No.18055
Replace your search engine with bookmarks and online community
No.18056
>the interactive aspect of the web
lololololol
No.18062
Just ask your virtual assistant you can trust her answers I swear.
No.18063
Before school started I tried to avoid using search engines for a while, and honestly it encourages good habits and makes it easier to remember stuff by making you have to remember stuff, or at least make notes instead of assuming you can just look it up again later.
Try adding these to your /etc/hosts,
0.0.0.0 google.com
0.0.0.0 www.google.com
0.0.0.0 bing.com
0.0.0.0 www.bing.com
0.0.0.0 duckduckgo.com
0.0.0.0 www.duckduckgo.com
And just keep that pattern going for whatever search engines you use.
No.18065
>>18056Let me guess: you only use the Internet for Twitter and Disc0rd and reposting screencaps from them onto imageboards?
>>18063Cool. I find blacklisting stuff doesn't really help though. It has to be a conscious effort from within.
No.18066
>>18065Fair. Personally I find blacklisting stuff helps since it makes caving into habits take more effort than the desired alternative.
No.18071
these days I would be open to use a paid service for search, if it existed, similar to chacha back in the day. I've found lately that the only way to get actual information in a timely manner is to pay someone who has it to share it with you. Everything decent has been scrubbed, buried, filtered or outright deleted.
No.18073
>>18071Kagi.com is user-paid (never used it myself). I sometimes use wiby.org which uses a tiny index that gets hand-checked. The software is free so maybe there will be a spinoff with a bigger index in the near future.
No.18075
>>18063Another good habit is to archive any page or whole site you find interesting not just through archiving services but on your own data storage.
No.18086
i just hate how search engines always assume you're a retard. you can try to be as specific as you want with your queries, but the results will almost always be mangled to serve the lowest common denominator
No.18087
>>18063At that point, why not just walk away from the screen, uygha? Read books instead?
No.18088
>>18087Books remove the interactive aspect of the education which makes it such a unique endeavour and help commercialize its very content.
No.18089
>>18088You tried. And that's what matters in the here and now
No.18090
>>18087You can't click the book.
A lot of personal websites have little stamps that link to other sites they like. It's a practice that went away for a while when search engines come along, but they're back.
No.18091
>>18090 (me)
I got these from
https://punchy.neocities.org/linx.htmlThey really do add an aesthetic way of exploring the internet.
Leftypol should have at least one of these so people see a cute Alunya, click, and get taken here.
No.18110
>>18054finding stuff on stack overflow
not having to manage my own archive of sites i like and search them myself
i agree search engines suck but "conceptually", theyre just a layer of shine over a database u get from crawling. If i wanted to build my own archive of sites with good answers to specific questions, or just documentation, i'd end up having to crawl those sites myself (probably get 403'd in the process because most sites + cloudflare'd sites hate bots even if it's not overwhelming), and then i'd have to build a search feature. Aka just a private search engine. The other alternative, just surfing the web, is crawling by hand….
YaCy looks cool but i couldnt get it to work, i was using debian or whonix i forget which, but hopefully when it's more developed, it could be a massively used alternative to proprietary, centralized search engines
No.18111
>>18110 (me)
>not having to manage my own archive of sites i like and search them myselfand i don't mean bookmarks, i use bookmarks all the time but i can't get everything i need from bookmarks.
No.18516
>>18086>>18086Search engines now just exist to funnel you through as many irrelevant links as possible for advertising purposes. That's why google is the worst offender. Their entire business model is pretty well supported by advertising. Microsoft at least has other revenue avenues so bing isn't as egregious. But using them to actually learn or find information unironically defeats the purpose of them now, which is to just shill to you.
No.18518
This is what happens when you have people grow up without memorizing most of Fravia+'s searchlores.
No.18538
>>18516Technology companies aren't really about technology anymore, they're more like cartels for financial speculators. For example, Apple's actual business now is speculating on content IP for their streaming platforms (Apple TV, Apple Music, Apple Podcasts). Their computer division has been dead weight for a long time, with most of its work contracted out to an entire army of small to mid sized bottomfeeder firms whose entire business is said contracts. Every mindnumbingly mediocre rom-com spec script with a marginally notable name attached to it, every Tekashi 6ix9ine lookalike out of some godforsaken Florida suburb signed with a shady label, every true crime podcast about the Disgusting Pervert of Bumfuck, Nebraska, bought up in batches in the hopes of netting decent returns out of at least some of them with the help of algorithms.
No.18553
>>18552when you forget the trailing zero in your null-terminated string
No.18809
yeah is anyone else convinced that all SE's got terrible on purpose for years so that the Chatbots would come in as a sweet relief?
No.18830
>>18809No it was just result of algorithms that altered behaviours of users that fed back into th algorithm so it just kept getting worse. Failed design not planned obsolescence.
No.18831
>>18809Chatbots are terrible, I can't understand why people keep claiming that they solve the same problem as search engines.
No.18834
>>18830But why were these algorithms implemented? Unix search features from the 1980s already mostly worked for the early Internet where early search engines just treated the Internet as a massive LAN and just crawled through every plain text file on the Internet to create indexes of keywords that search engines actually looked through. This earlier system worked well enough for finding data on the Internet yet Google decided to change it to a system that is less functional.
No.18835
>>18834There's a couple things you can do to make search better. I mean even Google was a good improvement on search when they first came around with their page rank algorithm. There's also things like fuzzy searching or even searching for similar terms even if you didn't write it in your search that involves a bunch of NLP things. The issue has a lot to do with google searches basically being the way most people are used to finding things on the web which makes people game SEO to the point of absurdity. Google being primarily an ad company also has a big impact on this too.
No.18836
>>18835Yet there are other search engines like Internet Archive that is closer to the older method. And it is far easier to find something that exists on Internet Archive through their search engine then to find something that exists on the Internet through Google.
No.18837
>>18809Language models are even worse than search engines.
No.18838
>>18836Yeah, the problem is how they define relevancy. There's so much you can game by weighing based on links (which is what page rank was based off of). Still using some NLP methods are a good addition on top of the "old method". Like I learned some interesting things about it that I hope get used in some of these search systems when I took an NLP course. Specifically related to what is called "document retrieval".
No.18841
>>18835>I mean even Google was a good improvement on search when they first came around with their page rank algorithm.I remember massively positive mainstream-media buzz around Google from early on, but I don't actually remember Google
being better.
Also, RankDex by Robin Li (co-founder of Baidu) predates Google.
No.18869
>>18054>Name a single time you used a search engine to find anything worth while1) I found a google drive of childrens books in spanish so I can easily apply my spanish skills by using google
2) I found tutorials of various sites that helped me figure out an issue with my computer, (various articles on how to chroot, sites to figure out why my computer uses 160% of the cpu when watching a video (turns out asus desynchronized with the board, cool. ), various code snipers to run in the terminal, etc.)
3) Finding sites that give lists of other sites that I can use (pirating sites, hidden wikis, porn sites, etc.)
There's more, but the point is, your post is gay and cringe – unlike my post, which is bisexual and based.
>>18065What a miss
>>18055>>18071>>18073>>18552>>18809Gay
No.18872
>>18869Resources like 3rd example are probably gonna become more common as the sentiment that search engines aren't good anymore rises, and people make a retvrn to manual curation of such things.
No.18874
>>18872>Resources like 3rd example are probably gonna become more common as the sentiment that search engines aren't good anymore risesAnd how are you going to fund such resources again?
Pray to your god for a site to list everything you'd possible want, or are the very a list another site that can give you an answer?
Search engines have limits and unneeded frustrations, but I don't see how one can hate a search engine to the point of not needing.
Even in their worst moments, they just reduce the scope needed to find an answer.
No.18876
>>18869>There's more, but the point is, your post is gay and cringe – unlike my post, which is bisexual and based. Instantly cringed and discarded
No.18934
>>18830>>18831>>18837funny you should say that when you are bots yourselves…
No.18944
>>18934Prove I'm (>>18837) a bot.
No.18954
>>18054so damn often it actually boggle the mind someone could be retarded enough to make this post
No.18955
>>18054Try finding a good searx or searxng instance. It's the least shitty search engine I know of.
No.18967
>>18954Have you considered killing yourself to stop the constant anger?
No.18982
>>18954Just ignore the thread dawg.
These people provide nothing of an argument to search engines being terrible or useless.
Look at this post here:
>>18876 , no argument, just crying.
The same type of poster to have their fight or flight activated if someone made a joke thread saying "windows is better than linux since if you hold down was you get 'waswaswaswas'"
Lie thls poster:
>>18967 No.18983
the new bing is decent for literature research.
No.18990
>>18982>These people provide nothing of an argument to search engines being terrible or useless.Yet Google is still useless compared to the search engine of Internet Archive. Finding documents on Internet Archive is a breeze thanks to being able to filter your results, a feature Google still doesn't have.
No.18991
>>18983Microsoft Academic was amazing for it, of course they had to "retire" it. You can't have Microsoft making something that's actually useful. I'm so glad I did my masters when it was still functioning.
No.18992
lol
No.18993
Is it really that hard to set up YaCy? Even if I could set it up would it use up a lot of data crawling the web? Would one have to use it while hiding your IP and whatnot in case it crawls something illegal or is that not an issue?
>>18990I never tried to look for documents on archive. What does a search for that look like?
No.19020
>>18874>And how are you going to fund such resources again? Reddit. It's what normies already do.
No.19064
>>18982>The same type of poster to have their fight or flight activated if someone made a joke thread saying "windows is better than linux since if you hold down was you get 'waswaswaswas'" I wouldn't have a fight or flight reflex activated if someone made a joke thread saying that
No.19065
>>18993yacy requires really outdated java libs, what a pain
I doubt you really have to worry about it crawling something illegal, even if you find some fed honeypot, you can prove from your traffic you were just crawling the web, and they would know if you e.g. just indexed the home page, or if you scraped images etc. So idk it'd probably hold up in court, but I'm no expert on wtf YaCy does specifically
No.19068
>>19023Ah I see. Thanks. I should play around with it some time to get a feel of how to get good results.
>>19065Why would it use a dated dependency? Wouldnt someone have at least ported YaCy to a different language or updated it to use a different lib set or something by now? Does it have to do this to go across old websites?
At least in case of the US laws revolving around data dont make sense and arent even remotely fair so i wouldn't count on that.
No.19069
pubmed cause built-in search is dogshit
No.19070
>>19023dammit I should be using this. Great post, thanks.
No.19075
>>19020Two issues:
a) You're limited to just what the
SEARCH ENGINE reddit offers which is limited by it's bias.
If I were interested in getting a torrent of a video game, and reddit is legally or culturally pressured to take down content about that, (just like r/shoplifting and r/incel respectfully), unless I can find a link to a separate resource from another comment, (which also can be censored if reddit is against such resource), I'm fucked.
b) Using reddit limits you to what reddit directly offers. If the solution is something outside of reddit, you'd have to hope that this resources is accessible (either through subreddit link or a comment link)
Like seriously: I recently had an issue with trying to figure out why my cpu jumps in usage when watching a video, and while I found the solution of a clone of a stackoverflow, I would've never found it since I'd neither knew that it was on that alternative stack overflow, but I'd never find a resource that would've granted a
SEARCH ENGINE that would give me the stack overflow alternative or even an answer from that overflow.
And it's funny that you go: "normies use it" – normies type "X reddit" on a search engine since even though reddit is helpful, it doesn't always help and having alternatives lined up is needed.
Again: search engines are fine, they're just one of many tools in your tool box to work with.
Saging so the thread can wind down from the dumb take.
No.20784
>>20783I don't know anything about the internal design of search engines. Still i suspect duckduckgo tends to match keywords and literal text while google has more of a dwim approach. Most of the results you are getting are SEO optimized to death. I do several things to minimize the presence of these in the search results:
>minimize pronouns, prepositions and articles as much as possible<the more individual word matches, the more likely optimized sites will win>quote the word with the least likely results or an idiom<may get no results at all, especially with long quoted text>if a search fails, try again with synonymsThe reformulation you did for the first search isn't different enough. Either be more creative or get a thesaurus.
The most important thing is to anticipate what sites may match. Some search patterns will always give you crap results, even with google or whatever dwim search.
Flood detected; Post discarded. No.20788
>>19075with searx you can curate what websites are pulled from in search results, you could set it up to e.g. search all alt stack overflows you compiled (not a response to you so much as a comment on a practical way to cut down the google bullshit while still finding collective knowledge thats been posted online b4)
No.20796
>>20784>The reformulation you did for the first search isn't different enough. Either be more creative or get a thesaurus.Not a bad tip, but it's odd just how many rings you have to jump through to make the engion work with you.
Like sure, these two aren't that different:
>Study in one sitting or throughout the day>Should you study multiple times a day or once a day.But I find it odd that a word like "study" was almost entirely descarded, and instead I was given results for tips for studying and working out.
>The most important thing is to anticipate what sites may match. Some search patterns will always give you crap results, even with google or whatever dwim searchInteresting.
You can use the "site:" argument in the search, so I guess I should use more tags.
>>20788That's interesting, can you make it give highlighted results?
Ex:
Query: "How to fork in C"
Results: Sites mentioneding "forking tutorial" and "C tutorial"
Highlighted answer at the top: "import <…>.c Fork()"
Unique IPs: 38