I suppose it’s invalid in the context of showing you what you exactly searched for. But it’s pretty valid in the context of showing you what you’re looking for. For example, someone with a disdain for science when searching for the terms “big bang” or “evolution” is probably not looking for scientific articles detailing the rigor of the prevalent theories. If the point of a search engine is to find what you’re looking for, it’s pretty effective by that measure. It just so happens that what you’re looking is biased in its own ways.
Rather, educating people how to use keywords and syntax is far better than teaching people to depend on an algorithm. This would net one the results that you describe without any of the problematic aspects of an algorithm.
I don’t see any need for an algorithm whatsoever, but I see many ways it can be used to frustrate or manipulate users. It is my strong opinion that a valid search engine only responds to deliberate input from the user, and things like algorithms or location-specific results are an endless source of discouragement and frustration to me.
I understand what you mean, I agree with you that search engines should be simpler tools and in general tools are better when they just do what I tell them rather than trying to guess and do more things. But I think we’re in the minority there. It’s difficult enough to get people to care about Google watching them across the internet, much less when it actually proves useful like suggesting restaurants or businesses near you.
We’re definitely in the minority, but I feel like it’s still a significant enough minority that you’d think someone would be creating something to fit this need. The closest I’ve found are SearXNG instances and Mojeek, and neither are entirely free from the claws of these algorithms.
I suppose it’s invalid in the context of showing you what you exactly searched for. But it’s pretty valid in the context of showing you what you’re looking for. For example, someone with a disdain for science when searching for the terms “big bang” or “evolution” is probably not looking for scientific articles detailing the rigor of the prevalent theories. If the point of a search engine is to find what you’re looking for, it’s pretty effective by that measure. It just so happens that what you’re looking is biased in its own ways.
Similarly, but from a good view, if a programmer searches “how to kill child” they probably don’t want a tutorial of how to kill human children.
Rather, educating people how to use keywords and syntax is far better than teaching people to depend on an algorithm. This would net one the results that you describe without any of the problematic aspects of an algorithm.
I don’t see any need for an algorithm whatsoever, but I see many ways it can be used to frustrate or manipulate users. It is my strong opinion that a valid search engine only responds to deliberate input from the user, and things like algorithms or location-specific results are an endless source of discouragement and frustration to me.
I understand what you mean, I agree with you that search engines should be simpler tools and in general tools are better when they just do what I tell them rather than trying to guess and do more things. But I think we’re in the minority there. It’s difficult enough to get people to care about Google watching them across the internet, much less when it actually proves useful like suggesting restaurants or businesses near you.
We’re definitely in the minority, but I feel like it’s still a significant enough minority that you’d think someone would be creating something to fit this need. The closest I’ve found are SearXNG instances and Mojeek, and neither are entirely free from the claws of these algorithms.