[rnhmjoj]

I almost never get useful results out of a web search, nowadays, unless the query is very specific (like looking up a website I forgot the domain of). This is not particular to google search, which in fact I don't use anymore.

Trying to find information given only fuzzy details almost never produce relevant links; anything remotely commercial, like trying to find a product reviews, film to watch, a store nearby, etc. produces tons of synthetic websites full of ads that magically match my query; specific technical information can result in low-effort blogspam or total rip-offs from other websites (stackexchange answers, other blogs, etc.); and the list goes on.

It seems to me the only actually interesting material is now found in forums, message boards, wikis and other kind of websites where users generate the content. Unfortunately searching these is far from handy because they aren't always indexed or have archaic interfaces or require a login. I think search engines in general, either by prioritising revenue or being tricked by spammers and CEO, are now blind to the real information contained in the web. I wish for a search engine that would only index a curated list of genuine websites based on a topic, but I don't think we'll ever have one because it's not profitable.

[mda]

"I almost never get useful results out of a web search"

This I find impossible to believe. So you basically don't get any useful results for 80-90% of your searches? I wish you could give some examples.

[rnhmjoj]

Ok, here's a few real example where I had only partial (but 100% correct) information had a hard time finding the right answer:

1. There's a shell (program) which feature a built-in file manager inspider by ranger, I forgot its name: try to find it. Answer: [1]

2. There's a particular gas that can (temporarily) kill a smartphone, but you forgot which. Find the article about this. Answer: [2]

3. There's a blog post (well-known if you're into networking) that argues IPv6 was meant to replace MAC addresses. Answer: [3]

[1]: https://elv.sh/

[2]: https://www.ifixit.com/News/11986/iphones-are-allergic-to-he...

[3]: https://apenwarr.ca/log/?m=201708#10

[mda]

1. Only finds it if something in the line of "programming language and interactive shell with built-in file manager" for less, it indeed misses.

2. "(this) gas causes smartphones to temporarily deactivate" second result

3 "blog post ipv6 was supposed to replace MAC adresses" 3rd result

In some cases some slight change in the wording changes the ranking drastically. However, I am not sure "The old good google" would find these at all honestly.

[alliao]

YES! I still remember the earlier days of Google, when it was not only returning results, the results were a delight to click through. I genuinely felt happy using it. Infoseek was good in a way that it let you search within searched results, so you could filter down. Alta Vista was definitely larger, but Google was pure magic. Not only relevant but digs up interesting and rewarding well researched information sitting around in a little corner of a web.