I need to check this out. I am guessing I can do all the things I used to be able to in Google, like disable all results from say, pinterest and a few other sites I dislike.
Yea I’ve been waiting for this. Feels like the biggest innovation in search in a long time . Can’t wait till the community builds a goggle to remove all built for SEO sites
This is great. That said, I would love to see this extended beyond just keyword search, to contextualization of a given piece of content. https://aviv.medium.com/contextualization-engines-can-fight-... ( I should note that the word authoritative here just means a particular 'lens' that has been vetted by a defined process—it's a way to make the problem simpler for prototyping. It might for example be a lens showing just accepted Stack Overflow answers.)
Imagine being able to select a bit of code in your editor, and getting an explanation of what that code does based off the content of all of the accepted answers on Stack Overflow.
Here's the source code for a sample "Hacker News" Goggle. Essentially, it will prioritize domains popular on Hacker News. I could even see a browser plugin that lets you add or remove domains as you visit them.
You can use keywords to select search engines in both Chrome and Firefox. If you configure "custom1" as a keyword, then just type custom1 followed by a space into the address bar it will activate that search engine and send the rest of your query to that URL.
This wouldn't let you use multiple "flavors" of Brave though unless they expose different URLs for 'Goggles'; sounds like you just are allowed to enable one as a sitewide setting.
They do have different URLs for different goggles. Do a search for the word "test" with a Goggle on, then grab the URL from the address bar and paste that into your new bookmark. Replace "test" with "%s", add a keyword, and you're good to go. Repeat with other goggles.
The syntax makes me wonder if the implementation is related to their high-performance filter rule evaluation library, adblock-rust [0]. Whatever is doing the dynamic reranking would need to evaluate lots of rules and churn through links fast.
Our brains are not well-equipped to down-rank bad information sufficiently once we are exposed to it. By then, it’s often too late. We do have powers of planning and selective exposure though, so we can say “I think these newspapers are authoritative and these others aren’t, so that’s what I’m going to subscribe to” much easier than “I’m going to selectively ignore this trash information that I see in google results or my Facebook wall.” Tools like this will allow reasonable people to curate the most authoritative sources on their side of the ideological spectrum. So even a right-leaning lens will tend to exclude the most extreme sources, and this will ease pressure on Fox such that it can present more center-right content without losing views. Same with the left-leaning lenses and MSNBC. If this idea proliferates (of selective exposure in a digital environment, where algorithms don’t entirely choose what you see), it can help deflate the network effects of extremism and populism in a virtuous cycle.
This is one of the first things I did when I implemented my own Bing proxy, although I did the site boosting/downranking/exclusions and rewrote URLs (e.g. www.reddit.com > old.reddit.com) myself since I didn't have any users, but the plans was always to give users the ability to control this.
> Modify the results content (other than to reformat them in a way that does not violate any other requirement), unless required by law or agreed to by Microsoft.
> Reorder, including by omission, the results displayed in an answer when an order or ranking is provided, unless required by law or agreed to by Microsoft.
> Display content that was not included within any part of a response in a way that would lead a user to believe that content is part of the response.
And there are many other restrictions imposed upon you. I'd argue the reason you see almost zero innovation in this space (the only thing I can think of is !bangs) is because non-Google/Bing(/Brave) Search Engines have very little control over the received data, and with the little control we do have then there are many restrictions that prevents us from making these 'innovative' features.
Based on my pessimistic reading then we're not allowed under any circumstances to merge API results from multiple search engines (e.g. Bing + Yandex + Google), and for every site we want to exclude/boost/derank/rewrite sites/urls then we need explicit permission from a Microsoft representative (which would prevent us from implementing this kind of feature). We're also not allowed to display third-party ads on any pages that displays part of the API results (which is funny because I feel it's near impossible to join Microsoft's Advertising network even though my site in my opinion have a good purpose and provide a high quality UI/UX experience - https://ask.moe).. I've later switched to Google's Programmable Search Engine and even though my site has been approved by Google as a non-profit, as well as approved for AdSense, then they will only display ads in the search results if I turn off revenue-share.
This industry desperately needs legislation that makes it possible for everybody to obtain access to Google/Microsoft's crawled data, and this access should not be limited to expensive APIs that make it impossible for anybody besides Google/Microsoft to do any sort of innovation.
Surely big partners like DuckDuckGo have negotiated their own terms with MS. DDG certainly combines Bing's results with other sources, at least they claim to.
This is not so innovative, you've been able to do so for many years using Google Custom Search (now Programmable Search Engine) - e.g. many years ago I made an open source projects search: https://cse.google.com/cse?cx=008818486088109706548:xnogqdia...
This paper proposes an open and collaborative system by whicha community, or a single user, can create sets of rules and filters, called Goggles, to define the space which a search engine can pull results from. Instead of a single ranking algorithm, we could have as many as needed, overcoming the biases that a single actor (the search engine) embeds into the results ... Such system would be made possible by the availability of a host search engine, providing the index and infrastructure, which are unlikely to be replicated without major development and infrastructure costs.
Unironically, a multitude of biases in search engine results is just what we need. And the difficulty in building your own index is just why we don't have it. I would love to have my own version of google-without-the-stupid-stuff according to people I specifically identify and respect.
I don't think we yet appreciate the importance of good bubble hygeine on mental health, and this is a bespoke bubble construction kit.
Absolutely! I see a lot of people complain about twitter, but if you actively curate who you want to see and turn off recommendation posts it can be a very pleasant experience. There's loads of positive communities posting heartwarming and uplifting content. It's just that rage and anger are optimized by the algorithms, you have to actively curate your bubble to counteract.
Goggles have a lot of promise. I'm excited about the concepts Brave is bringing forth.
And arguably even worse, they often fill the first two pages with duplicates of the first couple results, making the entire search almost pointless if those couple solutions didn't work out for you.
I've seen the same problem with craigslist mirrors. When an item on craigslist gets sold, the seller removes the ad to stop the spam. The old ads stay up on the mirrors and it's not always obvious how old the ad is for.
They often hide the fact that they mirror SO posts.
That can be very annoying, like when you're researching a rare coding issue and there are 5 Google hits, and you only find out after clicking on all of them that 4 of them are copies of the first (only genuine) one.
technically useful if the first step is to remove SEO bias today then apply goggles.. next is transparency for the goggle filter actions (nothing more sinister than a convincing lie) overall looks useful
my mind boggles at the sheer number of people being employed over SEO so removing that bias is like literally killing their livelihood. i don't care anyways because i don't use google and use a pi-hole AND ublock origin so i am insulated from ads but just saying
You apply an arbitrary filter that deranks 'shitty' sites, and then you play a semantic game about what 'bias' is, and how you don't have it, but all the competing search engines do.
There's no objective measure of what site is 'good', and what site has been 'SEO-gamed' to rise to the top of <arbitrary search engine's algorithm>. The measures are subjective, and people complain when changes to the algorithm aimed at punishing black-hat-SEO also punish their website (Rightly or wrongly).
Not to mention the problem of using black-hat-SEO to punish a competitor (By creating scummy links to them, that make it look like they are trying to game the search engine.)
Growing up, my mother always used to give me books that contained content on page one. This goggle really brings back memories of wandering the dusty library isles of Mediterranean street markets with their pungent spices and beautifully crafted rugs.
I personally ? would remove SEO-bias by first exposing the actual construction of the site without SEO add-ons, to some engine for consideration. A simple example would be "built with wordpress". Please note that it is wise to know that I do not know, many many things. So it becomes a networked endeavor, to find and identify "literal attributes" to sites for the use of the engine, not my personal opinion of what the web-o-sphere is in 2022.
A very very significant example is the primary language group exposed on the site.. for example, Cantonese ? I personally support the rights of "minority" languages like Gaelic and Welsh in the European setting, Tamil for South Asia, things like that.. make it so..
I agree, the ability to reliably filter out overly-SEO sites, copy-spam, and other search engine-bait would be a true game changer! Defining and detecting it is of course the hard part.
The advantage that Brave and co have is that SEO sites will largely not be willing to make changes that decrease their Google rank to improve their Brave rank. If Google changes their algorithm, everyone will optimise for the new one, but as long as the Google algorithm is there and the main priority, Brave may be able to extract some useful signal.
All web search engines are biased to sites that are well designed to be included in the index. It is literally how a search engine works. Removing SEO bias would just eliminate sites that are easy to spider, parse and index and rank. Goggles are great because they will eventually become a signal for Brave to change the rank of a site - or even in the case of sites that end up on lots of goggles, delist them. I love the feature.
What does anyone think of the name "Goggles"? I wonder if they would have named it this if Google didn't exist. Seems like a genius name to me, under the circumstances!
Also a ripe opportunity for Google's lawyers to go after them as it creates confusion in the marketplace. Or maybe a marketing opportunity for them, if they play the David vs. Goliath card, should Google come after them.
Probably not the best idea, given how similar it to "Google", but I assume all better alternatives were trademarked away or something. Then again, if Google would be stupid enough to declare they own the word "goggles", it may generate a lot of PR for the project that they would never get otherwise. So may end up a win.
I feel like I don't grasp the 'boost' concept. The white paper says:
>$boost=XX—is used to alter the ranking of specific results by XX (e.g. $boost=1 would not alter the ranking, while $boost=2 would make a result two times more important).
In this case it is needed because there is a generic '$discard' rule in the Goggle (which means: discard any result that does not match any other instruction from the Goggle; you can see this as a 'default action' applied to results if they are not caught by any other instruction).
Using a 'boost=1' allows you to keep some sites, that you don't necessarily want to boost more than their "natural ranking".
I think it's the "Generic boosting" comment that might have thrown the parent off. The comment could say something like "Keep these sites with default ranking" instead.
The pinterest images sometimes give me exactly what I want, but make it harder to get to what I want. I would loved if the pinterest rank space was saved, but replaced with a link from a reverse image search of that image.
You don't "accidentally" name a product something that is one letter off and so visual similar to the name of your biggest rival. It is clearly intentional. The only question is whether Google has or will want recourse for that.
so... don't get rid of search engine filter "bubbles" that turn the web into an echo chamber, let the people build their own echo chambers?
I mean, its at least transparent, people are aware of it or have to opt in.
It feels like a weird compromise in terms of misinformation, cultural division, etc... but letting people choose which kool-aid they're drinking instead of letting the "totally not hand tweaked for edge cases in favor of the creator of "the algorithm"" to decide. Out of the handful of "ideas" around wrangling the the trashfire that is the modern internet, this seems like the most sane the best fit solution so far.
In terms of it being an actual search tool for finding information, answers, documentation, references that are actually relevant or useful it sounds insanely useful.
Narrow down searches for anything + "datasheet" to manufacturer websites and a handful of non paywalled datasheet catalogs - fuck yeah!
I forsee lots of angry website owners who run fluff content or bury reposted useful info under mile thick layers of ads.
Pinterest is ad fueled zombie. Scrape the web, rehost thumbnails of other useful/interesting images, put up ads, pollute image search results until the heat death of the universe.
I'm waiting for Reddit & Twitter to let me specify who I trust to moderate what I view. Or for a scrappy young startup to show them how to do it. I see no reason for Twitter's hired fact checkers to exclusively perform this function, just like there's no reason why the first user-and-their-friends-to-grab-a-subreddit should have anything other than "recommended moderator" status.
Twitter's social graph is fairly exposed. You can start with a few trusted "role models" (i.e. you'd want to follow anyone they're following) and build a pretty sizable graph from there, with minimal pruning necessary.
I built a tool to recursively scrape RSS feeds from web pages linked to twitter bios. You pass in a "root" trusted user, and look in their bio and every "followee"'s bio for a website, then look for anything "rss" "feed" "atom" or "xml"-y on the link itself or in the domain's sitemap.xml.
Surprisingly very useful. There's a decent amount of value in twitter's content, but arguably much more value in the followee network of "smart people", and the websites "linked out" from their profiles and tweets.
Reddit, similar but in a different way, filters itself into variously useful, well-moderated communities. Top X posts of subreddits A, B, C is a great heuristic for getting 90% of the value out of reddit with very little of the toxicity.
You needn't limit yourself to r/all and the twitter equivalent! :)
From another corner of the "search" universe, I get most of my daily information doses through the lens of a collection of RSS feeds I've built up over the years. My feed collection is intolerant to toxic content, although I still see random toxic stuff on the "wild web" (YT, FB, etc.) every now and again.
Does it put me in a bubble? Yeah. But it's a bubble of my own design, and it's a pretty nice place from my POV, that reflects my real world interests, hobbies, etc.
I see goggles as a parallel system for "I'm looking for something specific" search.
I think Goggles might turn out to be a mild retardant to toxic bubble formation, because toxic content is rocket fuel for the kind of "engagement" metrics that google/youtube/twitter/fb have spent the last decade min-maxing.
IMO, existing "search" players (Google, FB, Twitter) are culpable for toxic echo chamber formation, only to the extent that they push toxic content "by default". By allowing users to fine-tune their weights, Brave+Goggles is attempting to dislodge this norm by introducing user feedback into the equation. Like you, I think it's a good idea.
Some people will always opt-in to toxic bubbles, but I think that's more of a human/society problem and not one for a search player to solve.
Everyone has context bubbles already. You have work, outside of work, your hobbies both online(IE HN) and offline. You influence these bubbles composition. Hobbies in particular are entirely self selected.
But you are aware of which context you are communing in and are free to move between them and outside them into the general public sphere.
I see this as more of the same. As you say, "its at least transparent, people are aware of it or have to opt in"
Interestingly by the comments here, a big driver for these self selected bubbles are so that people can avoid the advertising they don't wish to see. IE Pinterest and other SEO spam. If "self selected bubbles" are bad, then "targeted relevant advertising" is worse.
Nice! Ability to quickly choose goggle would be nice, something similar to "site:" or !bangs in ddg. Example search: "integration tests best practices goggle:tech-blogs".
You could also make search more like the command line for advanced users. Typing a ! would prompt a dropdown and the user could select what Goggle to add. Eventually they could let users add multiple Goggles to a single search.
When I was teaching programming students were bewildered, befuddled, and confused by the incorrect, out-of-version, and incomplete technical information which litters the web.
I have often wondered about creating a curated collection of known-useful information for students to search.
That’s an awesome idea. I could also see professors’ creating a Goggle to restrict to sources covered by the syllabus. Similar to your idea but perhaps it’s news sites or open access journals.
The polarization bit is like watching a person who hit your parked car explain why the crash is really your own fault.
Explanations that 'the web is too broad' or 'it takes an active choice to enable the goggle' mean nothing. It takes an active choice to watch polarizing news and those sources will tell you that you really need to only get your info from them. I would not be shocked to see major sites use this to control how people view the world.
"Use our brave search and escape the leftist google agenda!" or such.
That said, I'll trade the world crashing to an end for a search engine that knows that when I type 'Angular template variable scope' It knows that when I say angular I explicitly mean angular 2-current not 'angularjs'
I've seen a number of stories from places like r/QAnonCasualties (support group for people whose loved ones have fallen into the QAnon conspiracy) where people have deprogrammed their parents or family members by blocking far-right/conspiracy content via DNS or through the cable box parental controls.
The obvious questions of morality aside, my perception of those stories is that most of the victims are hopelessly addicted to the feeling being righteous and correct and part of something bigger to the point that it takes over their whole lives. They end up a husk of a person all for a fake cause. But what is interesting is that after you take it away they generally don't find something else to latch onto, they slowly go back to having hobbies and normal conversations and normal relationships with their family, friends, and coworkers.
This is of course all anecdata, but if Goggles are another tool for giving people their loved ones back I think that's worth weighing as part of the equation.
An active choice is better than a passive one, if only because it requires an effort, in that respect the explicitness is an advantage over the typical personalization.
The article also mentions that Goggles will not stop polarization, it suffices to not exacerbate it.
No technology/system on any period of time has been able to suppress it, censorship included.
I think they were going for "Active choice is [considered] bad [by] people who think they know better and want to control others." At least, that's my read.
Being that the vast majority of the public facing internet is ad driven there will always be some sort of leaning.
Allowing the users to choose their own filters will allow advertisers to actually read the market based on the the sites that are whitelisted in the filters instead of shotgunning ads at any website that claims to be relevant to the target demographic they can actually see the popular ones that users choose based on these filters.
its still targeted advertising, but abstracted one layer away from the actual user so that the targeted ads don't have to be as fucking creepy with all the data they're gathering on people. With the customer choosing what sites they want to see results from, the advertisers can stop wasting money on ad revenue for click farms that everyone hates.
its a better deal for advertisers, and provides a better end result for the user and some degree of transparency.
It can't make people accept inconvenient/uncomfortable facts, it won't solve any political problems. You can lead a horse to water but can't make it drink, you can point out any number of problems to a person but you cannot make them care.
edit- relevant to solso's comment about an active choice
The active choice democratizes the ad market allowing users to choose, instead of the passive route of allowing an algorithm to coerce the market.
>its still targeted advertising, but abstracted one layer away from the actual user so that the targeted ads don't have to be as fucking creepy with all the data they're gathering on people.
How is it less creepy if the advertisers still end up with all the same data? Whether they snoop on my browsing history or snoop on my search rankings doesn't make any material difference to me. The problem is building a profile on me through snooping.
How many times does this need to be corrected... Brave never injected their own affiliate codes into anything. They had sponsored results when searching in the URL bar just like Mozilla is doing now in Firefox (as of v93) with 'Firefox Suggest'. When people complained, the Brave team turned it off by default and made it so users couldn't tab-to-complete to a sponsored result which was never the intention in the first place.
>Brave never injected their own affiliate codes into anything.
Coinbase, the founder of Monero, and other experts disagree.
Firefox does not opt-in their users to inserting Firefox's own affiliate codes to coinbase, binance, or other crypto websites to get paid for traffic the way Brave did.
The 'experts' you cite with names (one of which is a known fraudster) and without sources are wrong then? An off the cuff twitter comment is not an analysis, just false conjecture like you are participating in now.
How is what Brave did any different than what firefox currently DOES?
Again, Firefox does not inject affiliate codes into URLs to get paid for referral traffic. I'm beginning to begin you have confirmation bias as a Brave apologist.
I can't address it if you refuse to provide a source to it (because it doesn't exist I suspect). You keep giving names with no sources even when you reply to a comment asking for such an analysis source.
I'll state again... what Firefox is DOING is the same exact thing as Brave did. Now sure how else I can state that. It is right in the Firefox Suggest FAQs.
> Firefox does not opt-in their users to inserting Firefox's own affiliate codes
they opt users into telemetry and “experiments” instead, and the entire business is almost entirely kept alive with funding from Google, despite claims to care about privacy.
All significantly worse issues compared to adding affiliate links to a few sites. Affiliate links don’t pay for traffic, they pay for new user acquisition or sales. It’s no different than sponsored tabs / cards in Mozilla today.
Again, opting in telemetry tracking is not injecting your affiliate codes to get paid for traffic you send as a browser.
It's fascinating the loops that people are going through (it doesn't exist, if does exist it's not that bad, poisoning the well, etc.) to apologize for this scummy behavior by Brave.
I hope Goggles can be used as a ranking signal to help default search engine deliver better results.
Google has never had the appetite for letting users explicitly improve its results. Their reasoning was that pure algorithm is the only possible solution that scales. Even the minor features, such as "I never want to see this site", were removed.
I am glad Brave is trying out something different. Crossing my fingers that it works, the current state of search is so meh..
I hope forums gain some weight after google decided to f** them over in the results. IDK in English but for spanish language forums are still valuable, but you need to know the domain name so that hurts discoverability.
I just used Brave for the first time and was absolutely delighted to see they have a dedicated "discussions" section when you search for something. It's literally what has sold me to trying it as my default engine for a few weeks.
It's not a tab, it's a section of the default search results page. And it also is just Reddit. At least for the couple of searches I just tried it for.
I want this but can’t find it. I want to find discussions on something (toyota sienna) but when I search I don’t see any discussions section. Even putting “discussions” in the search terms does not bring it up. Looks like something they should make toggleable.
EDIT: I take this back. If I put the term “discussion” in the search along with “toyota sienna”, I see a “discussions” section in the search results if I am on the “goggles” tab. I don’t see the discussions section if I omit the “discussion” term though.
Seriously how hard must be to flag duplicated content from GitHub, Wikipedia and Stack Overflow? Seriously, last week I had a query that returned the exact same content three times on the same page: the first result was a GH issue, and the other two were spam websites with the same content from GH. Google used to be good at flagging and downranking duplicated content, but now they don't even care, it's a shame.
I'm always amazed at such comments that trivialise the challenges of fighting spam and SEO while being the most dominant search engine by far (which means spam and SEO targets you by far).
If it is so easy, why don't you build a dominant search engine that manages to complete avoid the "totally easy" spam you talk about?
If perhaps, you have extensive experience in the anti-spam section of a dominant search engine (or some similar position), I'd give your comment more weight. Do you have such experience?
The only constant in my journey in comp sci is my underestimation of how much time and effort things take, so I guess I may be trying to compensate for that.
Incidentally, if anyone has insight into how to improve that aspect of my job, that would be much appreciated!
What exactly is difficult about detecting direct copies of just those three sites? Because that's what's out there: exact copies. If Google isn't filtering those out, it's because they don't want to.
Google Search is most likely an incredibly complex engineering feat with many moving parts.
Unless you provide me with your qualifications and/or previous experience that would lend credence to your claim, I will view your claim as one from an armchair critic/engineer.
They used to be good at it, now they seem bad. How can that be? How hard is to not show three exact copies of the same result for the same query on the first page?
And yes, I'm being "an armchair critic/engineer", like everyone else criticizing Google or any other big company that seems to be getting worse at what they excelled.
To be clear, I am not labeling your commentary armchair criticism because you are supposing that spam on Google is more prevalent in recent times, but because you are so confidently asserting that it is easy to fight spam at the scale and quality Google is operating at.
Since you haven't provided any qualifications/past experience, I am not convinced at all that it's as easy as you say it is.
> I hope Goggles can be used as a ranking signal to help default search engine deliver better results.
Ranking is already treated as predicting which of the search matches the user is most likely to want to see. Clickbait gets highly ranked because users do in fact click on it. Goggles (which sound like a great idea) apparently let you somewhat control the prior probability distribution as an input to the ranking algorithm.
I wonder what features it lets you select on. E.g. we had a thread here recently about finding useful product reviews. It would be great to have a goggle that downranks any site containing amazon affiliate links, since those are almost always basically shill sites despite being "reviews".
Yes there are some exceptions. Maybe I should have said "most of" instead of "almost all", but the thing is that it's common and frequent enough that I want to bypass that style of "review".
Google has problem with generated "marketing" sites whose content gets filled by bots. They also use the latest SEO tricks to get ahead. This is something any small private internet presence will never have while click-farms will.
Additionally we hide information behind proprietary platforms like Discord that cannot be crawled.
Ironically Googles research of text AI undermines their search algorithm because now spammers use said AIs to get good page ratings. A lot of sites have ever the same content with a few different words here and there. Especially new media content get immediately swamped with such sites since there are no established sites under certain key words. A domain filter sadly won't work as well since there a so many scamming sites.
I feel like Google would do better by letting users register filters. For example I'd filter out ranker, vulture, and similar sites. That would seem like more signal for Google than not having that user preference. More signal = better searches = more searches = more money.
Does anyone have thoughts about how to use these to eliminate Amazon-Affiliate pop-up shops with auto-generated listicles of products no one so much as even looked at?
I would love a "Product Reviews" goggle that helps find legitimate reviews or recommendations without having to narrow to somewhere specific like reddit.
It might be too computationally intensive to make publicly available, but I would love it if they gave more in-depth controls for goggles beyond URL filtering. Being able to penalize sites for Amazon links, ad counts, or numbered lists or to boost sites for linking to high-quality content would be amazing.
This is great feedback, thank you! We already have a few ideas on how to make Goggles more powerful in the future, and the things you listed sound very interesting. Would you mind elaborating a bit on how you would see yourself using these features in a Goggle? (e.g. ads count, linking to high-quality content, etc.)
Thank you, very interesting ideas. I like the option to boost based on a variable depending on the page itself. How would we define “adcount”, number of network requests blocked by some adblocker when loading the page?
I suppose that could work. I would think that would just block Google's ad script in one when it might add three auto ads however. I was just thinking load it without an adblocker and count the number of `.adsbygoogle:not([style*="display: none"])` and `.amzn-native-container`, etc.
Thinking about it some more, other ideas would be to be able to make things exponentially more downranky the more affiliate links/ads it has (so one isn't a big deal but 4 is), and to just be able to give a generic percentage tweaks for linking to high-ranking sites or being linked from them, but the later is probably much harder.
I did a version of this waaaaay back in the day. Naturally since Google was sooo cool back then I called it Google Goggles. Now of course they're not as warm and fuzzy.
278 comments
[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 283 ms ] threadI use the uBlacklist addon for that
Imagine being able to select a bit of code in your editor, and getting an explanation of what that code does based off the content of all of the accepted answers on Stack Overflow.
Here's the source code for a sample "Hacker News" Goggle. Essentially, it will prioritize domains popular on Hacker News. I could even see a browser plugin that lets you add or remove domains as you visit them.
https://github.com/brave/goggles-quickstart/blob/main/goggle...
And here's the language syntax.
https://github.com/brave/goggles-quickstart/blob/main/goggle...
wonder how they came up with that list? That list it self is a goldmine on it's own.
https://hn.algolia.com/
[0] https://github.com/HackerNews/API
[0] https://github.com/brave/adblock-rust
Would be great to complement with social media as we’ll. For example, make the domains in posts within my networks, more relevant.
That way, through controlling/curating my networks, I get to decide what’s more relevant to me in search results.
Would be awesome to add stackoverflow in there too :)
The cynic in me can’t help but wonder if this is just dialing up an echo chamber if we include social media proximity as a filter.
I later learned that it's actually against Microsoft's Bing Search API use and display requirements (https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/bing/search-apis/bing-web-s...), which states that you're not allowed to:
> Modify the results content (other than to reformat them in a way that does not violate any other requirement), unless required by law or agreed to by Microsoft.
> Reorder, including by omission, the results displayed in an answer when an order or ranking is provided, unless required by law or agreed to by Microsoft.
> Display content that was not included within any part of a response in a way that would lead a user to believe that content is part of the response.
And there are many other restrictions imposed upon you. I'd argue the reason you see almost zero innovation in this space (the only thing I can think of is !bangs) is because non-Google/Bing(/Brave) Search Engines have very little control over the received data, and with the little control we do have then there are many restrictions that prevents us from making these 'innovative' features.
Based on my pessimistic reading then we're not allowed under any circumstances to merge API results from multiple search engines (e.g. Bing + Yandex + Google), and for every site we want to exclude/boost/derank/rewrite sites/urls then we need explicit permission from a Microsoft representative (which would prevent us from implementing this kind of feature). We're also not allowed to display third-party ads on any pages that displays part of the API results (which is funny because I feel it's near impossible to join Microsoft's Advertising network even though my site in my opinion have a good purpose and provide a high quality UI/UX experience - https://ask.moe).. I've later switched to Google's Programmable Search Engine and even though my site has been approved by Google as a non-profit, as well as approved for AdSense, then they will only display ads in the search results if I turn off revenue-share.
This industry desperately needs legislation that makes it possible for everybody to obtain access to Google/Microsoft's crawled data, and this access should not be limited to expensive APIs that make it impossible for anybody besides Google/Microsoft to do any sort of innovation.
I wonder if the LinkedIn scraping case would apply to someone crawling Google search results.
https://developers.google.com/custom-search
I don't think we yet appreciate the importance of good bubble hygeine on mental health, and this is a bespoke bubble construction kit.
Goggles have a lot of promise. I'm excited about the concepts Brave is bringing forth.
This name is surprisingly close to their largest competitor, interesting choice.
It'd be nice if Goggles could be "additive" and you could subscribe to them; I'd love an "anti stackexchange spam" one.
There's no objective measure of what site is 'good', and what site has been 'SEO-gamed' to rise to the top of <arbitrary search engine's algorithm>. The measures are subjective, and people complain when changes to the algorithm aimed at punishing black-hat-SEO also punish their website (Rightly or wrongly).
Not to mention the problem of using black-hat-SEO to punish a competitor (By creating scummy links to them, that make it look like they are trying to game the search engine.)
... 100,000 words later ...
I don't think it will be very hard get right.
A very very significant example is the primary language group exposed on the site.. for example, Cantonese ? I personally support the rights of "minority" languages like Gaelic and Welsh in the European setting, Tamil for South Asia, things like that.. make it so..
"...don't touch it...."
>$boost=XX—is used to alter the ranking of specific results by XX (e.g. $boost=1 would not alter the ranking, while $boost=2 would make a result two times more important).
But then we have this in the example:
>! Generic boosting
>rust$boost=1,site=rs
So this line is a no-op, because it uses boost=1?
In this case it is needed because there is a generic '$discard' rule in the Goggle (which means: discard any result that does not match any other instruction from the Goggle; you can see this as a 'default action' applied to results if they are not caught by any other instruction).
Using a 'boost=1' allows you to keep some sites, that you don't necessarily want to boost more than their "natural ranking".
We have a bit more info about that in the "Getting Started" guide here: https://github.com/brave/goggles-quickstart/blob/main/gettin...
I hope that helps!
https://search.brave.com/goggles/discover
https://search.brave.com/goggles/discover?goggles_id=https%3...
https://search.brave.com/goggles?q=long+tail&source=web&gogg...
The idea is amazing. Just the "no pinterest" and "copycats removal" examples have me super excited.
So it's doubly punny.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Goggles
No, it was an accident.
I mean, its at least transparent, people are aware of it or have to opt in.
It feels like a weird compromise in terms of misinformation, cultural division, etc... but letting people choose which kool-aid they're drinking instead of letting the "totally not hand tweaked for edge cases in favor of the creator of "the algorithm"" to decide. Out of the handful of "ideas" around wrangling the the trashfire that is the modern internet, this seems like the most sane the best fit solution so far.
In terms of it being an actual search tool for finding information, answers, documentation, references that are actually relevant or useful it sounds insanely useful.
Narrow down searches for anything + "datasheet" to manufacturer websites and a handful of non paywalled datasheet catalogs - fuck yeah!
I forsee lots of angry website owners who run fluff content or bury reposted useful info under mile thick layers of ads.
I built a tool to recursively scrape RSS feeds from web pages linked to twitter bios. You pass in a "root" trusted user, and look in their bio and every "followee"'s bio for a website, then look for anything "rss" "feed" "atom" or "xml"-y on the link itself or in the domain's sitemap.xml.
Surprisingly very useful. There's a decent amount of value in twitter's content, but arguably much more value in the followee network of "smart people", and the websites "linked out" from their profiles and tweets.
Reddit, similar but in a different way, filters itself into variously useful, well-moderated communities. Top X posts of subreddits A, B, C is a great heuristic for getting 90% of the value out of reddit with very little of the toxicity.
You needn't limit yourself to r/all and the twitter equivalent! :)
Does it put me in a bubble? Yeah. But it's a bubble of my own design, and it's a pretty nice place from my POV, that reflects my real world interests, hobbies, etc.
I see goggles as a parallel system for "I'm looking for something specific" search.
I think Goggles might turn out to be a mild retardant to toxic bubble formation, because toxic content is rocket fuel for the kind of "engagement" metrics that google/youtube/twitter/fb have spent the last decade min-maxing.
IMO, existing "search" players (Google, FB, Twitter) are culpable for toxic echo chamber formation, only to the extent that they push toxic content "by default". By allowing users to fine-tune their weights, Brave+Goggles is attempting to dislodge this norm by introducing user feedback into the equation. Like you, I think it's a good idea.
Some people will always opt-in to toxic bubbles, but I think that's more of a human/society problem and not one for a search player to solve.
Everyone has context bubbles already. You have work, outside of work, your hobbies both online(IE HN) and offline. You influence these bubbles composition. Hobbies in particular are entirely self selected.
But you are aware of which context you are communing in and are free to move between them and outside them into the general public sphere.
I see this as more of the same. As you say, "its at least transparent, people are aware of it or have to opt in"
Interestingly by the comments here, a big driver for these self selected bubbles are so that people can avoid the advertising they don't wish to see. IE Pinterest and other SEO spam. If "self selected bubbles" are bad, then "targeted relevant advertising" is worse.
When I was teaching programming students were bewildered, befuddled, and confused by the incorrect, out-of-version, and incomplete technical information which litters the web.
I have often wondered about creating a curated collection of known-useful information for students to search.
This could be the start of something good.
"Use our brave search and escape the leftist google agenda!" or such.
The obvious questions of morality aside, my perception of those stories is that most of the victims are hopelessly addicted to the feeling being righteous and correct and part of something bigger to the point that it takes over their whole lives. They end up a husk of a person all for a fake cause. But what is interesting is that after you take it away they generally don't find something else to latch onto, they slowly go back to having hobbies and normal conversations and normal relationships with their family, friends, and coworkers.
This is of course all anecdata, but if Goggles are another tool for giving people their loved ones back I think that's worth weighing as part of the equation.
The article also mentions that Goggles will not stop polarization, it suffices to not exacerbate it.
No technology/system on any period of time has been able to suppress it, censorship included.
Disclaimer: I work at Brave search
By the way, cool feature :)
Allowing the users to choose their own filters will allow advertisers to actually read the market based on the the sites that are whitelisted in the filters instead of shotgunning ads at any website that claims to be relevant to the target demographic they can actually see the popular ones that users choose based on these filters.
its still targeted advertising, but abstracted one layer away from the actual user so that the targeted ads don't have to be as fucking creepy with all the data they're gathering on people. With the customer choosing what sites they want to see results from, the advertisers can stop wasting money on ad revenue for click farms that everyone hates.
its a better deal for advertisers, and provides a better end result for the user and some degree of transparency.
It can't make people accept inconvenient/uncomfortable facts, it won't solve any political problems. You can lead a horse to water but can't make it drink, you can point out any number of problems to a person but you cannot make them care.
edit- relevant to solso's comment about an active choice
The active choice democratizes the ad market allowing users to choose, instead of the passive route of allowing an algorithm to coerce the market.
How is it less creepy if the advertisers still end up with all the same data? Whether they snoop on my browsing history or snoop on my search rankings doesn't make any material difference to me. The problem is building a profile on me through snooping.
Brave is doing what Mozilla wont't do.
Also with Goggles you can finally block all the stupid Automated comparisons sites, Brave already had a forums section, and this makes it even better.
This is what I see: https://imgur.com/onlrA5I
https://i.imgur.com/10vIh7x.png
If you don't believe Firefox Suggest is a thing: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/firefox-suggest-faq
Coinbase, the founder of Monero, and other experts disagree.
Firefox does not opt-in their users to inserting Firefox's own affiliate codes to coinbase, binance, or other crypto websites to get paid for traffic the way Brave did.
Not sure how that's relevant unless you're going to try to poison the well with Coinbase too.
But yeah, what’s your Coinbase source? Everyone at Coinbase? Because BAT is still listed on Coinbase.
How is what Brave did any different than what firefox currently DOES?
Again, Firefox does not inject affiliate codes into URLs to get paid for referral traffic. I'm beginning to begin you have confirmation bias as a Brave apologist.
I can't address it if you refuse to provide a source to it (because it doesn't exist I suspect). You keep giving names with no sources even when you reply to a comment asking for such an analysis source.
I'll state again... what Firefox is DOING is the same exact thing as Brave did. Now sure how else I can state that. It is right in the Firefox Suggest FAQs.
they opt users into telemetry and “experiments” instead, and the entire business is almost entirely kept alive with funding from Google, despite claims to care about privacy.
All significantly worse issues compared to adding affiliate links to a few sites. Affiliate links don’t pay for traffic, they pay for new user acquisition or sales. It’s no different than sponsored tabs / cards in Mozilla today.
It's fascinating the loops that people are going through (it doesn't exist, if does exist it's not that bad, poisoning the well, etc.) to apologize for this scummy behavior by Brave.
Google has never had the appetite for letting users explicitly improve its results. Their reasoning was that pure algorithm is the only possible solution that scales. Even the minor features, such as "I never want to see this site", were removed.
I am glad Brave is trying out something different. Crossing my fingers that it works, the current state of search is so meh..
Hmmm, can't find that discussions tab.
EDIT: I take this back. If I put the term “discussion” in the search along with “toyota sienna”, I see a “discussions” section in the search results if I am on the “goggles” tab. I don’t see the discussions section if I omit the “discussion” term though.
I have no idea why they aren't able to flag and block spam domains anymore.
If it is so easy, why don't you build a dominant search engine that manages to complete avoid the "totally easy" spam you talk about?
If perhaps, you have extensive experience in the anti-spam section of a dominant search engine (or some similar position), I'd give your comment more weight. Do you have such experience?
Incidentally, if anyone has insight into how to improve that aspect of my job, that would be much appreciated!
Unless you provide me with your qualifications and/or previous experience that would lend credence to your claim, I will view your claim as one from an armchair critic/engineer.
And yes, I'm being "an armchair critic/engineer", like everyone else criticizing Google or any other big company that seems to be getting worse at what they excelled.
Since you haven't provided any qualifications/past experience, I am not convinced at all that it's as easy as you say it is.
Ranking is already treated as predicting which of the search matches the user is most likely to want to see. Clickbait gets highly ranked because users do in fact click on it. Goggles (which sound like a great idea) apparently let you somewhat control the prior probability distribution as an input to the ranking algorithm.
I wonder what features it lets you select on. E.g. we had a thread here recently about finding useful product reviews. It would be great to have a goggle that downranks any site containing amazon affiliate links, since those are almost always basically shill sites despite being "reviews".
[0] https://linustechtips.com/topic/1270087-linus-media-group-ma...
Additionally we hide information behind proprietary platforms like Discord that cannot be crawled.
Ironically Googles research of text AI undermines their search algorithm because now spammers use said AIs to get good page ratings. A lot of sites have ever the same content with a few different words here and there. Especially new media content get immediately swamped with such sites since there are no established sites under certain key words. A domain filter sadly won't work as well since there a so many scamming sites.
They used to ask some users for feedback back in the good days: https://searchengineland.com/google-feedback-experiment-whic...
I would love a "Product Reviews" goggle that helps find legitimate reviews or recommendations without having to narrow to somewhere specific like reddit.
This is great feedback, thank you! We already have a few ideas on how to make Goggles more powerful in the future, and the things you listed sound very interesting. Would you mind elaborating a bit on how you would see yourself using these features in a Goggle? (e.g. ads count, linking to high-quality content, etc.)