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?

  • oozynozh@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    11 hours 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.world
      link
      fedilink
      Nederlands
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      9 hours 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.

  • PhilipTheBucket@ponder.cat
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    69
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    18 hours 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?

        • JackbyDev@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          3 hours 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
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            2 hours 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

        • fjordbasa@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          31
          ·
          18 hours 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 🙃

          • LadyMeow@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            14
            ·
            18 hours ago

            Ah I see. Junk ‘news’ and other regurgitated blah. Yeah, I’d guess any free search engine will probably be bloated with that. Not to mention that it’s google, bing, and orange bing. Not a ton of crawlers out there indexing everything is there?

            • Darorad@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              17 hours ago

              The only other (not absolutely tiny) one I’m aware of is brave, but it has its own issues

  • ᗪᗩᗰᑎ@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    32
    ·
    18 hours 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.
  • codenul@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    16 hours 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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      16 hours 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.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    17 hours ago

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

    • majestictechie@lemmy.fosshost.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 hours 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

    • davel [he/him]@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      13 hours ago

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