6 ms·

> I read comments and articles all the time about the quality of Google's search dropping. I haven't noticed it much in practice, but I'm persistent, use copiou

> I read comments and articles all the time about the quality of Google's search dropping. I haven't noticed it much in practice, but I'm persistent, use copious ad blocking, and my Google-fu is strong, so I usually find what I'm looking for. The results quality has gone down and it's noticeable only after you switch to another independent search engine, like Brave Search. For example, search for the term: "javascript undefined vs null" on Google and Brave Search. Brave Search gives way more information in the sidebar and Google doesn't at all. The discussions feature on Brave Search is great, you don't even need to append queries like 'stackoverflow' or 'reddit' for searching discussions. On top of that, let's say you're trying to search for an npm library like 'react-select', if you search that term on Brave Search, it gives you a button to copy `npm install react-select` right below the npmjs.com link. It's crazy how good Brave Search is compared to Google sometimes, haven't used Google Search in a long time because of it.

judge2020 4y ago
I thought we were against Google et al. implementing features that keep people on their site instead of directing traffic to other parts of the web?
- ziml77 4y ago
  I was thinking the same thing. We can't complain about Google doing it but then give other search engines a pass.
- falcolas 4y ago
  I certainly am. Brave search putting answers in the sidebar is not a point in its favor, IMO.
- NayamAmarshe 4y ago
  It's certainly controversial so all I can give you is a subjective viewpoint but yes, objectively these things make search engines more convenient but cut the traffic to the original websites by a small margin. So far, I've noticed Brave Search only shows sidebar results for Stackoverflow and a few other popular forums that do not advertise on their pages directly, nothing else. So they're not really taking any revenue away. As for npmjs thing, I'm not sure if their revenue is hurt in any way because to view the package documentation you still need to open the link. Brave Search just provides you a copy command button extra for convenience. As for discussions, they do not give full context so you always need to click the link so that's great for website owners as they get more exposure and traffic too. At this point, Brave Search features are more on the UX side of things than anti-competitive so I personally will hold off the tinfoil hat for now.
- Retric 4y ago
  There is no we on stuff like that, just vocal minorities and an apathetic majority.
- MichaelCollins 4y ago
  I'm against Google doing it because Google is huge. I support Brave doing it because it's a useful feature and Brave is inconsequentially small. Big things are not the same as small things, and should not be treated the same.
  - rrdharan 4y ago
    That's how small things become big, and then the cycle repeats. So I guess you're advocating that this dynamic equilibrium and "circle of life" is just panglossian optimal?
    - Dylan16807 4y ago
      The optimal is that nobody ever gets more than 25 (or whatever) percent of the market.
  - ceejayoz 4y ago
    Should Brave's useful features be removed at a certain threshold if they see significant user growth?
    - Dylan16807 4y ago
      As far as the thought experiment goes for making up rules, you could probably have a threshold where advertising ability gets cut off and it would do enough.
- hbn 4y ago
  There's also something to be said about how Google should be returning information, not answers. Skip to the 1:00 mark in this Technology Connections video where he demonstrates how if you ask Google when the touch lamp was invented it'll pop up with a giant, confident answer of 1984, despite the fact that if you do the research yourself you can find the first patent for it was filed in 1954. [1] https://youtu.be/TbHBHhZOglw https://youtu.be/TbHBHhZOglw
- throw10920 4y ago
  Who's "we"? HN is not a person - not that an individual necessarily has a single, self-consistent set of beliefs themselves...
_23sd 4y ago
Brave Search is pretty good for basic queries but it doesn't support most operators, even basic ones like quotes, making it less suitable for people who use their google-fu a lot. When I use Brave as my default, I have to fall back on DDG or Google much more frequently than I was falling back on Google with DDG as my default, and it's usually because I need to use an operator. More on topic, they still use Bing's near-useless image search, so even if it's getting worse Google Images is seemingly the only decent option in that category.

judge2020 4y ago

I thought we were against Google et al. implementing features that keep people on their site instead of directing traffic to other parts of the web?

ziml77 4y ago
I was thinking the same thing. We can't complain about Google doing it but then give other search engines a pass.
falcolas 4y ago
I certainly am. Brave search putting answers in the sidebar is not a point in its favor, IMO.
NayamAmarshe 4y ago
It's certainly controversial so all I can give you is a subjective viewpoint but yes, objectively these things make search engines more convenient but cut the traffic to the original websites by a small margin. So far, I've noticed Brave Search only shows sidebar results for Stackoverflow and a few other popular forums that do not advertise on their pages directly, nothing else. So they're not really taking any revenue away. As for npmjs thing, I'm not sure if their revenue is hurt in any way because to view the package documentation you still need to open the link. Brave Search just provides you a copy command button extra for convenience. As for discussions, they do not give full context so you always need to click the link so that's great for website owners as they get more exposure and traffic too. At this point, Brave Search features are more on the UX side of things than anti-competitive so I personally will hold off the tinfoil hat for now.
Retric 4y ago
There is no we on stuff like that, just vocal minorities and an apathetic majority.
MichaelCollins 4y ago
I'm against Google doing it because Google is huge. I support Brave doing it because it's a useful feature and Brave is inconsequentially small. Big things are not the same as small things, and should not be treated the same.
- rrdharan 4y ago
  That's how small things become big, and then the cycle repeats. So I guess you're advocating that this dynamic equilibrium and "circle of life" is just panglossian optimal?
  - Dylan16807 4y ago
    The optimal is that nobody ever gets more than 25 (or whatever) percent of the market.
- ceejayoz 4y ago
  Should Brave's useful features be removed at a certain threshold if they see significant user growth?
  - Dylan16807 4y ago
    As far as the thought experiment goes for making up rules, you could probably have a threshold where advertising ability gets cut off and it would do enough.
hbn 4y ago
There's also something to be said about how Google should be returning information, not answers. Skip to the 1:00 mark in this Technology Connections video where he demonstrates how if you ask Google when the touch lamp was invented it'll pop up with a giant, confident answer of 1984, despite the fact that if you do the research yourself you can find the first patent for it was filed in 1954. [1] https://youtu.be/TbHBHhZOglw https://youtu.be/TbHBHhZOglw
throw10920 4y ago
Who's "we"? HN is not a person - not that an individual necessarily has a single, self-consistent set of beliefs themselves...

_23sd 4y ago

Brave Search is pretty good for basic queries but it doesn't support most operators, even basic ones like quotes, making it less suitable for people who use their google-fu a lot. When I use Brave as my default, I have to fall back on DDG or Google much more frequently than I was falling back on Google with DDG as my default, and it's usually because I need to use an operator. More on topic, they still use Bing's near-useless image search, so even if it's getting worse Google Images is seemingly the only decent option in that category.