[lich_king]

> Google that now optimizes their algorithm for monetization and not usefulness.

I don't think they do that. Instead, "usefulness" is mostly synonymous with commercial intent: searching for <x> often means "I want to buy <x>".

Even for non-commercial queries, I think the sad reality is that most people subconsciously prefer LLM-generated or content-farmed stuff too. It looks more professional, has nice images (never mind that they're stock photos or AI-generated), etc. Your average student looking for an explanation of why the sky is blue is more interested in a TikTok-style short than some white-on-black or black-on-gray webpage that gives them 1990s vibes.

TL;DR: I think that Google gives the average person exactly the results they want. It might be not what a small minority on HN wants.

[marginalia_nu]

Google and most search engines optimize for what is most likely to be clicked on. This works poorly and creates a huge popularity bias at scale because it starts feeding on its own tail: What major search engines show you is after all a large contributor to what's most likely to be clicked on.

The reason Marginalia (for some queries) feels like it shows such refreshing results is that it simply does not take popularity into account.

[BrenBarn]

> I think that Google gives the average person exactly the results they want.

There is some truth in this, but to me it's similar to saying that a drug dealer gives their customers exactly what they want. People "want" those things because Google and its ilk have conditioned them to want those things.

[sdenton4]

On the one hand, a search engine is not heroin... It's a pretty broken analogy.

On the other hand, we could probably convince Cory Doctorow to write a piece about how fentanyl is really about the enshitification of opiates.