The search engines are rigged - deleting the internet - THIS is next level BS!

a reply to: ArMaP

It isn't, I have noticed that some 10 years ago.

This is flat out false. I recall going hundreds of pages deep into searches no more than 2 or 3 years ago. 10 years ago was 2012 and I can assure you the internet was a very different place even back then, but I'm sure you know that. I'm also sure there is an abundant amount of video evidence to prove that Google and other search engines didn't function like this in the past. To have less than 20 pages for common search terms is almost unfathomable, they can't possibly be displaying a diverse range of websites, especially if they keep repeating the same mainstream sources as he demonstrates in the 2nd video.

I've been using Google multiple times a day for many years, and I often need to search for very obscure things like error codes or programming jargon which is specific to a niche problem. And even in those situations I still got hundreds, if not thousands of results. Even earlier today I was searching information about a rare item in a niche game and Google gave me thousands of results, although it did stop after only a few pages. My point is, how can a very simple or common search term only have a few dozen pages of results, yet an obscure search term can still have multiple pages?

How does that math possibly add up? I would actually believe it to be a bug were it not for the fact most search engines seem to be doing the same thing. The internet is mind-bogglingly massive, having only 18 pages for a search term like "dark matter" is obviously absurd, that's like a drop in the ocean relative to all the information out there. Are we just expected to be happy with this small selection of mainstream websites Google has chosen to spam in all of the results? It's the scenario we all feared when we talked about an internet which consisted of curated mainstream content and nothing else.

a reply to: citizentrust

That's interesting, I only get two results from Bing (although it says it found one result).

(click for full size)

This has been going off for quite some time I would say it accelerated in 2016. A really good example if you typed in: Canada needs immigrants you will get a bunch of auto complete and some positive results before even pressing enter.

Reverse that and say : Canada does not need immigrant it won't even bother auto completing if it sounds negative. Only the positive look ups. (we saw how they weaponized search results against Trump, during and after his election)

Around 2016 I started slowly getting rid of Google because of the fact that the Indian guy was taking over the company and he would do in strange things like getting rid of the Google slogan: do no evil. Something that the founders connected to the company to remind them to try to innovate and do things positively. He then started getting political and pushing for more immigrants specifically from India where he's from to the USA. One example of many.

Tech blogs started complaining that Google was actually becoming corrupt. For example if you have a store a couple miles away and you put your inventory on the Internet like let's say a specific type of champagne, a person in the past before could ask: X champagne near me. (always used this btw and worked flawlessly) even Craiglist would appear if it was an item nearby. The results would give you inventory of various online stores mom/pops and unknown stores. NEVER favored Amazon or any of the major companies who already pay to have their results go higher. So basically they added a pay wall. Even though it has a near me option, it never favored major vendors/stores You could even use it in the shopping section as well as the regular search results.

originally posted by: ChaoticOrder
This is flat out false.

It's not.

I recall going hundreds of pages deep into searches no more than 2 or 3 years ago.

I remember having this problem when I was programming along with other two guys on the company I work for, a couple of years before they left the company. One left on December 2013 and the other on February 2014.

10 years ago was 2012 and I can assure you the internet was a very different place even back then, but I'm sure you know that.

I don't think there was such a big difference as the one between 1996, when I started using the Internet, and 2012. In 2012 things were already going in this direction, and it was noticeable.

To have less than 20 pages for common search terms is almost unfathomable, they can't possibly be displaying a diverse range of websites, especially if they keep repeating the same mainstream sources as he demonstrates in the 2nd video.

I wasn't able to replicate that, and I didn't see anyone replicating it, so it's possible that was a problem with his computer or browser.

Even earlier today I was searching information about a rare item in a niche game and Google gave me thousands of results, although it did stop after only a few pages. My point is, how can a very simple or common search term only have a few dozen pages of results, yet an obscure search term can still have multiple pages?

That you have to ask Google.

The internet is mind-bogglingly massive, having only 18 pages for a search term like "dark matter" is obviously absurd, that's like a drop in the ocean relative to all the information out there.

I agree, it's ridiculous to think there are less than 200 pages on the Internet with the expression "dark matter".

Are we just expected to be happy with this small selection of mainstream websites Google has chosen to spam in all of the results? It's the scenario we all feared when we talked about an internet which consisted of curated mainstream content and nothing else.

That's the problem of using private services, we are limited to do what they want to let us do and they are not obliged to do what we think they should do.

PS: I just thought of trying one thing: I searched for Kardashian family and although it said it found 227,000,000 results, I only got 137.
Then I searched for Kardashian. Seeing the word Kardashian exists in the expression Kardashian family, that should have returned at least as many results, but it did not, it said 464,000,000 results and showed only 115 results.
Searching "Kardashian family" (with quotes) reported 1,360,000 results and showed only 133.
Searching "Kardashian" (with quotes) reported 395,000,000 results and showed only 107.

There's something terribly wrong with these results.

YANDEX!!

Yandex.com

also their image search is the best!
duck fuk go has gone to the dark side dont use
a reply to: DaRAGE

originally posted by: citizentrust
Best:
BING - 4.64 BILLION Top result: AmericanThinker article
YAHOO - 390 M results, top result: Americanthinker article, then blogspot article. Qwant and swisscows must draw from yahoo amoung others.
Dogpile - 5 pages + next, americanthinker top result
OneSearch - 5 Pages, American thinker top result; might be using same source as DogPile

Mate bing SAYS that it has that many results but it only showed one result on page one. The next page has nothing.

Yahoo flitteres between google and bing for the search engine to use on a yearly basis depending on how much they pay yahoo for the privilige

a reply to: DaRAGE

I noticed this in 2009. This is not an indication that they are DELETING the internet, it is a combination of "they aren't trying to hear that", along with good old fashioned lie-based marketing. ("We are fabulous because we searched the ENTIRE internet and found all these links for you!!! We're awesome!!!")

In 2009 I was heading to distant regions with no promise of internet. I decided to stock up on photos of animals (fill my harddrive with JPG's) to practice drawing and engraving. As outlined in the video, initial results for "deer" or "buffalo" or "bear" would be like 65 million found... 30+ pages in, the number of hits would suddenly drop to 123 found. The statement "We have removed some links to show you only the most important" also dates from at least 2009. The phenomenon was repeatable on every search I made, and backing up one page from the suddenly shortened list of links would jump back from ~123 to 65-million. My search topics were not controversial: field-mice had in 2009 not yet been recognized as the existential threat and conspiracy theory that, now in 2022, I think we can all agree that they are.

Jump to 2019... tried to setup a website... keep checking Google to see if it comes up. Nope! Here I was using a "free web-hosting" site, so the website name was "myname.hostingsite.com". Never ever came up. Turns out google (as a private enterprise deeply concerned with ensuring the "quality" of the internet) will not index pages unless they request to be indexed... and then months may go be before some googloid reviews your page to deem you worthy. Yeah, sure, my site s*cked... just pictures I'd made... the URL works, but i could never get it to register on any search-engines. They are not deleting the internet, just gate-keeping.

Unlike the early 2000's when everyone could setup their own website, and the wild west reigned surpeme: the most recent statistics I've seen show that 95% of all internet traffic goes to the names you know: google/youtube, amazon, facebook, twitter, wikipedia ... followed by established MSM news outlets.

(look for the dark-web -- more and more is going dark, but it is still there)

For those of you comparing and contrasting 8-12 different search-engines... most of those engines just use Google or Bing search-results anyway -- they don't have their own crawlers and indexing infrastructure. LMGTFY = Let Me Google That For You. Because digital-surveilance is a thing, most of the "other" search-engines take your request and bounce it off google for you: to provide you with an extra degree of anonymity ("now NO ONE will know that I'm looking up "Field-Mice" ! Mwa-ha-ha!!!"). Yes this helps, but no, you still just get whatever schlopp google is dishing out these days. So to discover that there is a pattern that ALL search-engines stop reporting links after the 30th page is just proving Google-Relay.

Censorship is very real, and something that we should all be very worried about. This phenomenon with Google results ending after page 30+ is not the smoking-gun droids you are looking for. It is just old-proof that google has never been honest with you.

And they said "Don't be Evil!!!" How's that working out for us all?

I posted about this on here many years ago. I suck at finding my old posts. Or the search engine sucks. It's at least five years. Maybe a decade. This is not a new phenomena. Google was fake as far as I remember

a reply to: PapagiorgioCZ

Exactly.

When Google appeared they used a method that would show at the top of the list the pages with more links pointing to them, so it showed first those that were already more popular.
People being lazy, they just clicked the first couple of results and were happy (the pages were popular for a reason) with what they saw. That didn't mean the results were the best, only the most popular.

Throughout the years they have changed their algorithms many times, like when they put at the top those that paid to appear at the top without identifying those "results" as paid advertising.

The fact is that people have, mostly, been given flashy results and never bothered to look for alternatives.

Think I have found a solution to some of the problem :-)

I installed SearXNG yesterday on a vps and it's great.

It's a open source search engine you install your own private instance ether on the internet or on a local machine. It goes through multiple search engines to get the results. All they see is the public ip from the site and a new user. Theres no tracking there's no adds and you chose what search engines to use.

There are public instances of SearX running so have a search and try out before you make your own. There is the ability to track so some public ones might that's why your best with your own if you like it.

It does take a little effort to install but it's pretty easy and dosent take long.

I did it with a small €4pm server with ubuntu 20.04 installed 2 Cpu 2GB ram I think you could run on alot less too. If you have a search you will find lot's of tutorials depending if you want to use Docker or not. I went with docker SearXNG it even sets up https for you.

Happy searching :-)

a reply to: CiBBiA

If it uses other search engines it's not a solution to this specific problem, as this problem is caused by the search engines themselves.

But thanks anyway.

I wonder if we get starlink internet instead of internet provided via Cysco.

If it would be safer and would be have to use google?

Musk should have his own browser for his internet.

a reply to: ArMaP

You are right the only way I can see around it would be to have some sort of distributed webcrawling letting each users computer do some web crawling and have all the results accessable as a open source search engine.

You can still get actual web crawlers but it's the speed doing it yourself that makes them kind of useless. Fine if you knew what you were wanting to search for a couple of days in advance tho.

Google will give you top most relevant search current and most used results. The more you drill down you get the least. There are a lot of search results, but they don't tell you exactly what those are. You have to be more specific and drill deeper using filters. However, google might flag you for being a bot, or for unusual activity search keywords. Then you have to enter in a captcha to prove you're not a bot. It's lame because so many unsecured things out there on the net and hackers use filters to find them to exploit.

originally posted by: turretless
Soon all of you will run away to Yandex, Rutube and Vkontakte.

Because there is no Western censorship.

Western censorship is pulling its paws to Russia.


Apple asks Rutube to hide state-owned media content in iOS app

15 AUG, 15:36

Apple asked Russian video hosting Rutube to either hide the content of Russian state media in its iOS application, or make the application available only to Russian users, press service of Rutube told TASS.

"Apple offers two solutions to the moderating issue with the Rutube application: either make the application available only to Russian users, or remove the ‘state-sponsored media’ content. Currently, the video hosting application is available in 171 countries," the press service said.

Apple gave two weeks to make a decision, otherwise the application will be removed from the app store, the press service explained.

The Rutube team has already restricted access to Rutube in the AppStore for users from countries other than Russia, Kazakhstan, and Belarus, the company explained. "The developers were forced to do this in order to give users the new functionality they are waiting for. Rutube does not plan to impose restrictions on the distribution of Russian media, as this violates the rights of the Russian-speaking population," Rutube explained.

The press service of the video hosting reminded that Rutube includes Russian media and bloggers whose channels were blocked on YouTube video hosting, including Channel One, Rossiya 1, NTV, Rossiya 24, TNT, RT, Spas, as well as the channels of Russian TV presenter Vladimir Solovyov, pranksters Vovan and Lexus, blogger Dmitry (Goblin) Puchkov and others.

tass.com...

Google search is a lot more robust than people think with many operators. Searching for "cookies" on the entire net is going to give you a mix of things and not be very specific. That word can exist in the urls, the title, in the text body of the website, pictures of cookies not just a websites with cookies recipes. So you have to be a lot more specific in your search and use search operators, which is really powerful once you get the hang of it. Here is a page on Google Search operators. LINK

So instead of searching the entire web on "cookies" You can narrow it down to cookies just with certain domains like twitter....but remember you will get links to just pictures of cookies too, not just recipes. So if you want specifics you need to add that. "Cookie Recipes"

site:twitter.com inurl:cookies intitle:cookies intext:cookies
256 results

site:twitter.com inurl:cookie recipes intitle:cookie recipes intext:cookie recipes
7 results.

So if your friend mentioned they had a cookie recipe on twitter and forgot to give you a link, you could search for it. With only 7 results pertaining to "cookie recipes" within the domain of twitter. You see how powerful it is now? I know people will say there is a conspiracy with Google limiting search results links to click through. Seriously?? You do realize Google servers has to spin up that data to send it to you right? Who is going to browse through millions of pages of anything pertaining to a cookie? That makes no sense. The pages are there you just need to narrow it down.

originally posted by: sean
Google will give you top most relevant search current and most used results.

That's one thing I never understood, what do the mean by "relevance"?
It couldn't be relevance to what we are thinking, as they usually fail to show the more relevant results to me.

The more you drill down you get the least.

You don't need to drill down, you just have to move through the searches presented to see they are lying.

For example, why do they say "about 846,000 results" when I searched for aspx async web service but show only 137?
And they say they showed "the most relevant results", but result number 111 is an article about monkeypox.
One thing we can see is that Google highlights words it "thinks" are synonymous to the ones used, in this case it considers "website" as one of the possible words I was looking for (it isn't). I could also see that it didn't make a distinction between having "aspx" in the text or in the page's URL, sometimes that was the only word that was part of my search expression on those specific pages.

There are a lot of search results, but they don't tell you exactly what those are. You have to be more specific and drill deeper using filters.

If they say 846,000 results they should show more than 137 (or 721,000 and 357 respectively, when showing the "duplicate results" that are not duplicates).

a reply to: sean

The problem is not getting too much results, it's the opposite.

I noticed this some time ago, internet searches changed completely, and wikipedia is number one,
never used to be.
Who owns wikipedia?
Control, censorship, big money.

originally posted by: RonnieJersey
I noticed this some time ago, internet searches changed completely, and wikipedia is number one,
never used to be.

What are you talking about, more results than shown? Wikipedia doesn't say how many results they found, they list them.

Who owns wikipedia?

The Wikimedia Foundation.