Google, DuckDuckGo and Bing now all return the same shitty LLM-generated nonsense sites to most of my searches, and don’t respect my literal search terms even when I put them in quotes.

I’m not ready to pay for search, yet.

Is there any alternative?

  • PhilipTheBucket@ponder.cat
    694·
    17 days ago

    What are you talking about? I just tried two test queries on DDG, and neither one had LLM-generated nonsense, and the one that was in double-quotes returned only five results, all of which had the double-quoted phrase and one of which was the thing I was challenging it to find.

    Can you give an example of a query where DDG returns LLM results or doesn’t respect your double-quotes?

        • fjordbasa@lemmy.worldEnglish
          35·
          17 days ago

          Low effort websites made easier by LLM generated text. It’s not new, just made easier with the ubiquity of LLM tools. Think of it as the latest generation of spam websites 🙃

        • JackbyDev@programming.devEnglish
          5·
          17 days ago

          Think recipe websites that take forever to get to the recipe but it’s for other topics. Like a simple question, “what is the release date for X new game?” And then there will be like 5+ paragraphs of jibber jabber about the game and then finally the last article will say when it releases.

          This sort of site has been around for a while but supposedly they’re more common nowadays. Personally I think people just have a better eye for things not written entirely by humans. Either way it’s annoying to deal with them.

          • LadyMeow@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            5·
            17 days ago

            Ugh I feel like I have been seeing more of that. Asked how many ml in a wine pour and got like 5 sites that wouldn’t just come out and say it. All kinds of gobbledegook dancing around the topic but no one would just freaking say it. 140ml in case you needed it

  • ᗪᗩᗰᑎ@lemmy.ml
    341·
    17 days ago

    Posted this previously:

    yes. use any of the following, in no particular order:

    • ecosia.org - A non-profit certified B corp that plants trees by serving ads in your search results. Bing search underneath.
    • duckduckgo.com - A privacy friendly search engine. Primarily sourced from Bing but mixes in a few other sources.
    • any SearXNG instance - A self-hostable search front-end to various search engines.
    • marginalia.nu - specifically ‘random’ - An independent DIY search engine that focuses on non-commercial content, and attempts to show you sites you perhaps weren’t aware of in favor of the sort of sites you probably already knew existed.
      • anothermember@lemmy.zip
        1·
        16 days ago

        Are you (or is anyone here) daily-driving Stract yet? I discovered it a few months ago and thought it was everything I was looking for in a search engine, but also concluded that its search results aren’t up to the standard I can use for now, so I filed it as one to look out for. Would be interested in hearing others’ experiences.

        • Chris@feddit.ukEnglish
          1·
          16 days ago

          Unfortunately not. I’d like to, but as you say it’s not quite there yet. I probably should try it more frequently.

    • Dave@lemmy.nz
      10·
      17 days ago

      I think Searx is a good suggestion. Can be a bit slow to return results because it runs the search on a bunch of search engines and compiles the results, but that helps to make sure better stuff rises to the top.

      • logging_strict@lemmy.ml
        61·
        17 days ago

        The other suggestions aren’t suggestions at all. They are obsoleted by searx.space

        DDG … obsolete

        startpage.com … obsolete

        Browsers have default search engines. Curse everytime, DDG is accidentally queried.

        DDG is a curse word!

        Any centralized site, with privacy claims, is treated as lying thru their teeth. Front run future news.

  • oozynozh@lemm.ee
    11·
    17 days ago

    I use Qwant sometimes but it’s sourced from Bing. Searx is better if you can self-host. Kagi is better if you can afford to pay (but you asked for free).

    • Taalnazi@lemmy.worldNederlands
      2·
      17 days ago

      There’s also Startpage, also pretty good. That has search results from Google and a bit of Bing though, so if that’s a dealbreaker, then yeah.

  • codenul@lemmy.ml
    71·
    17 days ago

    Not sure if its untrustworthly or not, but switched over to Startpage and been liking the results. Just wished it would implement the !bang system from ddg

    www.startpage.com

    • Avero@feddit.org
      6·
      17 days ago

      They use Googles results with a bit of Bing mixed in. Bangs should work too, like !wiki for Wikipedia or !d for DeepL They’re partly owned by an adtech company though (and say they dont share anything).

  • NirodhaAvidya@lemmy.worldEnglish
    105·
    17 days ago

    Kagi if you are willing to pay for the service. I think that’s reasonable but your needs may vary.

    • davel [he/him]@lemmy.mlEnglish
      3·
      17 days ago

      I might pay for quality search if my searches weren’t linked back to my credit card and therefore identity.

    • majestictechie@lemmy.fosshost.comEnglish
      1·
      16 days ago

      If it wasn’t something I use every day and even for work, I wouldn’t bother. But yeah, Kagi result are definitely better. Being able to rate sites high/lower in results and blocking some all together really has helped filter out the nonsense that a lot of search engines give

  • telepresence@discuss.tchncs.de
    3·
    10 days ago

    I’ve been using brave search on my pc and phone for maybe 6 months now. i still use google like 10% of the time if i’m searching for something that isn’t in english, but otherwise, id even say for many things brave returns better results than google

  • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
    2·
    16 days ago

    shitty LLM-generated nonsense sites

    It’s kind of impossible to filter these out computationally, regardless of brand. You pretty much need to run them through a bigger LLM than generated them, and the economics of doing that for every indexed site are obviously bad. Doing it by hand may or may not be workable either, depending on how quickly you can detect bad domains versus how quickly a new domain can be put up.

    It’s on us to figure out who’s trustworthy, and who just sounds authoritative, unfortunately.