this post was submitted on 20 Sep 2023
109 points (91.0% liked)

Showerthoughts

36621 readers
447 users here now

A "Showerthought" is a simple term used to describe the thoughts that pop into your head while you're doing everyday things like taking a shower, driving, or just daydreaming. The most popular seem to be lighthearted clever little truths, hidden in daily life.

Here are some examples to inspire your own showerthoughts:

Rules

  1. All posts must be showerthoughts
  2. The entire showerthought must be in the title
  3. No politics
    • If your topic is in a grey area, please phrase it to emphasize the fascinating aspects, not the dramatic aspects. You can do this by avoiding overly politicized terms such as "capitalism" and "communism". If you must make comparisons, you can say something is different without saying something is better/worse.
    • A good place for politics is c/politicaldiscussion
  4. Posts must be original/unique
  5. Adhere to Lemmy's Code of Conduct and the TOS

If you made it this far, showerthoughts is accepting new mods. This community is generally tame so its not a lot of work, but having a few more mods would help reports get addressed a little sooner.

Whats it like to be a mod? Reports just show up as messages in your Lemmy inbox, and if a different mod has already addressed the report, the message goes away and you never worry about it.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Pseudo-monopolies are great at extinguishing imagination like that, and tbh Google search (as I understand its basic setup) was only as good as it was thanks to timing and few really good competitors.

all 41 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Rhynoplaz@lemmy.world 47 points 2 years ago (5 children)

I would argue against this lack of competitors you mentioned. We were using AskJeeves, Webcrawler, yahoo, msn, aol, Alta Vista, Lycos, Excite, Hotbot and a myriad of local service providers' homepages.

Google came much later than all of those, but it was better. How? I don't know, I was just a kid that got better results from Google than any of those other places.

Just because Google DESTROYED the competition before you got there doesn't mean that there wasn't any.

[–] Carighan@lemmy.world 19 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Exactly. I would say more specifically, Google's PageRank algorithm for prioritizing results was genius because it excluded the vast oceans of word-spam sites that floated to the top of all the other search engines.

[–] Rhynoplaz@lemmy.world 12 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Yes! Thanks for reminding me. Some pages would just have a dictionary of popular words in their Metadata so if you were searching for N*Sync (shut up, it was the 90s!) you'd have to scroll through a bunch of unrelated garbage before you found anything related to what you wanted.

[–] Zippy@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago

You might as well be out of business if you're result comes up on the second page of Google. :)

Some comedian said that in a comedic way IIRC. It kind of stuck with me and definately holds some truth. No one clicks on the second page unless they are desperate.

[–] knotthatone@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago

At the time, they gave better results and the clean and simple design got right to it without all of the BANNER! BANNER! HONK!HONK! of the competitors.

They had ads, but they were just text links that said they were ads and weren't playing games with rankings based on who bribed them.

[–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 3 points 2 years ago

The reason it was better is that the other search engines used the programmer-entered data in a page’s title, meta tags, and headings to categorize the page’s content, whereas google also used the text of links pointing to that page to categorize the page.

Google crowdsourced categorization to content consumers, ie people acting in the same role as searcher.

In a way, it’s an excellent example of the concept of negotiated identity.

[–] evdo@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Remember when they got rid of Jeeves?

[–] Rhynoplaz@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I wonder what's he's doing now? I hope Jeeves found a nice Billionaire to work for.

[–] Mr_Blott@feddit.uk 1 points 2 years ago

Have you never seen The Remains of the Day?

[–] ElectroVagrant@lemmy.world -3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

Fwiw I was aware of a number of those, hence why in the OP I mention: "and few really good competitors." That wasn't to suggest there were few total competitors, only that there were few really good competitors, which I think is generally the case any time you have a large number of, well, anything tbh.

May be rather dismissive, but it's not a new observation by any means.

[–] whynotzoidberg@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago

Guess ya had to be there, then.

[–] Arrakis@lemmy.world 34 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

I'm guessing your understanding skipped the part about the PageRank system

Yeah it's a monopoly now, but back then it was a couple of Stanford kids with a good idea on how to make search engines suck less by ranking web pages. And it worked.

But as always, with great power...

As an added bonus: if I recall correctly (which I may not, it was a while ago now), the hilarious thing is that despite its success, the original PageRank system was based on flawed maths :D

[–] Brkdncr@artemis.camp 31 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Did you sleep through the search engine wars? Not a single search engine was good. There were sites dedicated to sending your search to all of the search engines at once.

Google showed up and it was game over. Their ad sales took off, and then they came out with gmail with 1gb of free storage and everyone went nuts for it since trying to stay under 15mb for your local isp was a pain in the ass.

Google disrupted very hard and continued to do so in many ways for a long time.

[–] realitista@lemm.ee 6 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Yea but it's not the case today. I get as good or better results out of duck duck go, and bing is good too now. The only reason to continue using Google is if you love ads.

[–] ElectroVagrant@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago

Yep. Some of the replies here are getting tied up in Google/search engine history, which doesn't matter as much with how the space is now and how Google's being better in the past wasn't necessarily entirely good given that it destroyed competition and/or has deterred much competition.

Ideally there would have been some check to address the rise of their pseudo-monopoly on search to ensure the service it provided remained decent so we wouldn't be having this discussion, but "free" markets go brrr.

[–] sheogorath@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

For me it's still hit or miss when you're searching for specific troubleshooting error codes or programming. Sometimes Bing or DDG will miss the point entirely and show me things with no relation for my search query at all.

[–] realitista@lemm.ee 1 points 2 years ago

Interesting. There was a time when I noticed that DDG didn't scan as often and so wouldn't have the very latest news, but now they are functionally identical to me. If I don't find something on one, I'm pretty surprised how I don't find it in more or less the same way on the others

[–] DragonTypeWyvern@literature.cafe -3 points 2 years ago

"disrupted" 🤢

[–] RGB3x3@lemmy.world 29 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Annoyingly, Google has gotten so bad over the past year, that I basically give up trying to find a good result half the time. And the other half, I have to spend 10 minutes retrying search terms to find anything that either isn't an ad, an embedded side-scrolling bullshit thing, and irrelevant websites.

[–] Mr_Blott@feddit.uk 2 points 2 years ago

I've tried Kagi search a few times this last couple of weeks and was reasonably impressed. If it works out I'd be happy to pay a few pennies for better product recommendations

[–] atomicpeach@pawb.social 15 points 2 years ago (3 children)

I was informed about Kagi through one of the posts here and tried it out. It's quite amazing how much better it is compared to even DDG. I didn't mind DDG but it felt "old" but Kagi seems to prioritize user experience over everything else. It may not be free, but it's worth the cost for me.

[–] Elliott@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago (1 children)

What's the cost? What makes it better? Is it like Google used to be?

[–] atomicpeach@pawb.social 9 points 2 years ago (1 children)

They have a few plans, but the cheapest is $5/mo. If you go past the allotted searches it's pay per search after that (at a very tiny cost).

I switched to DDG when Google started adding cards at the bottom of the first page and made search results utterly useless for me. DDG wasn't bad but it still felt like something was missing or some results were flooded by a specific site. Kagi went the extra step to group results from a site sorta like how Google has.

Ultimately it's the benefits of old Google but some nice refinements and QoL improvements. Because it's paid for, they don't need to sell your data or shove paid for results down your throat.

[–] Elliott@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago
[–] H3L1X@lemmy.ml 6 points 2 years ago

I used the trial and then just started paying for it. So far, it is much better results, and I like that they do not track you. Also, their small web lens has been fun to play around with.

[–] glue_snorter@lemmy.sdfeu.org 2 points 2 years ago

Another Kagi fan here. I pay $10 a month.

I'm a reasonably heavy search user, but have never hit the quota.

It's wonderful to have relevant results again.

The one thing it doesn't work for is shopping. From time to time I use Google. I should probably switch that to Bing, as the lesser of two evils.

[–] scarabic@lemmy.world 14 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Microsoft never stopped trying. They made a reasonably good product and even had some monopoly power behind it. But still couldn’t succeed.

[–] ElectroVagrant@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago

To be clear, when referring to a reasonably good product, which iteration of their attempts are you describing?

[–] Kolanaki@yiffit.net 11 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

I dunno... if someone came around and made a site that works like Google did originally, I think they'd have a shot at taking over. Google has changed so much over the years, it's barely even recognizable anymore. One of the things that is pretty common with them, too, is taking something a lot of users like as-is, and then completely reworking the UI/UX until nobody wants to use it.

[–] promodel@kbin.social 6 points 2 years ago

kagi.com - I think they are taking their shot!

[–] Squizzy@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago

I use duckduckgo and no matter what you do it gives localised results. They are getting worse and the only reason to do this is to make more money so I know they are taking data, selling data, or pushing ads or all three.

[–] Ddhuud@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago

Yes, the other part of the sucking is because of direct Google involvement.