Do you think its because there is a lot more spam and SEO than 10 years ago or do you think google is actively doing something to remove relevant results from searches?

No these are not reports that count someone viewing an AI summary on google as using AI for search.

Most news isnt static. Its an app and its a link embedded in an app. Blogs are not popular or relevant so idk why we are even talking about them. Substack has most of the market and its not a static site.

Ecommerce could not be static without major regressions to usablity.

I do live in a place with fast internet but we are talking about future and I think its stupid to build a future web for people who have slow internet when all the trends point to increasing internet speeds and connection around the world. I’m sure Africa doesnt want to finally get online and see everything be a static site.

You can run discord off a mobile data connection, when Africa builds out their Internet infra they will prefer services like discord over low bandwidth stripped down barebones services.

the future web doesnt need to care about a 1mb page or a 10mb page. It only matters what you can do. Static site can do very little. You can’t have Lemmy as static site and Lemmy is an example of what I think future web could be. Open, interconnected, full of features and QoL. Lemmy gives you the things reddit tries to sell you.

You can still search on search engines some searches dont even have any ads. So what feature was removed? They actively started showing worse results ok what did they do?

Search engines still search same as they did in the 2010s. They have had ads for decades. It hasnt increased you search you see an ad or two or even none.

Your replies are equivalent to AI slop. If you are going to write something please at least think about what you are writing.

How is a summary at the top of the page different from the first result? If you are fine with the first result being incorrect I dont see why you wouldnt also accept the summary to be sometimes wrong. There are still 10 results for you to pick from and infinite pages to scroll through.

If it depends on the confidence do you need them to put a disclaimer? If I’m looking for something important I’m going to actual documentation and skipping the summary even when its correct. But if I’m just searching for something low stakes and the summary answers my question I am happy to not dig any further and I consider it to be an improvement on the search experience.

These days its pretty accurate. I rarely come across a summary thats incorrect. Mostly I see incorrect summaries on searches where i already know I’m going to get a lot of wrong answers and have to sift through sites and old posts.

Yes we are talking about ddg which has roughly 100 million users and put out a poll to which 175k said they didnt want AI.

Ignoring the schizo half of your question, what would be an acceptable error rate for you?

Its a generalized product targeting average people. Average people dont care AI/No AI they want the results and they use the AI summaries. If DDG hid it then they would just think it doesnt exist and go use google which provides them faster more convenient results.

On DDG you get the sources its summarizing from. Im not sure about google, i dont use it.

Its not a thought terminating cliche if you didnt cut the next word out. You can argue if AI is the future of search, I think there is a strong case that its proven very good at general information retrieval.

How did search engine companies go out of their way to make normal searches worse? I search I get relevant results and its been that way for the past 20 years. Nothing has changed that has made search worse than it was 5 years ago. The only change is that people have recently gotten a choice between a google search or a chatgpt question and they were increasingly choosing chatgpt. fast forward to current day and that divide has only increased.

Most of the interesting parts of the web are not static and you do need some scripting language to have an interactive site. Most users are on complex web apps its why people open their browsers everyday. The internet should be more than a wiki and blogs it needs complex applications and any future web proposal should be leveraging what we can do to solve problems we face not saying “just make simpler things like wiki and blogs”. Bloat is a non issue, people naturally optimize their websites to provide a good experience. Even the heaviest fattest frameworks still load nearly instantly. Bring in 50 ad providers and it still loads in a second.

AI is the future of search and I dont see anyway that changes. The user experience of AI search is way to good, average users love the summary at the top of their search. Almost every report i’ve seen shows over 50% of people using AI for search and that tracks with what I see in people i know in real life.

I’m a DDG user and I do not want them to handicap themselves to pass a purity test.

I seen the small web movement. Those sites are not good. Not only is there nothing to do except read posts but functionally they are bad UX to navigate.

Most of the static sites dont even need to be websites. The baker does not need a website. Good website or bad website makes little to no difference. Its fine if they want to have a single static page with some info and a contact email im not saying they need anything good. But if every site was like that the internet would be worse than it is today.

Japanese websites are really crap. Websites without a modern UI framework are pretty miserable. I hate phone numbers that try open an app I almost never want to click and see a phone call pop up.

What people who yearn for a better web always seem to miss is a vision for the future. So often its going back to the past with simple sites, no JavaScript, HTML+CSS, websites that do one thing, full privacy at the cost of terrible UX. Fuck that use modern tech build websites that allow you to do things real time. Dont just leave a phone number, give me a way to easily submit a booking. Use recommendation engines to serve interesting content. Connect users across protocols. Use the GPU. The possibilities for websites these days is crazy but few really go for it. Only do massive tech companies try and go above a traditional we site but they do it with the intention to create walled gardens instead of build out a web garden.

Despite my complaints I mostly use the sites I complain about. But its why I like the fediverse so much. It breaks the trend of going back to irc and text sites and has a modern web vision.

After the reddit migration there was a sense of optimism and feeling that this platform could be something great. People were joking and interacting positively.

Then the I/P happened and agenda posting went crazy you had people attacking people where both people were on the same side of the issue. Its gotten consistently worse since then. I/p, Ukraine, Trump, AI its making people miserable and rightfully so. But I wonder what is needed for the path back to optimism and positive discussion.

Block users that seem extreme and it will clear up. Its like 10 people responsible for 95% of the posts.