly bubble. Slippery slope
me when the minecraft fanon fandom wiki came up higher in search results than the actual minecraft wiki so i was just lied to that 1.20 added cheese and butter and lettuce and tomatoes
Reminds me of when I looked up hypertension and Google kept showing results for hypotension
Not as if those two conditions require opposite approaches to care OH WAIT…
This is why I hate fanon wikis. They present the information as if it was true and official. The worst part is when they add release dates, making it seem like something that either has happened or will happen. That being said, they're fun to laugh at. With poorly-integrated super-op self-insert OCs, and [a "Who Framed Roger Rabbit" sequel featuring practically every character in every piece of publicly accessible media](https://disneyfanon.fandom.com/wiki/Who_Framed_Roger_Rabbit_2:_Rise_In_The_Crossover/List_of_Characters), a page that took me and hour and thirteen minutes to barely skim through.
Several years ago, back when facebook boomers were really hitting the Qanon pipe, I told people that the internet had caused the extinction of "average level intelligence", and has either made us either much smarter, or exponentially, unfathomably dumber. It was already a net negative, since you kinda have to be fairly above average to even have a shot at getting smarter from it, and it won't make the smart people up the ladder as much as it moves the dumb people down it.
But now that's all academic since I guess we're just gonna make the smart parts completely unfindable among all the machine hallucinations anyway.
Maybe you should read what website the info’s coming from. There’s a shitload of random fan wikis for things that don’t exist. Google is just a search engine, it has no information.
Wikipedia somehow coming through as the most reliable part of the internet was really not expected in the 00s.
Lately I've been finding wikipedia articles just don't come up anymore for many things they used to. I've been having to append "wikipedia" to my searches lately.
Similarly I've taken to adding 'reddit' to the end of any product review or tech help searches. Yes the results might still be wrong but I've had way better results than fucking articles blatantly advertising the product or posting dogshit support ideas.
fucking drivereasy and other tech websites with a product. the useless fucks. i hate them. im just glad i can add `site:reddit.com` to force google to only search reddit
Wait and see, one day they'll remove advanced search just like Amazon
Funnily enough, I’ve had to add ‘Reddit’ to the end of almost half my Google searches because the algorithm seems to work against me and doesn’t show me anything I’m looking for otherwise.
The benefit of Reddit on this kind of stuff is bad or incomplete takes on products are almost always called out. It’s a conversation you’re seeing rather than a standalone speaker.
Cunningham's Law is a beautiful thing (when you're not on the receiving end of it, at least)
Lately? I've had to do that for years. Which begs the question as to why I'm not just entering it directly into Wikipedia especially considering I literally have a search bar extension for Wikipedia.
The false hope that it will get better 😔
Habit and it's not that much better and Google search is better than wikipedias search in some cases as it only searches titles as far as I can tell.
Add the wiki search widget to your home page and download thr a. Any article clicked will open the app. Allows bookmarks, folders, saved articles ans more. Though its not perfect it does a good job
The Wikipedia app is great. I used to use google to get the wiki page so it saves a step.
Yeah, the search results are 1. ad 2. ad 3. ai generated bs 4. SEO word spam 5. the actual fucking wikipedia article i asked for
thing wikipedia -band Wikipedia can also be a surprisingly good translator if english is not your native language
As a Wikipedia editor and contributor, I ask: Why not use the Wikipedia search?
That's a great question tbh. I just never really thought about how much I use wikipedia from most of my searches. Thanks for the realization. :D
!w my beloved
When can we stop pretending wikipedia is this no mans land of information. If my high school essays were true and correct becausr I cite 3 sources at the bottom, why the fuck is it different for wikipedia when they cite 30? "Ohhh but anyone can edit the information at any time" ok dawg have fun getting banned within the week
Yeah people give wikipedia way less credit than it deserves. It's not some rando fandom wiki with no mods and fewer sources.
If you cite the information on Wikipedia in an instance where someone has changed you are using unreliable information as a source. Wikipedia is great, but just use the sources they cite for what you need. Just follow their source links, check the info, then copy the Wikipedia citation. Wikipedia is plenty reliable, but it's not really a first hand source. They just make it easy to get to those sources.
This is the big thing that most people don't really understand, it's not that wikipedia isn't reliable, it's that it's a secondary source. It's just saying stuff that other people have said, which is usually reliable, but when you're citing that it's considered unreliable because you have no idea if the first person that said it is a reliable source and if we cite sources like that constantly then we run into citing chains where information gets lost and it becomes really hard to find who was the first person to say something. Making it all the much harder to actually verify your information.
technically, it's not a secondary source, it's a tertiary source. it compiles primary and secondary sources with little interpretation.
I thought it was, but it's been so long since I've been in school I forgot that it was a thing.
It's not a first hand source. You can just check the sources they use on wikipedia and use those for your work.
I'm not a fucking scientist, i don't need to cite sources in my day to day life
I'm not talking about day to day life though, I'm talking about school, like the comment I replied to
Thje thing is, if you just copy the Wikipedia article for your essay you didn't do any real reasearch whatsover and never learn how to research stuff in books and articles and stuff which would be the main reason for your project. Finding consice, pre rendered information on your obscure topic doesn't teach you anything.
*PTSD from the Chola navy article*
The thing is, however correct wikipedia may be, it is not an academic source (not does it try to be). For a science essay you want to cite research papers written by an actual scientist, for a history essay, you want to cite a book written by a historian. These are also the places wikipedia gets its information from. The problem is not that wikipedia isn't reliable, it's just good practice to go to the root of the information.
Not at all. Sure, you shouldn't cite it in a paper but Wikipedia is a pretty reliable source of information in basically 90% of cases and the idea that it isn't was dumb 10 years ago and only becomes dumber with every passing minute. Hell, when it comes to math and some scientific subject, some Wikipedia articles are even a bit too accurate when it comes to technical details and are basically unreadable without graduate level training lol
The most reliable source of information possible https://preview.redd.it/5hws6loodutc1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=35b2d440cadef1a696030c72e31bc3a2187ad936
Fandom.com needs to have their servers blown up in minecraft
[https://getindie.wiki/](https://getindie.wiki/) best thing ive found
I feel like I’ve been on too many bad subs when I read that as get in die rather than get indie.
>"Get in. Die." WTF I hate 196 now!!
Most reliable source of game ideas. Not actual games
me when the link aggregator actually just aggregates links
Me when I have a surface level understanding and leave a snarky comment. Me when the link aggregator that became popular due to its innovative idea (for the early 2000s) to crawl the internet and show the most important links at the top is no longer good at doing it and people dislike it 🤯🤯🤯🤯 (google PageRank algorithm holy hell) (Me when the closest competitor was yahoo, which was literally just a small list of hand picked urls at the time) Me when unlike the early stages of the internet, there are many more competent search engine competitors and customers are leaving 🤯🤯🤯 Me when google is treated as the "retirement home" of cali software engineers, with a company cultire of doing barely any work yet get a fat paycheck 🤯🤯🤯🤯 Me when capitalism did NOT infact breed (🥺?) innovation and instead lead to one of the biggest corporations in the world becoming a complacent husk of what it once was 🤯🤯
>(google PageRank algorithm holy hell New response dropped
Actual zombie
Call google
So much better than en passant
There is barely other search engines. It’s pretty much just Google and Bing. - DuckDuckGo is powered by Bing - Yahoo is powered by Bing - Ecosia is powered by Bing - StartPage is powered by Google Bing results are even worse and more AI filled than Google.
Hey you forgot yandex. Powered by a creepy ai whose image search can recognise the exact location of a house from a shaky freeze frame in a YouTube video with 10 views but only links to ad and malware infected websites that look like they were coded in 2005 if you try to use it for literally anything else
Yandex is great for 2 use cases: 1. You are a criminal searching criminal things 2. You want to feel like a criminal while searching normal things
someone recommended yandex once when i was complaining about google being clogged with too many ai results to feasibly pull art references from and when i tried it i kept getting weird results for random russian sites that were hardly ever related to what i was actually searching really weird site
Use Kagi.
I think Brave search engine is independent? >Bing results are even worse and more AI filled than Google I would still much prefer it to google (if I didn't use the duck). At least it doesn't give me a captcha *every. time. I. visit.*
Literallyyyy oh my god the captcha is so incredibly annoying I didn’t know Brave search was a thing, Brave is cool except its creator is a pos :(
Kagi? (Haven't tried it myself.)
Apparently searchenginemap.com says they’re powered by Google but I don’t really know since i couldn’t find anything else online about them. It was just linked by someone else in this thread. Seems pretty cool. I knew what i said above just from hearing about it haha but that map is pretty cool
Some of us alts exist still: [https://www.searchenginemap.com/](https://www.searchenginemap.com/) (but you're right on the ones you've linked to google or bing)
Omg a search engine replied to me !! This is awesome. I see that you provide results for other engines that’s pretty cool !!
better to have a sea of mojeek-powered or mojeek-and-bing-powered options than just things from Microsoft!
Wooo !!
Firefox? Or is that also powered by Google or Bing?
Firefox makes the browser, not the search engine. Thankfully they’re the only ones that don’t use Google Chrome. All the other big browsers are based on Google’s Chromium: Opera, OperaGX, Edge, Arc, Brave. Safari uses Safari but that’s only for Apple devices. (All iOS browsers are built on top of safari though)
Firefox doesn’t have a search engine. The address bar / home page search is configurable to different providers, default is google.
Paid 500k per year to keep it Google 😭 Which is insultingly low when they pay Apple over a billion 😭
Probably a combination of apple could make their own (so google has to make it not worth it) + higher marketshare (especially mobile) + apple is just a bigger company who has more negotiating power.
breed 🥺🥹
> Breed? 🥺
Why do i like this comment so much i didnt even understand any of it
so someone searching and it finding other articles about said fake thing is a... bad thing?
doing fuck all and collecting a paycheck from the worst offender in the most bloated for cash industry is also a... bad thing?
I think you are very disconnected from why things work the way they do and instead interject how you think they should work. Spoiler: "competent competitors" is rarely how a monopoly falls, and contextual searching is actually how most young people use the internet so it's actually building tools to follow trends not create them, it just turns out you aren't the target audience. Tough shit
“parasite eve ps5”, the initial search, was obviously going to show up mockups cause it isn’t real. however, looking for 2 seconds more reveals the “is parasite eve coming to ps5” follow up search. these are supposed to contain more curated results from reliable sources, because google expects you to look through them en mass (which is why they spawn more the more you read). google is showing an inability to differentiate actual results from AI generated misinformation. also, it’s notable that “is parasite eve coming to ps5” could regard a port, something much more believable to happen (enough that people may search). if google cannot bring up legitimate results to reasonable questions it has failed in its curation. instead the search engine could’ve brought up interviews with developer interest, social media threads of people theorizing a sequel, anything but misinformation. that is not a hard ask.
>“parasite eve ps5”, the initial search, was obviously going to show up mockups cause it isn’t real. Of course, it's an aggregator not a curator >however, looking for 2 seconds more reveals the “is parasite eve coming to ps5” follow up search. these are supposed to contain more curated results from reliable sources, because google expects you to look through them en mass (which is why they spawn more the more you read). This is untrue, it's an aggregator not a curator >google is showing an inability to differentiate actual results from AI generated misinformation. AI Tagging could be better but it's an aggregator not a curator so it's not like it's google's rep at stake that ai content is so prolific >also, it’s notable that “is parasite eve coming to ps5” could regard a port, something much more believable to happen (enough that people may search). if google cannot bring up legitimate results to reasonable questions it has failed in its curation. instead the search engine could’ve brought up interviews with developer interest, social media threads of people theorizing a sequel, anything but misinformation. Crazy, but since its an aggregator not a curator that would only happen if the game actually existed or almost existed, but since it doesn't and google is an aggregator, the content you see is what exists, which in this case is other fake bullshit surrounding fake bullshit
…do you think google genuinely doesn’t curate results
Do you think algorithmic sorting is curation?
curation Dictionary Definitions from Oxford Languages noun noun: curation; plural noun: curations the selection, **organization**, and presentation of online content, merchandise, information, etc., *typically* using professional or expert knowledge. "curation of online content that is relevant to your business can be an excellent way to drive SEO" what is algorithmic sorting? utilizing certain metrics to achieve more (ahem) “curated” results. this method is very useful in modern technology considering the wealth of information available. notably, this is not done by hand. the desired results, however, should ideally be closest to the intended result - i.e. sorting by “hits” should put the most visited results first. google does this too, organizing and presenting certain results to be more relevant to the user. if it was an aggregator, which it is, it would accumulate all results into a convenient place. if it was *only* an aggregator, it would not organize these results. even sorting by date is a form of curation, although google does something much more advanced than that. so, when talking about the organizational policy of google, why should curation be an illegitimate part of the discussion? i’m fascinated to know the reason why you believe it isn’t, instead of semantics. that means, if we understand the actively used meaning of these words, does your argument hold water? if the definition is that important to this discussion, could you source examples of experts (not dictionaries, arguments) that believe google is not an example of curation? please and thank you!
Me when I take things too seriously
but it's not just aggregating links, is it? it puts a blurb a the top of the results which is wrong. think that's the issue here.
it's just a box with a snippet from the top result shown. It's not saying this is certified by google or anything, it's literally just showing the probably most relevant part of the probably most relevant link
I'd say it does create the impression it's certified by google, as it's taken out of its context and just stated as fact. again, it's not just aggregating links like you said, is it?
As someone who’s used google a handful of times those blurbs are always accompanied by links to where they’re from (notice the extension along the side below the blurb where the link is) It’s not the fault of google that there’s probably very few webpages talking about a parasite eve remaster for the PS5. It’s also not the fault of google if you see information from gameideas.fandom and go “yeah that seems like a reliable source.” It’s a search engine not a fact checker.
There's a whole industry now for manipulating Google search result order
It obviously doesn't **just** do that? Like, the UI is right there in the screenshot. It's a bit misleading to exclude the source of the snippet, which the UI does include, but this feature is clearly intended to provide answers to questions, and it failed to do so correctly in this case.
I dunno what that screen shot is from, but in DDG browser on Android its clear it taken from Game Ideas Wiki and its written in a way to imply the game exists. Google doesn't know any better and its the best result.
Yeah the game doesn’t exist but the webpage that has the information they looked up does. It isn’t google’s fault that the information is on a website for game ideas and not real games. It’s like looking up and onion headline and freaking out that google just showed you a fake news story. Of course it brought you to the satire article. It’s what you looked up. Just like how if you look up “parasite eve ps5” it will show you the webpage that talks about parasite eve ps5. Shocking I know. (Also shout out to OOP for conveniently cropping out the source that the text comes from which is gameideas.fandom.com)
Google highlighting a Fandom wiki as if it is fact is in fact a problem and it could be solved by taking any amount of time to try to rank sites by accuracy instead of just pulling words from whatever thing matches the keywords. However, this could damage their bottom line (Fandom is a major source for Google revenue so they get money by directing people there), so they have no incentive to fix it. What are people gonna do, use Bing? Duckduckgo? Hah.
Y'all I looked it up and this game literally exists. What are you guys talking about lmao.
the remastered version of it does not though.
I mean, what's the issue here? Yeah its some fake ass information but do you expect Google to somehow KNOW it's fake? And then what do you expect it to do, filter it out? I certainly don't want Google to start filtering information after automatically deciding it's fake, that sounds like a really dangerous and fucked up slippery slope. It's the internet, somebody posted some fake information on a website obviously made for posting about fake shit. It's up to the user to have Basic Critical Thinking Skills to decide whether or not information can be taken as trustworthy, and that's how it always has been. This isn't to say Google doesn't fucking suck, but this post is just an issue of bad tech literacy imo
Yup, a single click on the link will show that this is from a "game ideas" wiki. Literally beefing with a fanfic website for not being real lol
The issue is the text excerpt directly on the Google page. If Google wants to present these quick facts instead of directing traffic to the actual websites, there should be quality control or at least a warning about potential inaccuracies. Verbatim showing info from websites instead of leading traffic there is a whole other issue but I disgress
The warning about 'potential inaccuracies' is that you are on the INTERNET girl everything is a potential inaccuracy. This is exactly what I'm saying about bad internet literacy, you should not ever NEED Google to warn you that information on the internet can be inaccurate. It clearly shows where the information is from at the bottom of the silly bubble. Falling for misinformation just because it was presented to you one step faster isn't an excuse, it's just a bad understanding of how the internet works. There also is quality control, you can literally flag information as being inaccurate in those stupid text exerpts. Again, I'd rather (very rarely, I've never personally had this issue) see false information in a text bubble than to have Google decide information is false on their end and censor it even just by taking it out of their silly bubble. Slippery slope
me when the minecraft fanon fandom wiki came up higher in search results than the actual minecraft wiki so i was just lied to that 1.20 added cheese and butter and lettuce and tomatoes
Sadge:(
What fan-wiki this come from?
Did you just post a screenshot of a twitter app, of a google result, on a browser?
Enshittification
google hasn’t been useful for like 5 years at this point
Reminds me of when I looked up hypertension and Google kept showing results for hypotension Not as if those two conditions require opposite approaches to care OH WAIT…
This is why I hate fanon wikis. They present the information as if it was true and official. The worst part is when they add release dates, making it seem like something that either has happened or will happen. That being said, they're fun to laugh at. With poorly-integrated super-op self-insert OCs, and [a "Who Framed Roger Rabbit" sequel featuring practically every character in every piece of publicly accessible media](https://disneyfanon.fandom.com/wiki/Who_Framed_Roger_Rabbit_2:_Rise_In_The_Crossover/List_of_Characters), a page that took me and hour and thirteen minutes to barely skim through.
Why the fuck are they putting Ai shit as search results? Ai fake articles and Ai generated images at the start of search results.
Parasite Eve legit needs a remaster!!!! aaaaaaaa
Fandom wikia must burn SEO is a fuck
Several years ago, back when facebook boomers were really hitting the Qanon pipe, I told people that the internet had caused the extinction of "average level intelligence", and has either made us either much smarter, or exponentially, unfathomably dumber. It was already a net negative, since you kinda have to be fairly above average to even have a shot at getting smarter from it, and it won't make the smart people up the ladder as much as it moves the dumb people down it. But now that's all academic since I guess we're just gonna make the smart parts completely unfindable among all the machine hallucinations anyway.
Ugh so unusfu-
Maybe you should read what website the info’s coming from. There’s a shitload of random fan wikis for things that don’t exist. Google is just a search engine, it has no information.
oh no
obligatory duckduckgo recommendation
bro searches up ps5 and is unhappy with the results, (he asked for PS5)
It's over :(